My thoughts on "prepping"

Thank you for clarifying, Trace.  No, I don't think the "Militia" is well regulated when any random unqualified loon like me can buy a gun today for any purpose.

At least I have to have a license to drive a car.  Those tools used as intended don't kill people.  Guns used as "arms" (not for plinking or hunting) kill people.  The purpose of "arms" is to kill people either defensively or offensively.

I have more questions about the "Militia" but this is keeping the thread too much off-topic I think.

Chris Kott wrote:Well that's unfortunate. It should be a privilege you earn. The only thing that kills more people is cars, and look at how highly legislated driving is, and for good reason.

-CK

It is far more restricted than cars.  

There are NO restrictions on buying cars (you only need a license/registration/insurance if you choose to drive them on PUBLIC roads) but there are plenty of restrictions  on who can legally own firearms even if they only keep them in their own homes.

Both guns and cars, in my opinion, are tools that can be used safely when respected by the user for the potential danger involved. But we can't regulate the evil or incompetence of every person 100% of the time. A child can steal a gun or a car and operate them in bad ways that can kill themselves or others. Or the lawful owner can have a bad day or get drunk and operate either unsafely.

To argue that guns should not be permitted because the average person doesn't need one for their daily living activities is a slippery slope, in my opinion, when it comes to personal rights versus state control of the citizens. The harsh reality is that this country was initially designed to allow the citizens to overthrow the government or defend themselves from it if they so choose. I find it highly unlikely that such a scenario could effectively happen in the current societal makeup, but being an anachronism to many doesn't mean it should be eliminated for all. My dad still hunts in his 80s, and preserves the meat for everything he shoots so he can eat it throughout the year. Lots of rural people use guns for daily farming tasks. Lots of people shoot at targets as a sport. I'll be moving to a county where grizzly bears and mountain lions have active ranges, and I'd prefer to have a gun with me if I travel in those areas, versus avoiding them in fear or hoping random chance protects me.

Maybe a gun won't help at all, but I'd prefer to have the choice. The same way I'd prefer to use a composting toilet over installing a septic system if I choose, or raising my own chickens or drinking raw milk or growing non GMO seed without it being regulated to the point of frustration. Make me pass a background check to ensure I'm a citizen, not a felon, and not yelling about killing someone as soon as I get home. I took a test 30 years ago and occasionally I have to prove I'm not blind to drive my car legally, but that has nothing to do with proving I'm a good or safe driver. Same goes with guns. At some point anyone could snap and decide they want to kill people, and I assure you a car driving down a sidewalk or going through a school playground at 60mph is just as deadly as a gun.

Honestly I don't even care to debate gun ownership because it isn't going to be severely restricted in my lifetime.  There are 450 million firearms in the US and those aren't going to disappear, in fact every time it looks like our gun rights might be severely curtailed it causes sales to skyrocket which makes our position even stronger.

But I will say gun owners may want to think long and hard before ever agreeing to support UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. It seems like a "harmless common sense law" but it paves the way for mandatory gun registration and then confiscation.

Example in my state people can sell firearms to private in-state parties with no background check. The gov is not involved at all.  If the feds or state ever decided to ban large capacity semi-autos they would NOT be able to compile a list of current owners because everyone could simply say "Oh, I sold that a couple of years ago" and no one could prove otherwise.  Some states (like CA) require every transaction go through the state which means they WILL be able to track down specific owners and start confiscating weapons. It has already happened in some northern states.

Since most states (especially ones that like strict gun control) have NO real interest in prosecuting straw buyers, but only want to restrict the rights of legal gun owners, I see no valid reason to go along with any additional "common sense laws". They have NOTHING to do with common sense and everything to do with eroding our rights.

Mark Tudor wrote: My dad still hunts in his 80s, and preserves the meat for everything he shoots so he can eat it throughout the year. Lots of rural people use guns for daily farming tasks. Lots of people shoot at targets as a sport. I'll be moving to a county where grizzly bears and mountain lions have active ranges, and I'd prefer to have a gun with me if I travel in those areas, versus avoiding them in fear or hoping random chance protects me.

Hunting and target shooting aren't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, which is about protecting a free state by the use of a well regulated Militia and arms owned by the people.  Gun rights advocates often reference the 2nd Amendment as protecting all gun ownership, but it does not protect the hobbies of target shooting and gun collecting.  At least, I hope people invoking the 2nd Amendment aren't using it to claim a Constitutionally protected hobby.  And though I think all people should have the right to provide food for themselves, I'm not convinced that the 2nd Amendment protects the ownership of guns for the purpose of hunting.  Attacking grizzly bears and mountain lions are not threatening the existence of a free state, so owning guns for protection against them is not protected by the 2nd Amendment either (in my opinion).

Food-obtaining and protection from wild animals might be among the rights reserved to the people as mentioned in the 10th Amendment.  But I am not a legal scholar!

Hunting and target shooting aren't mentioned in the 2nd amendment because hunting was a given.  Target shooting is done so that you can hit what you are aiming at.  There was no need to list all the things you could do with a gun,  just to state that your right to own one could not be taken from you.  

Tyler Ludens wrote:
Hunting and target shooting aren't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, which is about protecting a free state by the use of a well regulated Militia and arms owned by the people.  Gun rights advocates often reference the 2nd Amendment as protecting all gun ownership, but it does not protect the hobbies of target shooting and gun collecting.

Agree. It is to protect the people from a tyrannical government (they had just fought a war to free themselves from a government so the meaning can't be disputed) and also for self-defense. The self-defense thing was likely a no-brainer not even worth mentioning at the time.

And the principal is just as valid now as it was then. Modern governments get overthrown, civil wars break out, and an armed populace makes it much much harder if not impossible to control the populations under those circumstances.

If the founding fathers intended to protect the hunting rights of the populace they would have mentioned hunting! Hunting rights have been massively restricted (and for good reason) yet it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:
It is to protect the people from a tyrannical government (they had just fought a war to free themselves from a government so the meaning can't be disputed) and also for self-defense.

I'm curious about what "Free State" is being protected by the Militia, if the government is to be overthrown by people protected by this right enumerated in a document created by the government.

I think the meaning of almost anything can be disputed, personally.  We all see things differently, interpret words differently, use different definitions for words, etc.

As far as what the Founding Fathers intended, they probably didn't intend that I should be seen as a full human being with the rights of a full human being.  And I have a problem with that.  A big problem.

Fair enough Trace, but you claimed to have done some research so I did not want to insult your ability to do it for yourself and vet your sources for yourself. I guess I come from a background where this is considered common knowledge, as my grandfather was shot and killed while armed and well trained (a WWII and Korea vet). Of course, we can always find someone to agree with any point of view we want so I encourage you to vet my claims:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/the-link-between-suicide-and-guns

http://www.bu.edu/sph/2016/05/19/firearm-ownership-closely-tied-to-suicide-rates/

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2017/higher-rural-suicide-rates-driven-by-use-of-guns.html

I think this thread is cider press material?

Judith Browning wrote:I think this thread is cider press material?

Agreed

Regarding global population increase, at this point it has largely stabilized.  The population growth projections are mainly only due to people living longer/healthier lives in developing parts of the world.  Almost everywhere on Earth the birthrate is only at replacement value (except Africa, which is catching up/heading in that direction).  Hopefully ignorant policy decisions don't undo all this progress as we can't afford it.

This thread is now locked as it seems to have devolved into a debate about gun laws.  This seems to be a topic that is better off in the cider press.


If you wish to talk about guns laws and stuff like that, feel free to start a new thread in the cider press.

If you wish to talk about prepping, without the emphasis on guns, please feel encouraged to start a new thread.