Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Swampfox10mm]

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/26/why-is-support-for-gun-control-at-record-lows/?hpt=hp_t2

I guess there are a lot of alcoholics in the USA??

Haha. Seriously though..... most states now allow concealed carry. Lots of laws changed in the past year.

[ghostrider]

I didn't know it was news that most Americans opposed bans on semiauto handguns and rifles. It's interesting to read comments below the article from all the paranoid people who are worried about the US government becoming tyrannical. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment they wanted people to have militia type weapons as a protection against the government. In that case, restrictions on machine guns should probably be repealed (if we truly think it's best to follow the Second Amendment in modern times).

[Swampfox10mm]

Yeah, that's why I laugh at the gun control people who aren't even American citizens. They say, "Just get all of the guns." It's so incredibly simple, they think. But they forget to take into account:

1. Estimates that there are 200,000,000 guns in the USA (FBI numbers), while others estimate closer to almost double that.

2. The government doesn't have the time/money/etc. to enforce such a plan, even if people "allowed" hundreds of dollars in weapons they own to be chopped-up (*insert laugh here*).

3. There's this little ol' thing called the constitution.


People from other countries who argue about this are usually from a small country which has fewer people, and basically an island by itself, where enforcement of such is far easier.

I feel safer in Korea because the general population does not have guns, therefor I have no need. (BUT if North Korea were to invade, and given how close they are to Seoul, they could arrive quicker than we could get out, I bet many would have a different answer to that.)

In the USA... well, that's its own animal. I will carry a gun when I can/where I can comfortably and legally.

[PatrickGHBusan]

[Swampfox10mm]

Well, you should read my post more closely, as far as the Norks comment.

And the whole debate about guns in the USA has taken a very interesting turn as of late. Did you know that, as a part of the occupy wall-street protests (which are currently being broken-up by local governments quasi-illegally), there are now some gun owners openly (and legally) carrying long guns and assault rifles along the fringes of the protests. They side with the protesters, and are doing so as a reminder to the US government that there are rights guarenteed in the constitution (including the right to peaceful assembly and protest, and bear arms).

Now I'm not siding with these people directly, because it turns out a few of them have ties to nutty Aryan nation brotherhood and whatnot, like this guy, but it is beginning to happen.

You're making the argument that this part of the constitution is old, outdated, and not needed. Unfortunately, not only does history prove you wrong -- it's most likely to become far more relevant in the very near future!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkE3GnsLF0w&feature=player_embedded

[bluelake]

[Kuros]

[Swampfox10mm]

[PatrickGHBusan]

[PatrickGHBusan]

[TheUrbanMyth]

[louisfx]

Guess at some point, they will start a tax on guns like cigarettes.

[louisfx]

Or then like Big Tobacco, the industry will buy it's way out...

[louisfx]

Guess I never really understood the reason why people need guns, like I don't the reason why people smoke.

[Steelrails]

Yeah, what are they going to do about antique gun collectors? What about target shooters? What about ranchers who have to deal with predators? I ain't big on owning modern guns, but as a Civil War buff, I dream about owning firearms from the period and being able to shoot replicas to "get the feel". But those things can certainly be lethal in the wrong hands as well as sufficient for self defense in the right ones. I certainly don't think citizens should be forbidden from carrying on history. Then the questions becomes if I can own a Civil War-era gun, who are we to tell someone who fought in WWII or Nam or Iraq that they shouldn't be able to take their gun home with them (Don't take it to the extreme and say that they should be allowed to take ANY weapon system home) but within the limits of say, their personal arms.

This isn't even getting into all the Constitutional questions.

Just remember, it's not the gun that makes a person dangerous (or skilled in the case of lawful owners), its the person behind it. You could give some idiot the latest assault rifle and give someone trained and experienced an old 1903 Springfield and I'll tell you who will win that fight.