Gun Debate

rebornFixer

dunkman wrote:

they have been around but you fail to recognise that they have been amended, changed, moulded, to fit the current ways in which we live... the laws are pliable... but they have all been updated within the last 50 years or so

This is indeed true, but that doesn't bolster your argument that the right to bear arms needs to be repealed. That is your opinion and not one that everyone shares. My biggest concern with your argument is that you seem to equate more restrictive laws with a safer society. Generally? The opposite is in fact true.

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

they have been around but you fail to recognise that they have been amended, changed, moulded, to fit the current ways in which we live... the laws are pliable... but they have all been updated within the last 50 years or so

Are you saying it is more legal to murder today? Or less legal? Or stealing by anyone but the Government is more legal today?

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

Read the original post that brought this up. The Scottish one was arguing to rid our country of our Constitution.

au contraire... i'm suggesting you could CHANGE it... keep the guns have extremely rigorous checks carried out on people who want them?

onelongsong

Kann wrote:

What does freedom of speech have to do with the freedom to bear arms?
Freedom of speech is something universal (in the sence that speech is the same today than it was in 1788), arms are not (I wonder if your founding fathers would have been so confident had there been automatic assault weapons in that day)

Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions. U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode. If the people of the U.S. feel that average citizens should not own nuclear arms, or fully automatic rifles, or for that matter, semi-automatic rifles which look like military rifles, they should seek to amend the Constitution, rather than selectively interpreting it. We would probably find almost universal support for a "no personal nukes" amendment, mixed support for a "no fully automatic rifles" amendment, and even less support for an amendment banning "assault weapons".

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

Are you saying it is more legal to murder today? Or less legal? Or stealing by anyone but the Government is more legal today?

no.. read what i said

i'm saying that although the laws of murder, stealing, etc stretch way back they have at least the benefit of being amendable... your telling me that a right written in the 1770's is untouchable and that's whats archaic.. the inability to amend a right which is now severely out-of-date...

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

no.. read what i said

i'm saying that although the laws of murder, stealing, etc stretch way back they have at least the benefit of being amendable... your telling me that a right written in the 1770's is untouchable and that's whats archaic.. the inability to amend a right which is now severely out-of-date...

You said the laws had changed. I only asked how.

Kann

onelongsong wrote:

Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions. U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode. If the people of the U.S. feel that average citizens should not own nuclear arms, or fully automatic rifles, or for that matter, semi-automatic rifles which look like military rifles, they should seek to amend the Constitution, rather than selectively interpreting it. We would probably find almost universal support for a "no personal nukes" amendment, mixed support for a "no fully automatic rifles" amendment, and even less support for an amendment banning "assault weapons".

I don't deny the visionary act of the founding fathers but how in the world could they have imagined the technological advance in warfare?
And are you saying according to the constitution you have a right to ride a tank?

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

Read the original post that brought this up. The Scottish one was arguing to rid our country of our Constitution.

also i want to add this was funny... in a good way

thanks

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

also i want to add this was funny... in a good way

thanks

I'm glad you found the humor in it. I meant for it to lighten things up a bit.

onelongsong

reborncareerist wrote:

This is indeed true, but that doesn't bolster your argument that the right to bear arms needs to be repealed. That is your opinion and not one that everyone shares. My biggest concern with your argument is that you seem to equate more restrictive laws with a safer society. Generally? The opposite is in fact true.

currently; 23 states allow citizens to carry a concealed weapon with permit. those 23 states have the lowest crime rate. however; the big cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates.
criminals prefer unarmed victims.

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

You said the laws had changed. I only asked how.

by various acts of parliament, congress, call it what you will... to meet the differing needs of a developing society, advances in science, technology, forensics, etc

onelongsong

Kann wrote:

I don't deny the visionary act of the founding fathers but how in the world could they have imagined the technological advance in warfare?
And are you saying according to the constitution you have a right to ride a tank?

according to the constitution; i have a right to own a nuclear weapon. many citizens own tanks. demiliterized of course but ownership is open to anyone that can afford one.

rebornFixer

onelongsong wrote:

currently; 23 states allow citizens to carry a concealed weapon with permit. those 23 states have the lowest crime rate. however; the big cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates.
criminals prefer unarmed victims.

Indeed ... I should add that this does not mean that letting people carrying guns leads to lower crime rates either, though. Basically, crime rates are influenced by a great many things. Gun laws have a relatively limited impact on crime rates, if any impact at all. Gun laws are an artifact of a society ... So called "cultures of violence" will perhaps have looser laws, whereas countries like Britain will have very restrictive laws BECAUSE OF attitudes about guns, rather than the other way around. Laws don't make people safe, necessarily (with the expection of those intended to prevent kids and others from playing with daddy's shotgun) ... Rather, they offer a glimpse at a culture's attitude towards weapon use.

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

they have been around but you fail to recognise that they have been amended, changed, moulded, to fit the current ways in which we live... the laws are pliable... but they have all been updated within the last 50 years or so

gun laws have changed more than any other. the registration of weapons (serial numbers and record keeping); laws forbidding guns in certain places or cities; limitation of what weapons a citizen can own; background checks; and many other changes.

dunkman

reborncareerist wrote:

. My biggest concern with your argument is that you seem to equate more restrictive laws with a safer society. Generally? The opposite is in fact true.

depends on the definition of safer.. but i only go by my own firsthand and personal experience post-Dunblane tragedy... we banned handguns and since that law was passed Scotland hasnt had a single death as a result of a handgun... todays society might mean there is more crime happening each and every year... thats probably due to kids not giving a fuck about the consequences these days and the simple fact that prison is seen as 1. a palace compared to some of their own homes and 2. a sorta badge of honour amongst their fellow criminal fraternity.

but as i said.. i'm going by the stats showing how a ban worked in Scotland and i believe this same statistical outcome was acheived in Australia

rebornFixer

dunkman wrote:

depends on the definition of safer.. but i only go by my own firsthand and personal experience post-Dunblane tragedy... we banned handguns and since that law was passed Scotland hasnt had a single death as a result of a handgun... todays society might mean there is more crime happening each and every year... thats probably due to kids not giving a fuck about the consequences these days and the simple fact that prison is seen as 1. a palace compared to some of their own homes and 2. a sorta badge of honour amongst their fellow criminal fraternity.

but as i said.. i'm going by the stats showing how a ban worked in Scotland and i believe this same statistical outcome was acheived in Australia

"As a result of a handgun"? Sure, I'll give you that and trust your stats. But is your society as a whole any safer? Is it just more likely now that someone will kick someone else's head in, or stab them, instead of turn to a gun? Methinks that handgun crime rates were never that high in Scotland in the first place.
I don't know. I'll concede that you'll know more about your country than me. Research on gun laws in North America shows almost no correlation between violent crimes and gun laws, however. Like onelongsong said, sometimes you ever see the opposite pattern.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

gun laws have changed more than any other. the registration of weapons (serial numbers and record keeping); laws forbidding guns in certain places or cities; limitation of what weapons a citizen can own; background checks; and many other changes.

so the right to bear arms isnt an inalienable right then.. your right to bear arms is only on certain conditions?

well make those conditions far far more demanding and then we're getting somewhere... the ability to buy a gun in Virginia is ridiculously simple.. if a citizen attends a gun show he/she can buy that gun there and then with no checks i believe.

thats scary... no?

jamjam

so somebody just got shot in Meadowvale
it was a home invasion.

Are you not afraid?

I would be.

jamjam

Witness
Lovers.

jamjam

Love You guys
A Promise
I won't be there...Witness
justam will lead you guys

and brain of dz...settle down
and cate frances....will calm you.
A Promise.

i need to catch up on some sleep.
LOve you guys.