Firearms/Second Amendment
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2011, 03:27 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Quote:If guns would be banned, then only criminals and those, who wouldn't care about the ban and still own an illigal gun(s), would have guns, because others (excluding those who wouldn't have a gun in the first place) would have handed over their guns. That is what I ifered, please show what in my logic* is wrong, or explain what you think would happen if a guns would be banned in the US.

So your argument still is, we don't ban guns because criminals would have them? Correct.. or am I missing something?

Quote:Do deaths caused by Soviet terror count as murders? Guns were banned from civilians, not from everyone: The occupiers had guns.
And of course they banned guns from civilians. What kind of a dictatorship based on terror would allow its citizen to have weapons?
You are giving me more of the doomsday examples. There are countries that took advantage of it, as well as ones that have strived from it. Stop looking so negative on the world about this.

Quote:Maybe it's because the peasantry there hasn't had the rights/wealth to get guns. The history and ways of the US are different than the ones in the Nordic Countries.

Hows this maybe we follow the Nordic's lead on this, and not live in the 18th century anymore? It would be a change for the better philosophy, if we went this route IMO.

And I did the quote thingys just did it within your post. thanks for the infomation on that though.
Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2011 04:33 PM by Kikko.)
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Quote:So your argument still is, we don't ban guns because criminals would have them?
Yes, because criminals would have them, but others wouldn't. I still can't see what's wrong with the infering, so please point out what's wrong with it.
Quote:You are giving me more of the doomsday examples. There are countries that took advantage of it, as well as ones that have strived from it. Stop looking so negative on the world about this.
My point is that huge unequality in having weaponry between groups of people is bad. That wouldn't be a problem if everybody would give up guns, but I don't think that's ever going to happen, especially not by a ban.
Prohibition didn't work on booze and it hasn't worked on other drugs either. Why would it work on guns?
Quote:Hows this maybe we follow the Nordic's lead on this, and not live in the 18th century anymore?
Easier said than done. If you know how to chance the views of a folk, I'm listening.

And you can get guns in Nordic Countries, it just might take a few more forms and a permission from the local police station. It's more about habits.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 04:42 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
karate got its origins on okinawa because the rich "lords" would not allow the farmers they were taking advantage of to own weapons..... so they improvised and adapted.
Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Ultimately, whether it's morally right or not to outlaw guns, it's still impractical. It would become the new "war on drugs"... a failed effort. If you attempt to outlaw something that the people don't want outlawed, you make criminals out of innocents and you spend too much money on a law that can't be enforced. People who wanted guns could still get them and our over-populated prisons would overfill with "I had a pistol in my basement" felons.

You can't unmake guns, so you might as well defend yourself against those who choose to abuse them.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 06:34 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
In discussions like this I recall that old adage; Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

When Prohibition was enacted in the 1920's, it gave rise to bootleggers and such sorry characters as Al Capone. So making alcohol illegal gave rise to resourceful people who would meet the demand with an illegal supply. And because it was illegal, profit was assured and risk was just a matter of interest. What a legacy! To lose one's life over a case of whiskey.

Drugs are illegal and we don't have to think very hard about the criminal element that thrives off of meeting that demand.

So, in a country where gun control laws are not about the guns, that are not capable of firing on their own... OK, maybe with the exception of a certain model Remington rifle, Rolleyes but instead are about control of the law abiding citizens who comply with the order of law to regulate their ownership or surrender their arms all together, it becomes apparent for many what the odds are. Disarm and be prey to the criminal element that always thrives on breaking laws. Or become criminal and survive in the midst of a criminal element that will always outnumber armed law enforcement, who can not respond to every emergency and who very often are in the headlines as being more criminal than cop, themselves.

Any government that gives freedom by law, can take it away by law. However, freedom isn't a matter of legislation. It's a matter of personal sovereignty. I don't need permission to survive an armed assault. I don't need permission to defend myself by any means necessary when offended wherein I believe my life, or well being is in peril. When we watch Discovery channel, Discovery science channel, for instance, and see all the new weaponry that governments and police forces have in their arsenal, some that can literally cook people with a focused beam of energy said to be for "crowd dispersal", and for anti-terrorist national defense we have to remember that both, "criminal" and "terrorist" are relative.

Any weapon in the arsenal of the government said to be there to be used for national defense can be said to be like the firearm in a civilians home. At discretion. When the government is armed to the teeth in order to enforce the law, we the people have every right to be armed in order to defend against those who may say the law entitles them to arrive in force against us. Martial law, terrorist States, communist powers, fascist dictatorships all thrive because their military and police are armed. And their citizen victims are not.

Criminals who are not law abiding recognize no lawful control of their behavior, can acquire firearms on the streets at any time. And those criminal predators, knowing they can now prey upon a law abiding disarmed or restricted population, who's guns are not at the ready for quick access for self defense (As in mandatory trigger locks.), are able to wreak havoc and victimize at will, virtually anyone they choose.

Very often the rhetoric behind total disarmament of a nations law abiding citizens include the lie that, banning guns will see a drop in the crime rate. While patently absurd, it still seems to float in some circles who believe it's true and that the only armed citizens that should be lawfully allowed are those entrusted and deputized to protect and serve the disarmed population.
In that case, it becomes patently obvious that proponents of gun ban's are not only anti-gun, but are horrifically incompetent at math. (At large population vs. criminal element vs. law enforcement) Not to mention those countries who go so far with their gun-ban legislation as to disarm the police. Confused

The Constitutions second Amendment not only guarantees the individual American citizen the right to own firearm(s), but also insures a well regulated militia, comprised of individual citizens, for the sake of both personal and national defense.
In the 1700's, when the 2nd was drafted, it was done so that the citizen community would be insured the right of self defense. A standing army can be turned on those it's charged to protect and defend. And given the history of the new American's experience in their former homeland, self defense from armed "officials" was paramount to insuring not only a free citizen/community, but also a free nation.


Standing military exists today in this country. And has since the early 1900's, when a state of national emergency was declared and as a consequence military bases were installed in every State. Thus, the well regulated militia reason and cause in the 1700's drafted 2nd Amendment still applies.
Even more so when virtually every day in some newspaper headline in some State, we stand to read of an abuse of authority by armed law enforcement. (Example)
When we read of American citizens exercising their first amendment rights in the halls of power in their respective State's being tasered or pepper sprayed, handcuffed and dragged out of the proceedings, certainly we should expect the LA police to utilize those same weapons in order to subdue a naked man, rather than resort to lethal force. It again becomes a matter of bad math. One naked man and more than one officer, able to, through their training as professional law enforcement officers, subdue one in the midst of many, bearing cuffs, a baton, pepper spray and tasers on their belts!

That they did not, lends the perfect example for this discussion in that we the people are entitled to be protected by law enforcement, as well as defend against law enforcement if/when law enforcement makes it necessary.
If we the people are told we must fend for ourselves, make our way in this world and accept and exercise personal responsibility for our own survival and well being, then disarming ourselves or limiting our access to methods and weapons of self defense is a contradiction we can ill afford.

One last item. I believe it disingenuous and a false assertion for someone to advocate gun control or gun-ban's, while stating their weapon of choice in hunting is the bow. A weapon is a weapon. Be it a rock, a large stick, a baseball bat, a car, a knife, a brick, a chemical, a baton, or a bow and arrow or firearm.
The weapon itself is not at issue. The responsibility for the use of a weapon is in the hands of the person wielding said weapon. So to imply guns are bad, while implying bow's are good, and as such firearms should be either regulated or banned, misses the whole point regarding weaponry and responsibility. A compound bow can take a human life as easily as it takes that of a deer. And disarmed, a human can be taken out just as easily.

The offense is in the mind of the offender. The defense is the right of the offended.
It's like unto the retort afforded to counter anti-abortion advocates.( If you're against abortion don't have one. )

If you are against firearms don't buy one.

While individual freedom and liberty insures one person's choice is not binding upon anyone else. And in the case of an inalienable right, we can certainly engage in discussion, but there is no debate. We the people have the right to own firearms. Just as freedom and liberty insure, we also have the right to choose not to.


The U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment (Source)

Historical Context:


(sic)"...Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm?

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states."


(sic)"...Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject." 10 USC 311



Excerpt:
Today's Debate:
(sic)"...These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the (2nd) amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so."


#3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries


**Snopes.Com**


*edit to add missing text*
Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 09:27 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Banning firearms is hacking at the branches instead of the roots. Outlawing guns would only lead to use of other weapons and not lowering the crime rate. Look at the UK which has tighter gun laws than the US and yet have a high murder rate..guess what is the weapon of choice? that's right...knives. Canada has a higher rate of ownership than US and yet it has lower crime rate (firearm) than US. Partly because they are more educated in gun safety, and partly because of the material conditions.

The problems are firearms, its the conditions that lead individuals to kill others using guns, that's what not addressed by our society. What makes people kill people.

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2011, 06:34 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
It's a dated law, it applied well during the country's early days when it was essentially lawless in parts and a matter of land grab. The issue is that the physiological urge to feel safe and protected with one is still felt throughout the American public.

Both sides have good reasoning and to actually fight against the law is futile due to the amount of money it would waste. We saw what happened to Canada when they banned their right to own a gun; they hemorrhaged money and the end result wasn't exactly as they planned.

I live in the United Kingdom; so the use of guns and the requirement of having them is alien to us. We just don't need them.

[Image: websig.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2011, 12:25 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(22-01-2011 06:34 AM)Ms Rukia Wrote:  It's a dated law, it applied well during the country's early days when it was essentially lawless in parts and a matter of land grab. The issue is that the physiological urge to feel safe and protected with one is still felt throughout the American public.

Both sides have good reasoning and to actually fight against the law is futile due to the amount of money it would waste. We saw what happened to Canada when they banned their right to own a gun; they hemorrhaged money and the end result wasn't exactly as they planned.

I live in the United Kingdom; so the use of guns and the requirement of having them is alien to us. We just don't need them.
I would make the observation that your comments are short sighted, ignorant of American history and either selectively blind, or wholly ignorant of, the crime statistics/reality in the United Kingdom. That you don't specify where you reside in the UK, if indeed you do given it's hard to imagine that is truly the case if you own a television, radio or have occasion to read a newspaper there, I'll afford a few links that refute your statements regarding the "need" for guns. Links that afford a point of view that not only are guns needed to insure the right of self defense, they're needed so as to lessen the number of victims currently counted due to armed criminal activity that is flourishing in parts of the UK due to the unarmed populace upon which they prey.

2010 Crime Statistics England


Gun crime doubles in a decade - Telegraph.co.uk
Oct 27, 2009

"Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal.

One part of the country has seen the problem increase almost seven fold as the availability of guns, and criminals' williness to use them rises.

The number of people injured or killed by a gun has also doubled under Labour."



Editorial: Jan 2010 Gangland shootings lead to big rise in London gun crime
Gun crime increased dramatically in London last year even though the total number of offences fell, new figures revealed today. Violent attacks were also up. (Source: This is London)

United Kingdom gun crime 2010

One may also note that if the UK just doesn't need guns, it's odd that gunshot sensors would be installed in various locations throughout great Britain so as to sense the sound of that what is not needed and thus should not be able to be detected.

One could take the assertion that guns are not needed in the UK to mean that all is just crime free and non-violent there. However, facts say differently. Violent people will utilize anything in order to afford themselves an outlet for their deviance. And they shall incorporate anything at hand as a weapon, in order to exact it. Proof lies in rape statistics, knife attack reports,(extremely high in Scotland) air gun attacks on cats, etc... So just because guns aren't readily available to the law abiding in the UK does not mean violence has been curtailed.

Regarding your remarks about the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you should learn about the Constitution and it's history before calling the 2nd, or any parts of the USC, "dated law".

Constitution of the United States:
The Constitution of the United States comprises the [b]primary law
of the U.S. Federal Government. It also describes the three chief branches of the Federal Government and their jurisdictions. In addition, it lays out the basic rights of citizens of the United States.

(Learn more)

The physiological urge to feel safe and protected by a gun, as you claim of Americans, is simply a matter of the self-respect that is innate, and part of the characteristic afforded through self-preservation.
When criminals are armed and dangerous, it is incumbent upon a citizen who cherishes their right to be free from the threat the deficient character in the criminal element affords, to be able to protect and defend themselves against that enemy.

What do you do when a criminal wielding a knife threatens your life, and you're disarmed?
Anything they tell you to!
Just ask any law abiding victim citizen of the UK.

Americans have a physiological urge not to join those ranks. And an inalienable right that shall not be infringed, to insure we don't.
Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2011, 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2011 05:51 PM by No J..)
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(22-01-2011 06:34 AM)Ms Rukia Wrote:  We saw what happened to Canada when they banned their right to own a gun;

They didn't ban us from owning guns, they forced us to get licences to own guns and register all firearms. I had no problem getting my firearm licence. In have no criminal record and no record of violence or insanity. I also had no problem registering my guns. They are small game rifles that I use for target practice.

We have always had tighter regulations concerning pistol and military style weapons than the Unites States does, so owning assault rifles and machine guns is requires super special permits. I doubt if I could ever get one of those.

You are right about the insane waste of money that was caused by such an action.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2011, 11:32 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(22-01-2011 12:25 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  I would make the observation that your comments are short sighted, ignorant of American history and either selectively blind, or wholly ignorant of, the crime statistics/reality in the United Kingdom. That you don't specify where you reside in the UK, if indeed you do given it's hard to imagine that is truly the case if you own a television, radio or have occasion to read a newspaper there, I'll afford a few links that refute your statements regarding the "need" for guns. Links that afford a point of view that not only are guns needed to insure the right of self defense, they're needed so as to lessen the number of victims currently counted due to armed criminal activity that is flourishing in parts of the UK due to the unarmed populace upon which they prey.

2010 Crime Statistics England


Gun crime doubles in a decade - Telegraph.co.uk
Oct 27, 2009

"Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal.

One part of the country has seen the problem increase almost seven fold as the availability of guns, and criminals' williness to use them rises.

The number of people injured or killed by a gun has also doubled under Labour."



Editorial: Jan 2010 Gangland shootings lead to big rise in London gun crime
Gun crime increased dramatically in London last year even though the total number of offences fell, new figures revealed today. Violent attacks were also up. (Source: This is London)

United Kingdom gun crime 2010

One may also note that if the UK just doesn't need guns, it's odd that gunshot sensors would be installed in various locations throughout great Britain so as to sense the sound of that what is not needed and thus should not be able to be detected.

One could take the assertion that guns are not needed in the UK to mean that all is just crime free and non-violent there. However, facts say differently. Violent people will utilize anything in order to afford themselves an outlet for their deviance. And they shall incorporate anything at hand as a weapon, in order to exact it. Proof lies in rape statistics, knife attack reports,(extremely high in Scotland) air gun attacks on cats, etc... So just because guns aren't readily available to the law abiding in the UK does not mean violence has been curtailed.

Regarding your remarks about the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you should learn about the Constitution and it's history before calling the 2nd, or any parts of the USC, "dated law".

Constitution of the United States:
The Constitution of the United States comprises the [b]primary law
of the U.S. Federal Government. It also describes the three chief branches of the Federal Government and their jurisdictions. In addition, it lays out the basic rights of citizens of the United States.

(Learn more)

The physiological urge to feel safe and protected by a gun, as you claim of Americans, is simply a matter of the self-respect that is innate, and part of the characteristic afforded through self-preservation.
When criminals are armed and dangerous, it is incumbent upon a citizen who cherishes their right to be free from the threat the deficient character in the criminal element affords, to be able to protect and defend themselves against that enemy.

What do you do when a criminal wielding a knife threatens your life, and you're disarmed?
Anything they tell you to!
Just ask any law abiding victim citizen of the UK.

Americans have a physiological urge not to join those ranks. And an inalienable right that shall not be infringed, to insure we don't.

I am not the best educated in American History, I know of various historical events in American History but not to a comprehensive degree. I would stick by my statement that it is a dated right regardless of that almost irrelevant truth.

I severally doubt that the doubling of gun crime in the UK (which is due to inner city crimes) is no where near to that of the US. I can understand a farmer owning a gun to protect his livestock but to have your friendly neighbor able to supply for a gang war is a different story. (These are just examples but it does happen)

I do not doubt that gun ownership can deter an intruder or prevent an attacker but it is mostly paranoia based. The level of gun crime is still incredibly high and with the laws in place people are still getting a hold of them when they aren't meant to. This leads to public shootings in most cases.

It's simple that with guns only allowed for the Military and Police it would mean less gun crime due to the public being not being allowed to obtain them. Of course people will acquire them illegally but just because they have doesn't mean we should. It's still rare to come across gun crime in the UK.

(22-01-2011 05:47 PM)No J. Wrote:  They didn't ban us from owning guns, they forced us to get licences to own guns and register all firearms. I had no problem getting my firearm licence. In have no criminal record and no record of violence or insanity. I also had no problem registering my guns. They are small game rifles that I use for target practice.

We have always had tighter regulations concerning pistol and military style weapons than the Unites States does, so owning assault rifles and machine guns is requires super special permits. I doubt if I could ever get one of those.

You are right about the insane waste of money that was caused by such an action.

I was only told second hand about how they went about, and the information was from a friend who was for his right to bear arms. I worded that part of my post poorly but thanks for the information, it's very interesting.

[Image: websig.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: