Gun Debate

soulsinging

Pacomc79 wrote:

more sex.

this i can get on board with.

mammasan

Pacomc79 wrote:

more sex.

I will happily do my part to end violence if this is what it takes.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

Well I don't think we will reduce the numberb of murderers by imposing stricter gun laws. If an individual is set on killing someone he will do it wether he has a gun or not. We can possible reduce the amount of murders commited with a fire arm, but not the amount of people who commit them.

i dunno, im not really proposing an answer. i think smarter gun regulation is a good idea. but if he's opposed and thinks it will not make any impact on murder rates, then i'd like to hear his alternative. im open to suggestions, im just not sure how he thinks his proposition can be realized.

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

i dunno, im not really proposing an answer. i think smarter gun regulation is a good idea. but if he's opposed and thinks it will not make any impact on murder rates, then i'd like to hear his alternative. im open to suggestions, im just not sure how he thinks his proposition can be realized.

Well I sort of understand where he is coming from. I know that farfromglorified is a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. I also consider myself a libertarian and I do struggle with this issue simply because I too feel that the government has no right interfereing in our rights, as established by the Constitution, but my desire for a safer society contradicts my political beliefs in this case.

dunkman

mammasan wrote:

because I too feel that the government has no right interfereing in our rights, as established by the Constitution

but wasnt it a goverment who granted you those rights?

so your quite happy for a govt to tell you what your rights are but not amend them for the good of the people??

i find it odd that people say that the govt has no right interfering with my rights.. rights granted to me by the people who are now interfering


fuck i'm lost

mammasan

dunkman wrote:

but wasnt it a goverment who granted you those rights?

so your quite happy for a govt to tell you what your rights are but not amend them for the good of the people??

i find it odd that people say that the govt has no right interfering with my rights.. rights granted to me by the people who are now interfering


fuck i'm lost

My government does not grant me my rights. For a lack of a better term those rights are God given. So there is no conflict there. The constitution was created to prevent government from over stepping it's authorities. And yes it was written by the people who would eventually become our government but they understood the role of government and the fact that no government should ever infringe on the rights of man. Do I agree 100% that everyman should own a weapon, no. I personlly don't think it's necessary, but it is part of our constitution and I respect that.

dunkman

mammasan wrote:

For a lack of a better term those rights are God given.

so i dont believe in God.. does that mean i have no rights?

mammasan

dunkman wrote:

so i dont believe in God.. does that mean i have no rights?

Well I don't believe in the Christian definition of God, which the founding fathers did. That is why I said for a lack of a better term. Maybe I should have said natural rights or something to that extend. So to answer your question, yes you have the same rights regardless of you religious or lack of religious belief.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

Well I sort of understand where he is coming from. I know that farfromglorified is a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. I also consider myself a libertarian and I do struggle with this issue simply because I too feel that the government has no right interfereing in our rights, as established by the Constitution, but my desire for a safer society contradicts my political beliefs in this case.

i lean libertarian as well, but i do think certain sensible regulations are necessary in a large society like ours. i believe in minimal government though, which is why i think very narrow restrictions on certain particularly pressing problems are a good thing, as long as they are carefully directed to impact only the ill involved. i am ok with legal guns, i just think there is a vested societal interest in being careful about who can buy them. we don't let kids drink, and we shouldn't let kids or dangerous people buy guns, if we can at all help it.

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

i lean libertarian as well, but i do think certain sensible regulations are necessary in a large society like ours. i believe in minimal government though, which is why i think very narrow restrictions on certain particularly pressing problems are a good thing, as long as they are carefully directed to impact only the ill involved. i am ok with legal guns, i just think there is a vested societal interest in being careful about who can buy them. we don't let kids drink, and we shouldn't let kids or dangerous people buy guns, if we can at all help it.

And I agree with you 100%.

Collin

You mean these rights are intrinsic to man?

Anyway, I still don't understand why tougher laws is considered violating those rights. It's fairly obvious that guns are often used in crimes. People agree that the right to bear arms is for the law abiding citizens, at least that's what I have seen on here, and not for criminals, because obviously criminals commit crimes and they wouldn't want a dangerous person owning a gun. Because many of these law abiding citizens only have guns to protect themselves from these criminals. So in that regard I guess you can say people discriminate between the right to bear arms and let's say freedom of speech. Yet, when tougher laws are suggested, it's a violation of their rights, it's punishing the law abiding citizens. Funny, I wasn't really all that knowledgeable about the amendments so I read a few things about them.

The second amendment states that:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm sorry but where does it say it should be as easy as possible, where does it say anything about fucked up school shootings? The fact is this isn't the 18th century anymore, things have changed. Maybe it's time to realize that the safety of the people is perhaps more important than your convenience.

inmytree

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266843,00.html

N.C. Teenager Kills Himself After Threatening Fellow High School Students at Gunpoint

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

AP
ADVERTISEMENT

HUNTERSVILLE, N.C. —
A teenager shot and killed himself Wednesday shortly after pointing a handgun at two other students in a high school parking lot, police said.

Schools in Huntersville were locked down after the 16-year-old, whose name wasn't released, made threatening gestures in a parking lot at North Mecklenburg High School, police said.

The student, who attended the school, turned the gun on himself when police confronted him at a gas station, said Capt. Michael Kee of the Huntersville Police Department. He later died, said Tahira Stalbert, a spokeswoman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

Police alerted four schools after the student left the high school's campus, Kee said.

"We put every school in the area on immediate lockdown in light of everything that's gone on in the world lately," Kee said, referring to the fatal shootings of 33 people at Virginia Tech. "We erred on the side of caution."

The student, who was shot in the head, was taken to Carolinas Medical Center, Kee said.

School officials planned to have counselors available to North Mecklenburg students Thursday, Stalbert said. The school also will have a larger security presence, she said.

Families in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district were to receive automated phone messages about the situation, Stalbert said.

mammasan

Collin wrote:

You mean these rights are intrinsic to man?

Anyway, I still don't understand why tougher laws is considered violating those rights. It's fairly obvious that guns are often used in crimes. People agree that the right to bear arms is for the law abiding citizens, at least that's what I have seen on here, and not for criminals, because obviously criminals commit crimes and they wouldn't want a dangerous person owning a gun. Because many of these law abiding citizens only have guns to protect themselves from these criminals. So in that regard I guess you can say people discriminate between the right to bear arms and let's say freedom of speech. Yet, when tougher laws are suggested, it's a violation of their rights, it's punishing the law abiding citizens. Funny, I wasn't really all that knowledgeable about the amendments so I read a few things about them.

The second amendment states that:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm sorry but where does it say it should be as easy as possible, where does it say anything about fucked up school shootings? The fact is this isn't the 18th century anymore, things have changed. Maybe it's time to realize that the safety of the people is perhaps more important than your convenience.

That is my whole point. If you are a responsible individual who sole reason for purchasing a gun is for sport or collection your rights will not be affected. Now if you are a criminal or psychopath you really shouldn't have the right to own a weapon in the best interest of society.

69charger

Songburst wrote:

Why the hell would you buy a handgun if you don't intend on using it? Most people buy handguns to protect themselves from the bogeyman or the black man because everyone has been taught to fear both the bogeyman and the black man. Are you telling me that someone who goes out and buys a Glock is doing it for some reason other than to inflict harm on another person? Most of them are buying it so their kid can find it and go and play Columbine at their school.

Not even worth discussing this issue with you.

thankyougrandma

People who own guns should be in favor of stricter gun laws to make sure that guns don't end in the hands of psychos or killers, giving every gun owners a bad name. Of course you never hear about the crimes that has been prevented because of the Canadian gun registry, but police say they use this registry and even want harder regulations to own a gun. No legal guns should ever be used in an illegal actions, as long as there are, it means gun laws are not strict enough and it gives legal gun owners a bad name.

It's never a guarantee that such an event would have been prevented, it would probably have happened anyway with illegal guns or other killing device, but i think everything possible should be tried to prevent this from happening, if it means making it tougher for a deranged individual to get access to guns legally, it's a step in the good direction, those who have a clean record wouldn't be touch by such regulations.

69charger

thankyougrandma wrote:

People who own guns should be in favor of stricter gun laws to make sure that guns don't end in the hands of psychos or killers, giving every gun owners a bad name.

Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.

Check my sig...

callen

69charger wrote:

Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.

Check my sig...

so if you have a gun and the bad guy has a gun.....someone will die....and if the criminal knows your packing....and if I understand you correctly...all law abiding citizens should have guns....he'll shoot first...your dead...all for some worthless crap.....WTF???

69charger

callen wrote:

so if you have a gun and the bad guy has a gun.....someone will die....

Sure...

and if the criminal knows your packing....and if I understand you correctly...all law abiding citizens should have guns

Yes...

....he'll shoot first...

Don't be so sure about that. Most criminals aren't trained and haven't put tens of thousands of rounds through thier guns like I have. They haven't the first clue of how to use cover, proper aim, and shot placement. I am confident he wouldn't shoot first.

all for some worthless crap.....WTF???

The safety of your family is worthless crap? Your own safety and well-being is worthless crap?

What planet do you live on?

onelongsong

69charger wrote:

Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.

Check my sig...

the bottom line is that stricter laws punish the innocent.

callen

69charger wrote:

Sure...



Yes...




Don't be so sure about that. Most criminals aren't trained and haven't put tens of thousands of rounds through thier guns like I have. They haven't the first clue of how to use cover, proper aim, and shot placement. I am confident he wouldn't shoot first.



The safety of your family is worthless crap? Your own safety and well-being is worthless crap?

What planet do you live on?

they just want your shit.

as to shooting first....the only way you'll get the first shot is if your walk around your whole life with your finger on the trigger...and that's what scared the sh*t out of me.

Oh I'd love to get my hands on a 69 CHarger.......had money lined up on a 71 (yea much bigger than a 69) red exterior white interior...new Cragers...and parents talked me out of it...bought a Cutlass instead..big mistake........many years ago.