The paradox is that the right to bear arms actually limits personal freedoms-living in fear is not living in freedom. I'm just happy that I can live in a country like Australia which has taken steps to avoid becoming lilke America.
I'm happy you live in Australia, too if that's what makes you happy. I'm happy here living without fear. Glad we're both happy with our current situations.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
And if I remember my high school government class, didn't the Supreme Court rule in like the 19030s that a "well regulated" militia referred to the National Guard, not private citizens???
You'll have to find a source for that one. Lots of high school civics teachers misinterpret the bill of rights all of the time. The supremes do it occasionally. It would have been curious for the bill of rights to start out specifically reserving a list of individual rights except one right in the middle where they were talking about a national guard.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
My father was a hunter back in the days, and I live in Dodge City, Kan., so I understand completely the gun heritage. But my question has always been, what do you need an assault rifle for??? You don't hunt deer with a 50 cal machine gun. You vaporize them. The object of hunting is to leave as few holes in the prey as possible so you can harvest the meat. What legitimate reason does ANYONE have for owning a fucking machine gun???
to kill nazis, invaders, the government when they inevitably go into police state mode, possibly martians, stuff like that.
How is restricting a citizens access to firearms any different to limiting the speed that they can drive vehicles, the age at which they can purchase alcohol or their rights to inject certain drugs into their own body?
Well it's not much different realy, and that's why i have a problem with it: Its a slippery slope.
Who is going to come up with the rules and regulations for who is no longer qualified to own a gun. What will the "test" to get firearms be? What items in a background check will deny you a gun?
Are soldiers with PTSD or kids who have been diagnosed with ADHD "crazy"? What about anyone who has ever spent time in a mental institution, half-way home, or been to see a psychiatrist? How about foster kids, they often have a lot of "problems"?
Who is drawing up the guidelines, how are the people to be guaranteed that the rules can't be changed overnight, and what is the recourse for individuals or a broad class of citizens who have been denied the right to own a gun?
If you feel you aren't crazy, but "they" say you are, how long will it take to get it straightened out? Will you have to go to court to fight it? How much money will it cost? Are the taxpayers picking up the tab for all this regulation? The gunstores?
See what i'm saying?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
to kill nazis, invaders, the government when they inevitably go into police state mode, possibly martians, stuff like that.
I would just like to point out that while this sounds absurd to so many ... it was the original intent of our founding fathers. To wit:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." - Jefferson
So.
I take offense when people laugh off a notion our founding fathers took deadly serious.
That 95% of our country is too docile to ever consider such a notion is all the more reason the 5% need their guns.
Our founding fathers knew very well (and if i could think of how to come by the quote i would just post it) that revolution was not something undertaken by the masses ... it was a select few that were capable of understanding the need for such a thing, and an even smaller few willing to actively participate.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I would just like to point out that while this sounds absurd to so many ... it was the original intent of our founding fathers. To wit:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." - Jefferson
So.
I take offense when people laugh off a notion our founding fathers took deadly serious.
That 95% of our country is too docile to ever consider such a notion is all the more reason the 5% need their guns.
Our founding fathers knew very well (and if i could think of how to come by the quote i would just post it) that revolution was not something undertaken by the masses ... it was a select few that were capable of understanding the need for such a thing, and an even smaller few willing to actively participate.
i totally agree. gun rights are more about defending oneself from the government than defending from criminals. the entire gun control issue ignores this completely.
the biggest problem i have with gun control is the fact that they must be registered. that defeats the whole purpose of having one.
The very title of this thread misses the whole point ... It should read "What we can do about violence in America". When you seek to focus the discussion on guns, one aspect of the issue, and inanimate objects at that, you are kinda missing the boat. Sure, let's take all the guns away. You'd still be left with a bunch of seriously disturbed folks looking to kill. Why not look at mental health and the social basis of violence in general?
The very title of this thread misses the whole point ... It should read "What we can do about violence in America". When you seek to focus the discussion on guns, one aspect of the issue, and inanimate objects at that, you are kinda missing the boat. Sure, let's take all the guns away. You'd still be left with a bunch of seriously disturbed folks looking to kill. Why not look at mental health and the social basis of violence in general?
Look,
don't try to start talking logic in here.
You're making far too much sense for some of these folks.
Besides, its easy to take away guns.
Its hard to focus on the root causes of systemic violence.
And this is America, it hasn't wanted to undertake anything hard since it put a man on the moon.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The very title of this thread misses the whole point ... It should read "What we can do about violence in America". When you seek to focus the discussion on guns, one aspect of the issue, and inanimate objects at that, you are kinda missing the boat. Sure, let's take all the guns away. You'd still be left with a bunch of seriously disturbed folks looking to kill. Why not look at mental health and the social basis of violence in general?
Sure, let's take all the guns away. You'd still be left with a bunch of seriously disturbed folks looking to kill. Why not look at mental health and the social basis of violence in general?
You're not going to change society, so all you're left with is locking up all violent offenders for a very, very long time. Screw the mandatory minimums, let's go for mandatory maximums! As our former governor the trucking company owner used to say, "Load 'em high and tight."
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
so in other words, you're agreeing with me that there's no LEGITIMATE reason to own an assault rifle.
IMO opinion no. but I dont want the government to be the only ones who can own one. not like they would ever do anything, but when one side sees no chance of being challenged, you never know what could happen.
people are talking about our founding fathers, lets face it, some of our founding fathers were complete idiot's.
"That Washington was not a scholar is certain. That he is too illiterate, unlearned, unread for his station and reputation is equally beyond dispute."
- President John Adams
Now that's what you call some old-school trash talk
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
so in other words, you're agreeing with me that there's no LEGITIMATE reason to own an assault rifle.
hell if i know. i think at some point its inevitable that a well armed populace would be nessecary. Probably not in my life time, but I'm sure the Romans at their height never thought they would get invaded either. Assault rifles certainly make invasion a lot harder, just ask the military in Iraq. it makes government domination a lot harder too
We like to think that the way things are now are the way things will always be.
IMO opinion no. but I dont want the government to be the only ones who can own one. not like they would ever do anything, but when one side sees no chance of being challenged, you never know what could happen.
what... afraid the black helicopters are coming after you???
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
I know its super far fetched but having the government being the only ones with guns shouldnt be the case. power to the people!
How super far fetched is it really?
We already have basic gun control.
You can't own a fully automatic weapon, so far as i know.
We certainly aren't entitled to current standard use military armaments & ordinance of any caliber or grade.
No, the American people currently have as their last resort to liberty the simple assault rifle. That is weapon number one. One and only. That and a sidearm.
And what we have now in America are a people so sheepish for the most, that any one with a sharp tooth is now perceived a wolf, and therefore must be defanged.
What I'm saying is, nearly half the population thinks gun control is a good idea, and half of them would like to take it moderately to much further in implementation.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
people are talking about our founding fathers, lets face it, some of our founding fathers were complete idiot's.
They certainly weren't complete idiots. They were pretty enlighted, and did many profound things. They weren't gods and shouldn't be worshipped, but you'd have to be quite dense to disregard the amazing work they did.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I know its super far fetched but having the government being the only ones with guns shouldnt be the case. power to the people!
I'm with you.
It is funny how so many people want or need to the government to be the answer for all that ails them from education, to healthcare, to handouts, to personal protection.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Simple question. We all have our stance on this issue. What I want to know is what would have to happen for people on both sides of the line to sit down in a civil fashion and try to figure out solutions to the rampant violence problem we're (america) is having with guns. School shootings, mall shootings, amish shootings, court house shootings...theyve all happened. What's it going to take for us to sort this out without people yelling bout their rights being taken away, leaving them at the feet of criminals and communists alike, and people actually wanting to take away all the guns. Solutions need to happen.
The same thing it takes for all real true conflict resolution. Open Minds, Good Attitudes, The ability to listen without being offended by opposing viewpoints.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
What about arms such as nukes? Should only the government be allowed to have nukes? Power to the people
... exactly. Why can't the Americans have H bombs, tanks, anti-tank weapons, landmines... Restrictions, restrictions and restrictions...
The people who say they have guns and assault rifles etc. for protection against the government are in my opinion a bit naive or paranoid.
Another argument that is often used why gun control, gun restriction ... won't work is because criminals can easily get their hands on weapons. So by banning guns or restricting the laws, you'd only create a state in which criminals have all the guns.
So by that logic you don't need to own a gun, you can just buy one illegally when you need one. Criminals do it all the time, and when you plan to revolt against the government you are by definition (of that gov't) a criminal already.
It's also rather funny that when people suggest your government killed its own citizens (like the 9/11 conspiracy etc.), they are completely insane and ridiculous. But yet those who called them "kooks" and crazy cite 'protection against the government' as a reason to own a gun.
Anyway, the way I see it is if your government decides to turn on you, you're fucked whether you have guns or not because people always forget one thing. It's not just about power, it's about brainwashing, influencing people. In Hitler's time jews were the back sheep of Germany and the world, they were the cancer of the world and they were the cause of all the problems of Germany. And Hitler started making life easier and better for the German people, created jobs etc.
You really think your government would just turn on you? No, they'd go about it the same way Hitler did.
A lot of people would be with the government including a lot of gun owners. And that's when the "fun" begins, you helps an illegal immigrant or muslim (jew in nazi times) and your neighbour, a good citizen, kills you with his guns for being a traitor.
You make some good points Colin, I don't think any reasonable person would be against gun safety education, better and more thorough background checks on certain weapons and at the very least better trigger locking mechanisms. With the advent of finger scanning technology we could certainly reduce home gun accidents.
My argument has always been one of liberty and civil liberties. No I do not trust the government nor should anyone. Currently I own no firearms but I like that I have the right to legally should I desire one.
I do not believe in the governments ability to prohibit nearly anything effectively and it's another reason I am steadfastly against the war on drugs. I think outlawing weapons would only needlessly imprison more people who aren't doing anything wrong to stop a few people who are while seemlessly creating an immense black market for illicit weapons. People have always been really really adept at killing each other. Gun prohibition isn't going to change that.
I am absolutely for education at young ages as to how they work, muzzle control, proper use, misuse and how not to hurt yourself...IE if you find a gun kids DO NOT TOUCH IT or play with it....always assume it is loaded. I am also for expansion of hunter safety courses as I think they help give people a healthy respect for weapons. The other issue of course is providing citizens with a healthy respect for human life which simply dosen't exist in some parts of the world.
I'm also for better background checks especially medical; Extremely tough legislation on commiting felonies with firearms; and the promotion of gun safety devices such as trigger locks.
I want to take firearms out of the hands of criminals but not out of the hands of people who do not wish to do harm with them.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
"The shooting comes 10 months after 32 students and staff were shot by a student at Virginia Tech University in one of the worst shootings ever at a US school.
But it is also the fourth shooting at a US school within a week."
When I read this I think of the families and the people affected by these heinous acts, they're lives suddenly shattered by a mad person with a gun.
Some people might make the redundant and rather stupid observation that the perpetrator could have used a number of weapons, or how he could have made a bomb. I say redundant because he didn't use a knife or a home made bomb, he used a gun. Most of them use guns. There's a reason for that. It's because they're effective and easy to get your hands on. Also, it seems that committing suicide after the violent acts is or is becoming a popular trend. Try that with a home made bomb.
Gun supporters' rights to keep and bear arms are so important that no amount of students, women, neighbours, children killed by gun fire will make them change their minds. They're not even willing to give certain restrictions a try (mandatory exams and classes, background checks, gun registration...). These shootings are a huge problem, people are dying but apparently that's not worth implementing possible solutions. Keep on guessing it won't work without giving it a try.
"The shooting comes 10 months after 32 students and staff were shot by a student at Virginia Tech University in one of the worst shootings ever at a US school.
But it is also the fourth shooting at a US school within a week."
When I read this I think of the families and the people affected by these heinous acts, they're lives suddenly shattered by a mad person with a gun.
Some people might make the redundant and rather stupid observation that the perpetrator could have used a number of weapons, or how he could have made a bomb. I say redundant because he didn't use a knife or a home made bomb, he used a gun. Most of them use guns. There's a reason for that. It's because they're effective and easy to get your hands on. Also, it seems that committing suicide after the violent acts is or is becoming a popular trend. Try that with a home made bomb.
Gun supporters' rights to keep and bear arms are so important that no amount of students, women, neighbours, children killed by gun fire will make them change their minds. They're not even willing to give certain restrictions a try (mandatory exams and classes, background checks, gun registration...). These shootings are a huge problem, people are dying but apparently that's not worth implementing possible solutions. Keep on guessing it won't work without giving it a try.
Apparently over 10 000 people are killed in gun related deaths in the US every year. Now we have had a whole war over 9/11 but nothing has been done to even slightly curb gun violence. There need to be restrictions - I can't believe that people are willing to just accept these sort of occurences.
Comments
I'm happy you live in Australia, too if that's what makes you happy. I'm happy here living without fear. Glad we're both happy with our current situations.
You'll have to find a source for that one. Lots of high school civics teachers misinterpret the bill of rights all of the time. The supremes do it occasionally. It would have been curious for the bill of rights to start out specifically reserving a list of individual rights except one right in the middle where they were talking about a national guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
all those commas? shit, i think anyone can make this say anything they want...
to kill nazis, invaders, the government when they inevitably go into police state mode, possibly martians, stuff like that.
Well it's not much different realy, and that's why i have a problem with it: Its a slippery slope.
Who is going to come up with the rules and regulations for who is no longer qualified to own a gun. What will the "test" to get firearms be? What items in a background check will deny you a gun?
Are soldiers with PTSD or kids who have been diagnosed with ADHD "crazy"? What about anyone who has ever spent time in a mental institution, half-way home, or been to see a psychiatrist? How about foster kids, they often have a lot of "problems"?
Who is drawing up the guidelines, how are the people to be guaranteed that the rules can't be changed overnight, and what is the recourse for individuals or a broad class of citizens who have been denied the right to own a gun?
If you feel you aren't crazy, but "they" say you are, how long will it take to get it straightened out? Will you have to go to court to fight it? How much money will it cost? Are the taxpayers picking up the tab for all this regulation? The gunstores?
See what i'm saying?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I would just like to point out that while this sounds absurd to so many ... it was the original intent of our founding fathers. To wit:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." - Jefferson
So.
I take offense when people laugh off a notion our founding fathers took deadly serious.
That 95% of our country is too docile to ever consider such a notion is all the more reason the 5% need their guns.
Our founding fathers knew very well (and if i could think of how to come by the quote i would just post it) that revolution was not something undertaken by the masses ... it was a select few that were capable of understanding the need for such a thing, and an even smaller few willing to actively participate.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i totally agree. gun rights are more about defending oneself from the government than defending from criminals. the entire gun control issue ignores this completely.
the biggest problem i have with gun control is the fact that they must be registered. that defeats the whole purpose of having one.
Look,
don't try to start talking logic in here.
You're making far too much sense for some of these folks.
Besides, its easy to take away guns.
Its hard to focus on the root causes of systemic violence.
And this is America, it hasn't wanted to undertake anything hard since it put a man on the moon.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
so in other words, you're agreeing with me that there's no LEGITIMATE reason to own an assault rifle.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
reborn!! where ya been man, train needs ya
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
You're not going to change society, so all you're left with is locking up all violent offenders for a very, very long time. Screw the mandatory minimums, let's go for mandatory maximums! As our former governor the trucking company owner used to say, "Load 'em high and tight."
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
IMO opinion no. but I dont want the government to be the only ones who can own one. not like they would ever do anything, but when one side sees no chance of being challenged, you never know what could happen.
"That Washington was not a scholar is certain. That he is too illiterate, unlearned, unread for his station and reputation is equally beyond dispute."
- President John Adams
Now that's what you call some old-school trash talk
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
hell if i know. i think at some point its inevitable that a well armed populace would be nessecary. Probably not in my life time, but I'm sure the Romans at their height never thought they would get invaded either. Assault rifles certainly make invasion a lot harder, just ask the military in Iraq. it makes government domination a lot harder too
We like to think that the way things are now are the way things will always be.
what... afraid the black helicopters are coming after you???
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
I know its super far fetched but having the government being the only ones with guns shouldnt be the case. power to the people!
How super far fetched is it really?
We already have basic gun control.
You can't own a fully automatic weapon, so far as i know.
We certainly aren't entitled to current standard use military armaments & ordinance of any caliber or grade.
No, the American people currently have as their last resort to liberty the simple assault rifle. That is weapon number one. One and only. That and a sidearm.
And what we have now in America are a people so sheepish for the most, that any one with a sharp tooth is now perceived a wolf, and therefore must be defanged.
What I'm saying is, nearly half the population thinks gun control is a good idea, and half of them would like to take it moderately to much further in implementation.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
They certainly weren't complete idiots. They were pretty enlighted, and did many profound things. They weren't gods and shouldn't be worshipped, but you'd have to be quite dense to disregard the amazing work they did.
I'm with you.
It is funny how so many people want or need to the government to be the answer for all that ails them from education, to healthcare, to handouts, to personal protection.
According to your posts, you seem to think that the 2nd ammendment exists to regulate guns for hunting. I can see why you'd be confused.
Protection, sport, hunting, collecting. There are many LEGITIMATE reasons for owning firearms.
What about arms such as nukes? Should only the government be allowed to have nukes? Power to the people
The same thing it takes for all real true conflict resolution. Open Minds, Good Attitudes, The ability to listen without being offended by opposing viewpoints.
... exactly. Why can't the Americans have H bombs, tanks, anti-tank weapons, landmines... Restrictions, restrictions and restrictions...
The people who say they have guns and assault rifles etc. for protection against the government are in my opinion a bit naive or paranoid.
Another argument that is often used why gun control, gun restriction ... won't work is because criminals can easily get their hands on weapons. So by banning guns or restricting the laws, you'd only create a state in which criminals have all the guns.
So by that logic you don't need to own a gun, you can just buy one illegally when you need one. Criminals do it all the time, and when you plan to revolt against the government you are by definition (of that gov't) a criminal already.
It's also rather funny that when people suggest your government killed its own citizens (like the 9/11 conspiracy etc.), they are completely insane and ridiculous. But yet those who called them "kooks" and crazy cite 'protection against the government' as a reason to own a gun.
Anyway, the way I see it is if your government decides to turn on you, you're fucked whether you have guns or not because people always forget one thing. It's not just about power, it's about brainwashing, influencing people. In Hitler's time jews were the back sheep of Germany and the world, they were the cancer of the world and they were the cause of all the problems of Germany. And Hitler started making life easier and better for the German people, created jobs etc.
You really think your government would just turn on you? No, they'd go about it the same way Hitler did.
A lot of people would be with the government including a lot of gun owners. And that's when the "fun" begins, you helps an illegal immigrant or muslim (jew in nazi times) and your neighbour, a good citizen, kills you with his guns for being a traitor.
naděje umírá poslední
My argument has always been one of liberty and civil liberties. No I do not trust the government nor should anyone. Currently I own no firearms but I like that I have the right to legally should I desire one.
I do not believe in the governments ability to prohibit nearly anything effectively and it's another reason I am steadfastly against the war on drugs. I think outlawing weapons would only needlessly imprison more people who aren't doing anything wrong to stop a few people who are while seemlessly creating an immense black market for illicit weapons. People have always been really really adept at killing each other. Gun prohibition isn't going to change that.
I am absolutely for education at young ages as to how they work, muzzle control, proper use, misuse and how not to hurt yourself...IE if you find a gun kids DO NOT TOUCH IT or play with it....always assume it is loaded. I am also for expansion of hunter safety courses as I think they help give people a healthy respect for weapons. The other issue of course is providing citizens with a healthy respect for human life which simply dosen't exist in some parts of the world.
I'm also for better background checks especially medical; Extremely tough legislation on commiting felonies with firearms; and the promotion of gun safety devices such as trigger locks.
I want to take firearms out of the hands of criminals but not out of the hands of people who do not wish to do harm with them.
"The shooting comes 10 months after 32 students and staff were shot by a student at Virginia Tech University in one of the worst shootings ever at a US school.
But it is also the fourth shooting at a US school within a week."
When I read this I think of the families and the people affected by these heinous acts, they're lives suddenly shattered by a mad person with a gun.
Some people might make the redundant and rather stupid observation that the perpetrator could have used a number of weapons, or how he could have made a bomb. I say redundant because he didn't use a knife or a home made bomb, he used a gun. Most of them use guns. There's a reason for that. It's because they're effective and easy to get your hands on. Also, it seems that committing suicide after the violent acts is or is becoming a popular trend. Try that with a home made bomb.
Gun supporters' rights to keep and bear arms are so important that no amount of students, women, neighbours, children killed by gun fire will make them change their minds. They're not even willing to give certain restrictions a try (mandatory exams and classes, background checks, gun registration...). These shootings are a huge problem, people are dying but apparently that's not worth implementing possible solutions. Keep on guessing it won't work without giving it a try.
naděje umírá poslední
Apparently over 10 000 people are killed in gun related deaths in the US every year. Now we have had a whole war over 9/11 but nothing has been done to even slightly curb gun violence. There need to be restrictions - I can't believe that people are willing to just accept these sort of occurences.
So your okay with massacres at universities and high schools?