|Gun ControlPage 4 of 50 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)|
|Wow, man, first off thanks...and secondly, it's a pleasure to read one of the very few literate, well thought out and legible arguements from the gun side of things...|
That being said, I'll not get into your points in detail...but quickly, you're right, apparently there is a lot of appetite for some gun control in the States (on assault rifles for example) it's just impossible to get the laws past the gun lobby. As to the 'armed militia' arguement, while that was the intent when the constitutional amendment (note amendment, in itself a word that confirms the constitution can and should change with the times), it could be argued that if the government wants to get 'in' your house these days...they're coming in. As to the sources, I tried where possible to use sources that I would trust for either side of the argument. New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world. And the FBI...well, I'm pretty good with them as a source too. You're right though, you simply HAVE to check and double check these things...all I can say is that I tried to only use what I felt were trustworthy sources.
As to those 340K stolen guns...Basically, the idea is that legal guns become illegal. That's the reality, so if you reduce the numbers legal guns coming into market, you eventually lead to fewer illegal firearms. As an aside, that is an example of 'trickledown' policies working, as opposed to tax cuts which don't.
Finally, on the small sample size...actually, while you can't say one way or the other with looking at the numbers more closely, you can have a statistically valid result with much less than a sample size of 743. I won't go into details, but you can have a valid + or - 5%, 19 times out of 20 with as few as 40-50 individuals, depending on how its set up.
But to answer your one question...okay...I'll assume we have to give up on gun control/removal...what can we do?
1. Trigger locks. This can be a fingerprint (it's not shared with government, it only is registered in the actual gun lock mechanism, so Big Brother doesn't have access. This prevents anyone except the legal owner from shooting it. They work, they should become mandatory.
2. Gun shows. You don't have to stop them, but no more buying guns from them. Much like the prescription drug industry, firearms should be strictly controlled sales items. Vacationing in New Hampshire in the Summer, I saw guns for sale in Wal Mart. That is insane...controlling the purchases.
3. Ammo. Guns don't kill people...ammo kills people. Ammunition, as an explosive device should be controlled and limited. No one needs 5000 rounds of ammo. You don't have to have as harsh a control mechanism, but you should have some control mechanism.
4. Register the gun. This sounds silly, but it's not what you're thinking. You have to register its use. If it's a hunting rifle, then it must only be assembled and loaded when in a hunting situation. Home defence? Only allowed in the home.
5. The right to bear arms is equal with the right to have that right taken away from you. That means, you can have your guns taken away at any time, if you do certain things. Spousal abuse? Bye bye guns. Driving drunk? Bye bye guns. Drug charge? Bye bye guns. It must make sense that if you have a right, you have a corresponding responsibility not to abuse that right. Given that, the right to have your guns taken away (and the enforcement of this) should be codified.
Those five things would be a start to making your nation a safer one. Safer for everyone, armed or not. Education should be part of it, but really, if you're already letting the morons get the guns in the first place, forcing them to sit through a two hour education video isn't going to make any difference.
If those five things could happen, be enforced...well, I'd feel safer visiting there.
Thanks for a really well thought out response and question. Certainly in this thread you're a rarity for your side of the issue.
Posted: 1/16/2005 5:49:48 PM
|Collectables...take the firing pin out.|
Posted: 1/16/2005 5:55:18 PM
|The 'machine gun' part worries me...don't lose that either. But if you can keep the machine gun, you can keep the firing pin in a safety deposit box or something...|
Posted: 1/16/2005 5:57:54 PM
Kudos to him...but that's the collectables market taken care of...collect them with pins out, and safely store 'em.
Posted: 1/16/2005 6:13:22 PM
|Well, I'm about to sign off this one...|
But, guys, responsible gun owners as you may be...there is a serious gun problem in america.
This problem comes from accessibility and sheer numbers, and every other western nation has proven that violent/homicide decreases with stricter controls and overall citizen safety goes up. I haven't seen any indication that any of the measures to control gun violence has worked, and things like trigger locks (which are much safer than gun safes) are fought tooth and nail by the NRA. Why?
Laws to limit how many guns an individual can purchase in a month to three...are fought tooth and nail by the gun lobby...to quote a comedian..."Look, by the time you're 60 years old that's over a thousand guns...I don't care how small your penis is, that should be enough guns."
All of these efforts are being done because innocents die...the numbers are staggering, when you think about it, and they're all preventable. Self defence is much less likely than accidental wounding/death...
Anyway, let's talk about abortion or the death penalty...something that everyone can agree on...
Posted: 1/16/2005 6:34:39 PM
And if you have trouble understanding it, you're on your own.
Posted: 1/17/2005 5:27:32 PM
|Excellent responses, all...|
my thoughts on the following concepts are:
1. TRIGGER LOCKS: On one hand, these are somewhat pointless if anyone can find the key or combo to the lock; on the other hand there may be more than one person who uses the said gun, and so a "thumbprint" type lock could easily be a burden instead of a blessing. For example, over the years I have been responsible for many deaths in my own household. These include, as best I can remember, five water moccasins ("cottonmouths"), two copperheads, an unlucky gopher snake or two, a half dozen rats, and a cobra (don't ask how in the **** a cobra landed in the suburbs of SW Houston, but dagnabbit I shot it and that's what it was). The gun I used was my dad's .22 rifle. He's never used trigger guards but leaves it unloaded and taught me proper gun use since an early age. I *could* have opened a trigger guard if it used a key or combo (assuming I had access to the key or combo), but could not have used a thumbprint.
2. GUN SHOWS: I haven't been to one, so can't speak from experience. Still, I fancy gun shows as being opportunities for people to make sales that they could not otherwise make. For example, someone who "reloads" spent shells can sell ammo at a show, but in most states it's probably illegal for an official gun shop to sell this. In Houston here we do have a "collector's firearms" store, but I understand that MOST cities don't have one. Gun shows allow collectors of antiques and uniques to make sales. It allows people to make sales of unique specialty products that can't or won't be sold in retail stores, such as special cleaners. In terms of disallowing gun sales at gun shows, this seems sketchy. Most people who buy guns from gun shows are likely firearm enthusiasts, who already have firearms. The biggest difference in "how dangerous is my household" occurs between having zero and one gun(s), but the difference between one and fifteen is relatively smaller.
3. Exactly how much ammo is too much? If one likes to go to the shooting range every weekend, one can pop off many hundreds of rounds, maybe even in the four digits. 5000 rounds might be a three-week supply. If I were that person, I'd much rather buy in bulk for a discount price, and 10,000 rounds at a time would easily be a reasonable purchase. This is especially true if one owns several guns of different calibers, and goes shooting with friends.
4. Quote: "Register the gun. This sounds silly, but it's not what you're thinking. You have to register its use. If it's a hunting rifle, then it must only be assembled and loaded when in a hunting situation. Home defence? Only allowed in the home."
As has been pointed out, all guns sold legally in the US (and most countries) have to be registered, which I'm flat-out against (read up on Nazi Germany). Registering "use" may be easier said than done. If I register something as home defense, but take it to the range it becomes a target pistol, not a home defence weapon, so am I breaking the law? Would the employees of a gun range have to run the serial # on every gun, and turn someone in who's shooting a gun not registered as a target shooting tool? What if I shoot peasant with a shotgun registered for quail? What if I shoot a home intruder with my target pistol, or my quail gun, or deer rifle; do I go to jail for improper domestic defense? Would I have to call the State and ask permission before doing anything, including my name, Social Security #, plus gun ID and serial #?
Also, most (probably all) States have laws in these regards. In TX you can have a shotgun or rifle in your car, but it has to be visible to other drivers (i.e. in a back window). If I get pulled over with a pistol in the car I have to be directly en route to either a shooting range or store where I have business with the said gun. I drive through Mickey D's and I get arrested. Plus it has to be unloaded, etc. I don't have to register my tools when hunting/fishing as such, but I do have to report what I catch/shoot, I have limits, and these laws are strictly enforced.
5. Quote: "The right to bear arms is equal with the right to have that right taken away from you."
If a "right" can be taken away, then it is a priveledge, not a right. I have a right to check my mail. I can do it twice a week or twice an hour. I can take 45 mins each time if I want to. I have the right to ride my bicycle down the street. I can do it all day, I can pedal backwards, I can ride without a helmet or safety pads, sans arrest. It doesn't matter if I'm mentally handicapped, if I'm a known wife beater and child abuser, muslim, 3 years old, whatever. I don't need a license to check the mail or ride a bike, and these RIGHTS cannot be taken away.
I *should* have a right to get married, but alas I need a license (therefore it becomes a priveledge; the State can deny my "right" to marry). I cannot drive without a license, therefore it is a priveledge, not a right. I feel that firearm ownership is and should be a right, and that all laws which infringe upon this right are in an attempt to move this right into "priveledge" status, and thus those laws are null and void on their face. In order for them to be legal, we would need a Constitutional Amendment officially removing the 2nd Amendment.
Also, I don't trust the "justice" system. It's no big secret that the federal government provides monetary compensation to municipal and county jails for "overcrowding" for every day, every person who exceeds the limit on the maximum # of ppl the jail will hold. Same for people convicted and sent to prison. The "justice system" is all about making money, and has little to nothing to do with justice. Meaning that not all people who are convicted of domestic violence are actually violent; not everyone accused of drug posession is a drug addict or even a user.
There seems to be a correlation in peoples minds' whereby anyone who is "proven" to be immature or irresponsible in one area automatically cannot or shouldn't own a gun. This makes no sense. Maybe one time I had a couple beers at some bar, got pulled over and arrested for DWI. This means I can longer defend my home? I can't shoot poinsonous snakes that appear in my yard? I can't go to the range and mutilate a few paper targets? My 16 year old son can buy a shotgun, but I can't teach him gun safety because I can't lay my hands on a gun, all for a couple Budweisers?
I agree that the question isn't clear cut. I have a mentally handicapped friend who has every legal right to own a gun, and I swear on my life I'd steal it if he bought one, just for the well-being of himself and society. I'd take a pistol away from an 8-year old and tell his parents, even if he legally owned it (in the event of reversal of all gun laws.) In the debate against whether to allow just anyone to own and carry anything they want, or infringing on a right and pretending it's really a priveledge... it's a lose-lose situation.
Still, I say reverse all laws, let anyone carry anything they want. The old Chinese guy who owns the liquor store won't have to worry about armed robbers as much if he displays his uzi behind the counter. Letting pilots carry a .410 shotgun may eliminate plane hijackers. Columbine wouldn't have happened if all the teachers had a 9mm in a holster on their side.
Posted: 1/17/2005 6:53:49 PM
What year were those stats taken or years? How many were done with guns or other ways? There was no clear information on that graph to incicate before gun control or after. There was very little defining informaiton at all. Weak very weak. And you want to lean on that????
Actually Sealacamp, yes I do...and no it isn't. Those are stats, from I believe 1993 or 1995, but if you find any 'snap shot' comparisons that don't show a similar discrepency between other countries and the U.S. for any year let me know. They quoted the source, from the Canadian Department of Justice. They also came from a policy paper on gun control issues that was neither in favour nor against gun control. Here's the paper.
http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm - That's your source. They quote other sources, like all reputable policy papers should do. Read it.
Your assertion about crime rates rising with gun control is specious at best. I'll explain some other time (not what specious means, go to encarta for that). Basically, it means that homicide/violent crime is the issue... not overall crime rates.
Before you go waiting for people to feed you stats to p!ss all over, do some research of the issue outside of your own anecdotes or what you find on nra.org.
If I leaned against all of the academic research outlining the idiocy of the gun ownership model the U.S. has developed over the years, I'd use up more paper than can be made from the Amazon jungle.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/22/2005 5:48:01 PM
|Do We See A Pattern Here?|
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon! Kyl: did not serve
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S.
Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
John Engler: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
---------------------Pundits & Preachers-----------------
Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
John Wayne: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
Ralph Reed: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.
Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at animals that don't shoot back.)
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/22/2005 6:06:38 PM
At least be knowledgeable about your own mythmakers.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/22/2005 6:55:27 PM
|thats almost as funny as the "darn good intelligence" thing...my young friend.....im a goddam T-rex.....fish is my vegatable....and the celery in a ceaser........how do i like my steak you ask?? well, a good vet could get it back on its feet so just pull out the horns and wipe its ass...........a vegitarian LMAO.......jesus, i eat red meat, drink liquor and endulge in drugs, hardly the lifestyle of a vegiterian faggot! lol|
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/22/2005 6:57:51 PM
|ya know whats worse though, is a vegan....anyone who cant even enjoy a nice piece of cheddar cheese should be...................ah f 'em|
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/22/2005 7:17:50 PM
|well, in my opinion there are differences.....hunting is a necessity....kfc is a gluttonous and unhealthy overindulgance for fat fuc&s who otherwise couldnt hunt to keep themselves alive. shooting animals for food is fine....i have myself on many many cold fall afternoons.|
im not knocking the nuge for shooting animals....just knocking his right-wing- flag waving, pro-war, sh!t talk.....thats all
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/22/2005 8:21:22 PM
i dont even like using a gun for hunting. i use a bow.
I'm of a similar idea, although when I'm going after the little buggers, I curtsy.
The animals appreciate the effort for civilized politesse and while I can't say many are willing to be caught as a result, I get some of the nicest Christmas cards from them, come the holiday season.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 1/23/2005 9:22:42 PM
|And may I just say as a liberal, what a pleasure it is to know that in addition to all of the other benefits of gun control, I will be advocating for putting you into some form of slavery.|
Of course, slavery in this case means all the freedoms you enjoy currently with the exception of being able to pull a .357 magnum just because you were a little late on dialing 911.
You mention absurdity...an excellent concept...
And let's be clear...there are people out 'there' who wish to kill all americans. They're fundamentalist nut jobs, and they aren't in your country. You having a gun does not mean they are any more or less likely to kill you. They also are better armed, and likely better trained than 90% of American gun owners, so even in the event that they begin showing up in the living rooms of residents of Kansas, you're not really doing yourself much of a favour on that front either. Your mentioning of this 'problem' of folks wishing to kill all americans within a rant about needing your many guns is absurd.
Foreign aid being sent to countries where children die from drinking water that poisons them...where AIDS and other diseases kill millions...where famine leaves families chewing on leather to sustain the hope they won't die from starvation...These people aren't your sworn enemies, and if the choice was between you having a gun and them having the basics to live, you will be more armed than Koresh after a 2 for 1 sale at the Bullet Barn. Arguing this with anything to do with gun control is callous and absurd.
The countries working on nuclear weapons...again, I promise you...if you believe that your little ar$enal will have any lasting impact on the likelihood of a rogue nation detonating a nuclear warhead...you are taking absurdity to new levels.
Oh, wouldn't it be nice to live in a conservative 'Dreamland' where everyone could take responsibility for their actions and safety, and survival. Goodness, I'd like that. Unfortunately, you and your fellow gun-owning Americans have proven over the last few decades, with the unnaturally high number of deaths attributed to the non-responsible use of guns, to NOT be able to do that. Now, instead of us Liberals saying "Oh, well, we're sorry, how about everyone who's not responsible agreeing to control their gun use?"...
We're saying "No. You may be responsible, but you're part of a movement that hasn't got its sh!t together after decades of telling us you would. I've gone to gun shows and seen, on average, a collective IQ no higher than the average calibre of the weapon. We've had it with living in the only Western country without a sensible law controlling the sale of these things and we're not going to stand for it anymore."
Gun control isn't about stopping people from hunting, sport shooting, or having the option to own a firearm for self-defense.
Posted: 1/29/2005 3:11:00 PM
|People have a right to bear arms, it's one of the freedoms the constitution provides.... you can't go changing something that has exsisted for over 200 years.... on the other hand... amending the constitution to allow for new situations should be considered... I don't think that felons who have been convicted of crimes (any crime not just violent offenders), should have the right to bear arms.... the majority of the opinions here are based on what that person holds to be true.... guns don't kill people...people kill people.... true... on one side is the person for gun control on the other side are the gun owners... what people are missing in the middle is the law.... it intervenes even if you own a gun... did you know that in the state of Michigan a man was convicted of murder for shooting a burglar that entered his home... only because he saw the man and should have left his home... even with his wife and children upstairs sleeping... after he saw the man he had no rights to defend his property.... he was convicted of pre-meditated murder because he saw an intruder in his home who he shot.... now tell me that if someone who is a law abiding citizen protecting his own property can get a life sentence in jail.... why are people not in an uproar over that.... tell me that you are going to leave your wife and children upstairs to defend themselves against an unkown assailant.... is that to say that if i break into a home and tell them i'm there to rob them that they have to leave and allow me to take their property... how sick is that.... start making laws that protect law abiding citizens and stop making laws that protect criminals... granted the guy is dead... but if he weren't he could sue the homeowner for shooting him... come on!!! is this really the message we want to send about our country? if you come to america you can be a criminal and get away with it?....my bottom line is there are laws that are supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...laws that don't work.. there are black-market guns everywhere.... stop handing out life sentences to dirt bags who don't deserve to live.... but don't use vigilante justice to take care of them either.... there is a reason we have police officers and armed forces and we elect our president ... we hire these people to do the job we don't want to do.... you want to change the way you do business you hire someone new... you want to change the country you live in? vote for your congressman\congresswoman who has the values you believe in.... don't complain about something that you are not trying to change yourself... find a platform and get awareness out... and remember.... there is no law that protects you against human stupidity.... or carelessness...|
Posted: 1/30/2005 8:11:10 AM
|So what you're saying is that organized ownership of guns is far better than single ownership....I guess that makes sense....I mean would anybody really know who Al Capone was if he didn't have all them lovely gentlemen around him with all those big guns.... I think you totally missed my point.... I'm not worried if my next door neighbor has a gun... I'm worried that the guy they just released from jail gets one.... it doesn't matter if the law says if you are a felon you can not own a gun... because there are plenty of law abiding "militia mided" people who agree that the right to bear arms should not be denied anyone... no matter their mental status...or criminal history... so in realilty it doesn't matter either way... they can still get a gun... easier than I could... someone with no criminal history... but it's not going to matter.... with all the lawsuits that are filed because this guy broke into this persons house and got bit by a guard dog.... we are protecting our criminals!!!! how is that right.... if you ask individuals if they feel that someone who breaks into their house should be able to sue you because he injured himself while doing so... the answer is going to be a resounding no..... but you group us together... like in congress... and we make the decision that someone who owns a gaurd dog that is not put away is neglegent.... who does that protect? not the homeowner... the criminal....does that make sense....if it does could someone explain to me how?|
and by the by... the last time a government official hunted me down with an m-17...........
Posted: 1/30/2005 8:23:27 AM
|The historical context of the amendment (key word there, amendment, as it sort of indicates the constitution is able to be changed...) is something that seems to be quite easily forgotten.|
Because the world moves on. At the time of writing the constitution, the reality of 'arms' was muskets. Rifles that you could fire, if you were well trained and very fast, maybe 2 or 3 shots in a minute or two? The rationale for use was that the country, very young and built on war and uprising, was not stable enough to promise that the citizens of the country wouldn't need a citizen militia to hold off some marauding fringe group trying to take over.
Fast forward 200 years. Yup...200 years.
The situation now is not the same as it was at the time of writing, and while I know there are a lot of pro-gun people who also think the Bible should be followed verbatim, the reality is that given enough time, progress happens. Like the bible's okay with slavery, and subjugating women, and stoning people for rather minor transgressions but in the past 2000 years, we have kind of realized that's a no-no. Same goes for the reality of the world at the time of the constitution being written. So...
Let's assume that hunting and recreational gun use (what a term, but I digress) are no problem. We let licensed hunters and 'target shooters' have their rifles. But, what of handguns? When we talk about comparative gun ownership levels, we always seem to consider rifles and hand guns in the same boat. They're not. For one thing, they're much more likely to be used in crimes, they're much more easily available in the U.S. than anywhere else, and...if we're going to be oh so picky about 200 year amendments...they didn't exist back then. And, while we're at it, handguns aren't what citizen militias should arm themselves with anyway.
Hand guns, if we're going to go with the amendment as it was written, should be banned, no? I mean, there's not one example I can think of where a citizen army with .22s and colt .45s had a chance to actually do anything about their big, bad government. So handguns are obviously out.
Forget self-protection by the way, that's not the point of the amendment. Why? Because at the time, guns weren't real useful for that. Try putting a musket under your pillow in case of home invasion, you'll get the picture.
But here's the other thing...your 'citizen' militia? I swear to god, I can think of no funnier situation than if you poor, paranoid gun owners actually found yourselves in a position where you had to protect yourself from your own, rabid, nutso government.
You would get the a** kicking of a lifetime. I find it no end of entertaining to hear the various 'gun experts' and 'survival' types go on and on about self-defence, martial arts and gun ownership and you know something? Almost every single one of them are, as far as I can tell, flameouts from either the Navy Seals or Marines or some G.I. Joe outfit they wanted to join as a kid and then found themselves unable to make the grade (I suspect the psych screening caught 'em, but from the looks of them, they're not exactly greek-god like in their physique either). So, for you guys out there ready to take up arms against the big, bad, old Big Brother...please...everyone else can see you're still in that 'let's dress up and play guns' emotional/maturity level. No one's impressed. Have you seen some of the guys in those militias? They make Elmer Fudd's hunting escapades look like Stallone in First Blood.
Please, can you guys stop with the 'we need guns in case the government gets uppity' routine? It's laughable. It's laughable except for the fact that in the meantime you make sane people very nervous because we know you're sitting their in the dark, oiling your 'musket' (which isn't a euphamism for actual masturbation, but rather a euphamism for the patriotic masturbation that your paranoid delusions end up being), and getting ready for the day the black helicopters from the U.N. come dropping from the sky to take over the globe.
Trust me. You have, in the grand scheme of things, something called "little" guns. The army, navy, and other government agencies have something called "big" guns. You don't stand a chance, and while I can't see humanity's collective I.Q. taking a real big hit if you guys did get yourself into a battle with the government and getting yourselves wiped out, I would much prefer it if you could just sort of, well, stop watching the conspiracy theory shows and sign up to the little reality TV show called 'life'.
Posted: 1/30/2005 11:24:05 AM
|Elwood, let's hope we never have to find out...and in your experience, how many times have you seen U.S. citizens all on the same page? Either way, I would suggest it's not going to be a deterrent, just encourage the stakes to be raised. |
Sealacamp...you go right ahead believing that big guy. Now, from what I gather, your argument is essentially "No point to a law on guns, since criminals won't pay any attention to laws...that's why they're criminals." I mean, why have any laws about, say, drug use? Assault? Property laws? I mean, your argument, by proxy, extends to every law on the books, n'est pas? I mean, so long as you believe citizens should be in charge of their own lives entirely, and laws are useless since criminals don't care about law...then you're essentially looking for frontier justice from 200 years ago? I'm not surprised, of course, you seem to have a real thing for 200 year old documents, it stands to reason the whole lifestyle of 200 years ago would appeal as well. Good luck with that.
Posted: 7/6/2005 5:08:14 PM
|Most will not agree with me, and I am certainly not an expert on this topic.|
I have never owned a handgun. I lived in different countries. In China, I was impressed by the low crime rate. I never saw a gun there. Guns are not allowed at all, unless you are in the army or the police. China is a police state and the police control the country. I lived in a city populated like New York and had no fear at all walking downtown city streets at midnight. You seldom hear of mass shootings, probably one such incident for every 50 in the USA. Conclusion: I believe second amendment no longer applies due to the type of society today. It is not like 1776 now. We have to do what it takes to stop the crazies who are killing. I say we need to completely outlaw guns, including hunting guns. Only police should be allowed to carry guns. I think this is the only way to stop the violence. Sure, people still have knives, but I did not see a major problem in China with knives. China has a non-violent culture, and Confucianism is a major societal influence.
Posted: 7/6/2005 6:17:03 PM
|As far as the second amendment goes, I must say that it is a little startling to hear people quote it when they refer to problems with/concerns about the gov't. Then it's, "Thomas Jefferson said we should take up arms if the gov't gets out of control... that's why we need them close by..." Yikes.|
Posted: 7/6/2005 8:24:14 PM
Then it's, "Thomas Jefferson said we should take up arms if the gov't gets out of control... that's why we need them close by..." Yikes.
That is the point of the Second Amendment. We have the military for fighting wars. And we have the citizens to fight at home. Why else give Americans the right to bear arms?
Posted: 7/7/2005 9:59:21 AM
Conclusion: I believe second amendment no longer applies due to the type of society today.
Ditto for the first amendment. We have a good government that spends billions of dollars each year to help the poor. It's not like we're living in Nazi Germany or something. Free speech is outdated and should be done away with. In fact when people like Michael Moore exercise their free speech rights they end up giving aid and comfort to terrorists. Free speech is dangerous to national security. Freedom of religion is also outmoded. It was great when every American was a God fearing Protestant, but now we've all these dangerous cults sprouting up everywhere. Catholics, Jews, and other Atheists just need to leave the country. And let's not forget about this nonsense about peaceably assembling. Getting large groups of people together can only lead to rioting and free speech. Please support the repeal of the First Amendment. Do it for the children.
|Re: Gun Control|
Posted: 7/7/2005 10:09:55 AM
|>>>>I still believe properly regulated, such as having to lock your gun away at the local shooting range, incl. sign-ins & sign-outs for a day of hunting will work, with the least risk factor, without completely infringing on the freedom & right to own one. A good compromise exists and can be made to work. <<<<<<|
Let me ask you something. If I take your car, you pay me to keep it in my garage - safe and secure, and I tell you that you're free to use it, whenever I'm there to give you the keys, as long as you have a valid reason to use it, is it still your car? If you think so, send me your keys.
50 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)