waitforufo

Do you have some evidence that overtone is a child killer? Any evidence that I have? You talk like that and think you are being reasonable? You wonder why there is gridlock? I don't own or carry guns for safety. I own and carry them for self defense. How many times do you have to be told? I frequently pull triggers for fun. There are lots of firearms related sporting activities. I'm against test for competency because firearms ownership is a right. That right can be infringed by a government that creates the test which may restrict ownership. You see, I don't trust the government. Yes, you are correct, this is a cultural thing. I also don't trust my fellow citizens who do trust the government.

!) We have universal background checks in the US; https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics . Is the question their reliability? Is it that you are surprised that the government is incompetent? 2) The supreme court in Heller ruled that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to put trigger locks on there guns because they make guns less effective for self defense. So those are out. Also the first thing you are taught in firearms safety training is never trust a safety device. Ever wonder why? A simple google search will show you that trigger locks are dangerous a frequently fail. Touching the trigger with any object is never safe. 3) There are standards. They are provided in this form. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download . $) There are legal standards for responsible carry. Wikipedia does a good job summarizing them for my State of Washington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Washington I own lots of guns. So do all of my family members. None of them have killed kids so you must not be talking to me. Now my family has a long tradition of firearms safety training. Gosh maybe that's what we should do. Maybe if we could simply admit that our nation is awash in guns and provide firearms safety training in the public schools. No real guns required in the schools. Simply showing videos would be enough.

No flaw in that argument that I can find. I'm for it. I'm sure Bobby Seale would agree as well. Google "Bobby Seale", "May 2, 1967"

Before there was the internet, there were these things called books. Words and pictures printed on paper and bound together. In fact they used to sell these sets of books called encyclopedias that were just chock full of information. The user interface wasn't as nice as google, but if you knew the alphabet you could get the hang of the pretty quickly. I remember finding the recipe for black powder and ammonium nitrate/fuel oil in an old set of encyclopedias in the library. Oh yeah, the library. That's the place were they kept books that you could borrow for free. Those library encyclopedias even had handy tips on how to fuse your home made explosives and how large a charge you would need to do useful things uproot a tree stump, soften dirt prior to digging, or blow up beaver dams to open up new farming land. What I'm trying to say is that I think the cat is already out of the bag.

You have nothing to fear from me or the vast majority of gun owners. We are law abiding citizens.

If that makes you feel better, go ahead and believe it. Because first they would be forced to make the decision to shoot, and second because it's easier to join a side that can defend itself. The police are more likely because their jobs depend on local authority. Who says their would be a coup d'etat? Elected officials can declare martial law.

I can name one that did. Come to think of it two counting Ireland. Even India's independence wasn't completely without armed revolt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army They are more like to join armed patriots. Besides, the military won't be needed if the rabble isn't armed. The police would likely surface.

I'm not counting on the generals. I'm counting on the privates. If ordered to shoot during armed civil unrest, many will simply join the patriots.

You would think by now that someone from the UK would appreciate that weaker forces often defeat stronger forces. How many colonies does the UK have left? The people occupy every city, town, farm, and factory. You really think the military is going to blow up their own country? What kind of victory would that be for them?

This question seems to imply that citizens are going to form independent military forces to take on the US army, navy, and air force. No such thing needs to happen. Mass unorganized armed civil unrest will be enough to bring down any tyrant. The people serving in the US army, navy, and air force are not going to enter their home towns and start fighting the people they grew up around for standing up to a tyrant. They won't do it to cities that look like the one they grew up in either.

I don't know any. That's why I'm not worried about firearms. Like I said many times on this topic before. This is a criminal problem. Who predominately murders? Criminals. Who predominately is murdered. Criminals. Firearms allow the criminal population to eliminate themselves.

I know lot of good people that make good things happen who own firearms, so perhaps you are the one with a big difficulty.

Why stipulate "at the time?" The reason the US has the second amendment stems from our casting off, by force of arms, the tyrannical leadership of your country. No tyrants since then. No your arguments are silly because the fight or flight instinct is natural to all mammals including humans. That's why homicide in self defense is universally accepted. People like you simply think the weak or outnumbered should lose in a fight for their lives. Bad people and bad things happen everywhere. Here in the US we simply error on the side of those defending themselves. Kim Jong Un is a tyrant, who just like old King George wants his subjects unarmed so he can control them. Here in the US the people control the government and we keep our arms to insure it stays that way. We are willing to pay the price.

Do you think tyrants would ever recognize such a right? Your arguments are silly. I'm sure Kim Jong Un is on your side. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/04/07/Kim-Jong-Un-assassination-suspects-arrested-source-says/9171460035491/ I wonder how many children die in North Korea every day?

The states have the duty of arresting, convicting and punishing felonious criminals of all types. My possession of firearms, or any other bearable arms, for defensive purposes in not a felony. In fact it is a natural right of all people recognized by my local, state, and federal government. Why do you find this confusing? Now I'm sure you and those like you would like to make it a felony. That's why we have the second amendment.

I have never had the desire to kill anyone. Also murder is a crime punishable by death in most states. The other states have life in prison without parole which is a death sentence itself. No, I don't.

There have been no tyrants overthrown in the US since the approval of the constitution because we have the second amendment. Armed citizens would not tolerate a tyrant.

The right to self defense includes more than just defense against dangerous individuals alone or in groups. The history of mankind casts a rather unpleasant light on government and how governments treat people. United States history is a great example of that. Also, I sure hear a lot of complaining about the actions of the United States government right here on Science Forums. This includes the last 50 years. Yet many on this forum longingly look forward to the day that the american people are disarmed. That's strange in my opinion. With regard to my argument being specious, I beg to differ. How many pieces of gun control legislation are being discussed on congress? How may are waiting the president's signature. Compare that to recent Supreme Court rulings. Compare that to the increasing number of states states that permit concealed carry. I think most, other than here on Science Forums, are convinced that the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing.

It's a shame that Spain does not recognize the natural rights of its citizens. Trading liberty for safety is never a good plan. As Benjamin Franklin said, soon you will have neither liberty or safety.

All modern governments based on western thought find there foundation in natural rights. Like modern science and the scientific method they are a product of the enlightenment. Natural rights are the foundation of liberal thinking. Losing the philosophical foundation of your society would be a catastrophe.

You hit the nail on the head. They have the natural right to bear arms to defend themselves from others and from oppressive government. By the way, believing in natural rights, including the right to bear arms, is a very liberal way of thinking.

Why the quotation marks? All people have the natural right to bear arms. That is part of being human. The U.S. simply recognizes that natural right.

From the above it seems to me that you can easily get what you want from the media, so there is no need for governmental intrusion. Others may prefer something different from you. The system is working for them as well. The distinction is simple. We have traffic laws to make driving an orderly process so you don't interfere with other drivers. No one, however tells you your starting place or your destination. The FCC simply assigns the frequency, transmission power, and antenna directivity. This is to keep you from interfering with other users of the airwaves. There are only decency limits on what you say. You can say what ever you want politically. You can also receive what ever is broadcast by anyone, including all government agencies including the military. The people and the government are not the same. The government is the servant of the people. The government does what we say, not the other way around. The constitution limits what we can tell the government to do on our behalf. Why do liberals have a problem with this well defined arrangement. Free speech does include the airwaves. They are a public venue. Their are no restrictions or receiving any signal.

First, there is no such thing as "federal airwaves". There are public airwaves owned by the people, not the government. Access to them by the people are guaranteed under the first amendment rights to to assemble and free speech. The government is supposed to only regulate the use of frequencies to make the process orderly. Of course the government crosses that boundary all the time. Take for example the selling of spectrum to private parties like wireless companies. There is a name for that. It's called taxation. Why should the people pay for something they already own? When the government sold my spectrum, I don't remember getting a check. Did you? No, we pay the tax when we purchase wireless plans and pay our monthly bills. Now they are trying to buy spectrum back from broadcasters, spectrum they never purchased, so they can sell it at an even higher price to broadband wireless providers. Just more taxation. The government never gets tired of taxation. I'm sorry if you don't like democracy, but those that get elected have their turn at the wheel and interpret legislation the way they feel. Nothing you can do but vote, hope for the best, and keep your powder dry. It seems to me that you want laws so you can stop hearing what you don't like on the public airwaves to me.

Try viewing those sites incognito (chrome). The problem is that the people you don't like will have their turn at the wheel from time to time. Also, you point out that you can find various sites for perspective as well as the one's you like. You get that because of freedom of speech. Enjoy it while you can.