|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2003 : 14:39:35 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
quote:
So, do you belong to a well regulated militia?
The Bill of Rights (BoR) does not say I have to be part of a regulated militia to keep or bear arms, it only says that such a militia is required of a free state thus the people shall have the rights to bear arms. In fact this implies that if tyranny were to strike then the people with their arms could form a regulated militia to help maintain the free state.
quote:
What is a well regulated militia in today's America?
A well regulated militia could form as I mentioned above by those willing and able bodied individuals if the need arises. Note the BoR doesn't say you have to be part of an active militia to bear arms.
quote:
Are any and all arms ok? How about personally owned nukes?
Nukes would not be ok because they cannot be safely contained in an individuals home without hurting others around them as would be biological, chemical, or large explosive weapons. However after that, yes all other arms IMO are fair game despite laws infringing on our rights to own them (e.g. assault rifles, etc.)
quote:
Problem here is a lot has changed since this amendment was written. Does a persons rights trump the safety of others?
How does me responsibly owning an assault rifle endanger the safety of others around me?
quote:
I am not against all private ownership of guns. I do support gun control.
Then you support infringing on my guaranteed rights to own firearms. Then we have to ask who imposes the control? The government naturally. What happens if the government decides to do away with freedoms and impose martial law? What happens if it decides to control guns by saying no guns. If you support gun control where does the control stop? What happens once the slope gets too slippery and we become enslaved to a tyrannical government without arms to defend ourselves? Is this pure fantasy? Hell no, look around the world and see how it happens to so many countries. If you don't think it can happen here then you are a fool.
quote:
I understand the danger in messing in the constitution. However, it is my opinion that this amendment could stand some amending. We are not talking about muskets anymore...
And someone else using your same logic could say the 1st amendment could stand some amending. After all they could say we are not talking about plain speech and printed papers anymore, there is TV, radio, and the Internet and the 1st needs amending to better handle these. Mess with one right then you are jeopardizing the rest.
@tomic,
quote:
I feel that this is one ammendment that infringes on my right to live without fear of some idiot capping me because he's had too much to drink or some other lame ass reason.
I don't see that right anywhere in the Constitution. By the way do you really think people are going to stop shooting people because we outlaw guns? Can a person claim the 1st Amendment infringes on their right to not be offended or to have to see other religions? If not then your argument is illogical.
quote:
I think handguns should be banned for personal use. They are not sport tools. Shotguns do have their place and they are much harder to conceal. But hand guns have to go.
Again as a responsible adult I feel I have the right to own whatever in the fuck I want to own and I don't need anyone else telling me what I have the right to own or not. So again please keep your freedom stealing hands away from me.
Strangely you and Kil have both missed the point of Amendment II. Our founding fathers realized that tyranny could strike at any time and one way to guarantee against such was to allow the populace to arm themselves. Then when tyranny struck they could form militias and resist said tyranny thus preserving the free state (or at least attempting so).
Do you really freaking believe that tyranny can no longer strike the U.S.?
Do you really think we can lay down our last line of defense vs. tyranny and rest easy?
Or do you not understand the wise words of Mr. Franklin?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty or safety"
A few more quotes to further my point (all emphasis mine)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
"These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies."
Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as
well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775) |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 15:09:56 [Permalink]
|
I think the idea of some Michigan Milita going against US Special forces and tanks and armored personel carriers is a fantasy. You might have missed what happened to the Iraqi army when they tried with even more than simple hand guns. Once again, hand guns are not going to do what you want them for. Rifles are another matter but handguns are useless for much besides close range killing. That, as it turns out, is almost always crime whether it be a crime of passion or the robbing of a corner store. Yes it would be hard to stop a criminal determined to own a gun but the crime of passion would be a lot less painful to all without guns in the equation.
I think, despite your objections, that guns do infringe on my rights. You don't agree and that's fine. But I do feel that way at least as strongly as you do.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 15:30:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I think the idea of some Michigan Milita going against US Special forces and tanks and armored personel carriers is a fantasy. You might have missed what happened to the Iraqi army when they tried with even more than simple hand guns. Once again, hand guns are not going to do what you want them for. Rifles are another matter but handguns are useless for much besides close range killing. That, as it turns out, is almost always crime whether it be a crime of passion or the robbing of a corner store. Yes it would be hard to stop a criminal determined to own a gun but the crime of passion would be a lot less painful to all without guns in the equation.
I think, despite your objections, that guns do infringe on my rights. You don't agree and that's fine. But I do feel that way at least as strongly as you do.
@tomic
I was hoping to get all of my questions answered, but I guess I hope in vain.
What exactly is the Iraqi resistance doing now to all of the military might? One soldier a day or more? Resistance is resistance no matter what the success and I would rather die resisting tyranny than let it run over me no matter what the odds.
I find it quite amazing that you are willing to strip the guaranteed rights of the people of this nation so you can feel a little safer. The one right that acts as the final defense against tyranny for when all else fails force may be the only option left, as the Iraqi resistance fighers are using now.
If handguns are so useless then why are they standard issue for the military? Why did I train with both the 9mm and .45 in bootcamp? Maybe because in an unpredictable battle ground close up fighting might be required and your primary weapon may be damaged. Wothless? I think not.
Other than a feeling you have, I would love to know how gun ownership infringes on your rights. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 08/04/2003 15:32:15 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 15:40:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
jmcginn:
The Bill of Rights (BoR) does not say I have to be part of a regulated militia to keep or bear arms, it only says that such a militia is required of a free state thus the people shall have the rights to bear arms. In fact this implies that if tyranny were to strike then the people with their arms could form a regulated militia to help maintain the free state.
OK, I get it now. We have the right to bear arms just in case we need to suddenly get together and form a regulated militia. I know it says "well regulated" but that was probably hyperbole. I mean, how "well regulated" can a militia formed on the fly be? Also, since we must be talking about our own government coming after us, because we now have a military, it would be kinda silly to invoke the exact wording of the second amendment to protect ourselves. So, we can throw the "well" part away. It would be far too inconvenient to wait for the "well" part to kick in while they knocking down our doors. Of course, the wording after the second comma of the second amendment must be taken literaly and without additions or subtractions, unless you want to own a nuke.
And that means, while we are not busy fighting off tyraany, we can have our assault weapons with your guarantee that we will act responsibly with them.
Whew, I feel safer already... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 15:49:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Other than a feeling you have, I would love to know how gun ownership infringes on your rights.
How best to put this....
I am not someone that derives their rights from a list made up by some guys over 200 years ago. Do you think that they invented those rights on the spot and that they didn't exist before that? Do you think there could be more rights than exist in the constitution? I sure do. The constitution is hardly perfect and I think my rights extend well beyond it's simplistic attempt to codify them.
Other people owning guns just because some scrap of paper says they can(And that's the main reason you say you should have a gun) is a dangerous notion. It puts me and my family in danger daily because you don't know if someone is going to explode with road rage and just start shooting. You may disagree but I think I have a right to live without thinking I need a bigger gun than my neighbor because he or she has several. This friendly neighborhood detterance game is one we are all losing every day in every city.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 16:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course, your entire post leading up to the "PEOPLE KILLED BY GUNS EACH YEAR" concluding section is a complete non-sequitor. A point about how vicious, underhanded, and hypocriotical the U.S. government has been in the past would have been appropriate, but Columbine? Unless you're trying to say that U.S. foreign policy led those kids to kill their classmates, your post as a whole makes no sense. The first two-thirds don't lead to the last third in any sort of logical sense.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/1/rem.htm
http://www.donald99.homestead.com/
First and foremost I invite you to visit the abovementioned sites before replying.
The connection between the bombing in Kosovo and Columbine is not only that they took place an hour apart but were tragedies that should have never happened.
Any loss of life is a tragedy but what I can't understand is WHY when the US kills people well that's ok yet if one American is harmed well then lets ask the whole world to pray for them, the whole world is to feel their pain and sorrow?
Why is it ok for America to show Iraqi POW's kneeling with bags placed over their heads yet when US POW's were shown on TV the US protested that it was against the convention?
Again, with their “DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO” attitude, they display their arrogance and utter disrespect for the rest of the human race.
Many pointed the finger of blame at Marilyn Manson for these childrens behaviour yet no one said “hey wait a minute look at all the violence our government encourages” (as listed in the initial post) perhaps it's the government and not Marilyn Manson that influence our children.
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
| Edited by - Julie_Bris on 08/04/2003 16:38:09 |
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 16:53:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
The fact is, not matter how you break down the statistics, there is an alarming rate of gun violence in America. And that is my concern.
The NRA has attempted to block every reasonable attempt to make it harder to own any weapon. Most of the time, they are successful. Lately, and finally, people are starting to take a harder look at their positions, in part, because of films like "Bowling…" If some of Moore's facts do not add up, I think it is fair to criticize that. On the other hand, much of what Moore is suggesting in the film, I believe, is on target. His attack on the media for creating a climate of fear with their nightly fear report is an example of that. Local news is not news at all anymore. It has become thirty minutes of fear mongering.
There are studies that support all sides of the gun issue. Having said that, I do believe that private gun ownership for self defense has lead to more accidental shootings, crimes of passion that would not have otherwise lead to a death, and guns that have been stolen and used in crimes, than have actually been used for self defense.
Did you know that the NRA has successfully blocked the Center for Disease Controls effort to collect data on gun violence? Ask yourself, why would they do that?
I personally think there is a madness in this country concerning gun ownership. Sort of a cowboy mentality. I think its way past time that we take a closer look at what has worked in other countries and start implementing those measures.
I have a hard time believing that we will be a more civilized country when we are all carrying side arms for protection...
Kil not only are they powerful but extremely insensitive!!
Perhaps it's time that the NRA stop rubbing salt into the wounds of those grieving and show some compassion.
I felt it was extremely insensitive and tactless that days after the massacres took place, Moses himself (Charlton Heston) visited the cities concerned and was singing the NRAs praises.
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 17:08:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
This is called blaiming the tool on the crime and not the criminal. It is every American's right to own a gun unless that person does something to cause them to loose that right such as committing a felony.
Increasing gun control only makes it harder for:
1. Normal citizens to purchase guns.
2. Crazy people buying a gun on impluse to go on a shooting spree or commit suicide.
It does not stop:
1. Hardened criminals illegally acquiring a gun.
2. Fringe milita groups stock piling weapons.
3. Or young distrubed teen age boys who acquired their guns illegally planning their school shooting spree.
4. A person planning a suicide.
Blaiming America's violent crime problem on guns and trying to outlaw them is beyond reason and ignores the real problems behind our violent elements in society.
Look at where most violent gun deaths occur in the U.S. and you will see a pattern that happens to mimic where the poorest and least uneducated people live. Inner cities, ghettos, poor Appalachian areas, etc.quote:
Oh and yeah where else but America “land of the free and home of the brave” can you not only purchase ammunition from your local K-Mart & barber shop but you can also open an Account at your local Bank and receive a riffle in return, as appreciation for doing so.
CAN ANYONE ELSE SEE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE
There is nothing wrong with this picture. Blaiming violent crime problems on guns is scape goating the real issues.
Then perhaps your government should spend less time in bed with the NRA and more time concentrating on poverty and education.
Q. WHY DO YOU NEED A FIREARM?????????????
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 17:20:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
Other than a feeling you have, I would love to know how gun ownership infringes on your rights.
Other people owning guns just because some scrap of paper says they can(And that's the main reason you say you should have a gun) is a dangerous notion. It puts me and my family in danger daily because you don't know if someone is going to explode with road rage and just start shooting. You may disagree but I think I have a right to live without thinking I need a bigger gun than my neighbor because he or she has several. This friendly neighborhood detterance game is one we are all losing every day in every city.
@tomic
I'm with you on this one @tomic.
I have such a phobia of guns and the damage they can do (when in the wrong hands).
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 17:21:33 [Permalink]
|
Anyone who doubts that the second amendment has value needs to merely look at history. Almost every major massacre of civilians by their own government was preceded by rigorous gun control.
The Nazis disarmed their populace before Jewish people, gypsies, gays, etc were dragged off and gassed. Russia disarmed most of its people, paving the way for stalin to kill millions. China disarmed its people prior to the political purges of the 50s and 60's, killing millions. The Khamer Rouge took over in a goverment where guns had been banned for decades, and killed a million people. Anyone who thinks it can't happen is blind to history. The FIRST AND MOST BASIC RIGHT of people is that of self-defense. The government has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect you. Police CAN'T be sued if they don't save your but during a crime. They are there for law enforcement and deterrence. So,in the end your saftey is up to you. Knowledge and common sense are the first line of defense, but they can't take care of everything. Additionally, the government has never ruled that the second amendment doesn't apply to the people.
Additionally, all references to the people in the constition refers to the people, not the states or the federal government. The reference to the militia makes explicit reasons for the people to be armed. In fact, hunting and sports shooting, which gun control supporters always say they are for, are NOT protected. Arms for civil defense are. Legally, by constitutional law, they can ban hunting, but not firearms.
As for gun violence, even without guns, the US has more murders than most nations. ITs directly linked to both our cultural diversity, which does add stresses not found in homogenous cultures, as well as our cultural tendancies. However, while the US may have a high murder rate, our suicide rate is actually much lower per capita than places like Japan. The banning of guns doesn't reduce gun crime. In fact, cities like Chicaga and DC have signifigantly higher gun murder rates than cities that don't ban guns. There is NO evidence that banning guns reduces gun crime, in fact, most statsical surveys actually show the opposite.
Britain has had a low murder rates for decades, dating back to the time when guns were common and legal. The banning of most guns, including all handguns , in england has not reduced gun crime further. In fact, gun crime rates are increasing. Part of that could easily be due to other social pressures, but obviously banning guns has had no postive effects, other than for politicians milking votes based on fear.
That said, I do support certain measures in regards to gun saftey. TRAINING! I don't support registration or liscensing, but training should be manditory. The vast majority of gun accidents are caused by those who have not been taught gun saftey. My father taught by my sister and myself gun saftey when we young (around 5). Guns are not toys, they are not antiques, they are weapons. They are designed to kill things. I will be the first to admit that. However, that doesn't mean they don't have their place. If you want to reduce gun accidents ( which are very low statistaclly anyways), education and training are the way to go. If you want to reduce crime, addres the cause, social and economic, and stop blaming guns. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 18:37:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Darwin Storm:
That said, I do support certain measures in regards to gun saftey. TRAINING! I don't support registration or liscensing, but training should be manditory. The vast majority of gun accidents are caused by those who have not been taught gun saftey. My father taught by my sister and myself gun saftey when we young (around 5). Guns are not toys, they are not antiques, they are weapons. They are designed to kill things. I will be the first to admit that. However, that doesn't mean they don't have their place. If you want to reduce gun accidents ( which are very low statistaclly anyways), education and training are the way to go. If you want to reduce crime, addres the cause, social and economic, and stop blaming guns.
Do you also feel that people who drive cars should not have to be licensed or have to
register their vehicle? Now as I understand it, in every state that I know of you must show some proficiency at driving and understand the safety issues before they let you out on the highway. A car is designed to get us from one place to another. But it can be very dangerous, as we know. Why is it that guns, "designed to kill things" should not be at least as controlled as owning and driving a car?
What is the harm in a cooling off period prior to taking home a weapon?
What harm does registration cause the buyer?
Background checks?
Proof of training, Including safety education and periodic certification?
And more...
If you are law abiding, why should these things matter to you?
I'm with Larry on the handgun thing. I would have you visiting your handguns
at a range where they would be locked up when not being used. But I know that kind of law is not likely. What I don't understand is the resistance to gun control at all? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
rickm
Skeptic Friend
Canada
109 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 18:53:59 [Permalink]
|
I can't imagine handing my six year old a hand gun, for no matter what reason, it's absurd.
My dad kept an old single shot .22 rifle in the house, he showed me how to use it, never shot it though, but many times thought about doing it when he was away. In my oppinion it was a danger having it around because I was always so tempted.
A person can train and understand gun safety as fully as possible, but do they get training on using it in particular situations, when to pull your gun when not to pull your gun, who and when to shoot, can an average citizen assess a situation properly to make that kind of decision? If you shoot too soon an innoncent person may be killed, if you hesitate you may be killed.
I hear of hunting accidents every hunting season, a father accidentally shoots his son, a man who has hunted all his life, handled rifles all his life. Do I want these people carrying hand guns, hell no, but they do.
If someone pulls a gun on you, do you have time or the balls to pull yours. |
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
-- Woody Allen, Without Feathers, 1975 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 18:54:56 [Permalink]
|
Julie Bris wrote:quote:
First and foremost I invite you to visit the abovementioned sites before replying.
As far as I can tell, they are more of the same: an argument about the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy, and nothing at all to do with domestic random small-arms violence.quote:
The connection between the bombing in Kosovo and Columbine is not only that they took place an hour apart...
That's either coincidence, or you're claiming that one caused the other. Which is it?quote:
...but were tragedies that should have never happened.
As are so many other things, like Bophal, Viet Nam, the Salem Witch Trials, Celine Dion, and the Inquisition. Why focus on two separate events which coincided, to some extent, in time? Your main point, which you might finally be getting to (I'm not sure, see below), becomes lost in all this irrelevancy and emotional button-pushing along the way.quote:
Any loss of life is a tragedy but what I can't understand is WHY when the US kills people well that's ok...
Who's saying that that's okay?quote:
...yet if one American is harmed well then lets ask the whole world to pray for them, the whole world is to feel their pain and sorrow?
Well, if you need a primer on tribalism, I'm sure one can be found online.quote:
Again, with their “DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO” attitude, they display their arrogance and utter disrespect for the rest of the human race.
If you mean 'they' as in "the people who run the U.S.," I have little argument there. If you mean 'they' as something else, I'll have to wait until you clarify your meaning before I respond.quote:
Many pointed the finger of blame at Marilyn Manson for these childrens behaviour yet no one said “hey wait a minute look at all the violence our government encourages” (as listed in the initial post) perhaps it's the government and not Marilyn Manson that influence our children.
What a load of crappola that is. Perhaps it's the parents who most influence their children, and neither the government nor Mr. Manson. I very much hope that I don't fall for that "blame someone else" garbage in raising my own child (haven't yet).
jmcginn wrote:quote:
Then you support infringing on my guaranteed rights to own firearms.
How is, for example, gun registration infringing on your right to own a weapon? Does registering to vote infringe upon your right to vote? Does the paperwork required to establish a church infringe upon one's right to pratice the religion of their choice? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 18:57:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baza
Thanks for that Trish.
Now as I understand it the constitution allows the right to own firearms. Now it seems to me that the need to own guns is directly related to how secure you feel. In the UK there are, we know notourious places where guns exist and where guns are used on a regular basis but I don't feel a threat from guns and therefore find it difficult to understand why one would need to own a gun. Trish, did the threat dissappear when you where pregnant or did you feel the risks outweighed the security?
Owning a weapon for me is not necessarily a security issue. For that I carried pepper spray and a tazer. Were owning a weapon a security issue, I would get my conceal carry permit.
I enjoy the skill required in using a weapon. I enjoy firing the weapon. I enjoy hunting with both rifle and bow. I sold my firearm because I felt the risks outweighed the pleasure I derive from going to the range. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 18:58:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Other people owning guns just because some scrap of paper says they can(And that's the main reason you say you should have a gun) is a dangerous notion. It puts me and my family in danger daily because you don't know if someone is going to explode with road rage and just start shooting. You may disagree but I think I have a right to live without thinking I need a bigger gun than my neighbor because he or she has several. This friendly neighborhood detterance game is one we are all losing every day in every city.
@tomic
Do you really live in that bad an area?
LOL, I'm the one who lives in the murder capital of the USA! And I don't see people falling down dead in front of my on a daily basis.
However crime is one reason I'm moving.
Even if I thought controlling guns would help stop murders, which it can't anyway, I'd still move. The other alturnative is to join forces with the police, neighbors, the community and make the place safer with action not gun laws. If you have neighbors with whom you don't feel comfortable, report them, stay away from them, there are laws.
Also, if someone is going to go into a rage and harm someone, it could be anytime, anywhere, with any weapon. Those incidents don't happen often.......that's why they are in the news, to scare you!
You want to take aways everyones 'rights' because of a few nuts? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
