|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 24 2012 04:12 Adila wrote:
One thing I don't understand is we have limits to the 1st Amendment. Why can't we have limits to the 2nd Amendment?
You would think that the Founding Fathers would have placed guns as the 1st Amendment if it were that much more important.
We do have limits. It is called gun control. It already exists.
|
On December 24 2012 06:33 Sanctimonius wrote:
Wait, that was it? You note there's a first part (my apologies, I got it the wrong way round) but nothing about the militia part? Again, the amendment specifically states the gun owners should be part of a militia in order to preserve the freedom of the state. What militia are you drilling with in an effort to protect the US from outside invaders, of which you obviously have many since you're demanding the right to own guns. The amendment specifically pairs gun ownership with threats to the US from outside - the whole 'militia being necessary to the security of a free state' thing - so what is this threat you're fearing, and how often are you training with this militia?
I made a few more points in my post too, but you didn't answer them. I know it's hard to defend gun ownership beyond 'well these be my guns and I should have them, just because' but I find it hard to take the gun lobby seriously when it blames video games rather than lax gun controls for tragedies. When it demands the rights to carry hand guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles. When you suggest that Cfucking4 should be allowed to citizens of the US, RPGs - can I claim a tank is a weapon?
It does not say I have to be in a militia to own a gun.. SCOTUS has ruled on this.. Try again buddy.. It says.. The right of the people.. not the right of only people in militias.. you say..'militia being necessary to the security of a free state'.. but there is a comma after militia..
Watch what I can do.."being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." SCOTUS has ruled.. I'll accept their authority over yours..
I've said before on this subject.. I don't think C4 and tanks..or artillery should be allowed in the hands of everyday citizens... I would love for you to show where I said I did..
I missed the day in debate class where is says I must refute everything you say.. 'well these be my guns and I should have them, just because' Where has anyone said this? I find it hard to take anti-gun arguments seriously that are complete bullshit.. Would you stand on a stage.. behind a podium and debate like this..
I feel worried when I'm surrounded by people carrying guns, especially when I cannot vouch for their training or mental stability, so I should be allowed to protect myself with an armoured vehicle that can wipe out them and their homes, just because.
So.. would you kill people just because you're worried about them? Then you are a perfect example of someone who should never own a weapon and an even better example of a joke.. It's not cool to kill people
|
Your comments about anti tank weapondry and c4 not being allowed in the hands of people is silly. You can make all these things with simple chemicals from your bathroom and from a farm. Electronics are wildly availiable and easy to wire for explosives.
The malitia part is a confusion on your part. When they wrote it the only military the nation had was varius state militias. It means the same thing if they said a military is needed for the defence of a free state but the military shall not infringe on the peoples rights to bear ( scotus has ruled this means carry outside the home keep means inside the home) arms.
You should really be less argumentative when asking about something you don't understand.
|
Show nested quote +
On December 24 2012 03:24 Sjokola wrote:
I think that even with heavier weaponry civilians couldn't do anything substantial. Untrained, unorganised, and still w/o tanks real AA. You could only stop an invader from keeping you occupied but not from advancing to f.e. the capital.
OK.. so then you are suggesting.. that since, in your mind, I MIGHT not "realistically" be able to stand my ground with even modern weaponry.. I should just live on my knees and allow someone to oppress me?
If you could not make an impact an when a foreign power would invade the US (which will not happen (in our lifetime at the least)) do you still think it's worth all the death, murder and killing that is happening and being possible because of the wide spread of guns?
|
On December 24 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
Your comments about anti tank weapondry and c4 not being allowed in the hands of people is silly. You can make all these things with simple chemicals from your bathroom and from a farm. Electronics are wildly availiable and easy to wire for explosives.
The malitia part is a confusion on your part. When they wrote it the only military the nation had was varius state militias. It means the same thing if they said a military is needed for the defence of a free state but the military shall not infringe on the peoples rights to bear ( scotus has ruled this means carry outside the home keep means inside the home) arms.
You should really be less argumentative when asking about something you don't understand.
We don't hang onto every clause in the Magna Carta. The relevance of the constitution to this discussion... well, it shouldn't have any relevance. It's an old document and should be understood in the context of when it was written. The situation now is entirely different. Also, we know that explosives can be made out of everyday goods. It's not in any way ridiculous to say people shouldn't be able to possess those explosives, and it's a large part of what your FBI and our MI5 spend time monitoring.
|
On December 24 2012 06:59 bardtown wrote:
The fact that these school massacres are so frequent in the US really should be enough to ring alarm bells in your head.
There have been around 34 "massacres" since 2000.. of those I think like 7 have been is schools/universities..
I myself wouldn't claim they are "so frequent"... but I would agree that it is 7 too many
|
The magna carta had no influence on you or any other non "royal" person. Try again on your comparisons to historical documents. The intent of the constitution is as clear then as it is now even if the wording has fallen out of favor. Its as much of the basis of our country as is the feudal system is to yours.
And I made that statement as much to an as to anyone else. They teach us how to build anti tank weapondry and other explosives in high schol as well as enough knowedge to build our own guns given the right tools. A resistance in america is entirely unthinkable from a military idelogical or even geopolitical situation. People who talk about it should be called out and laughed at.
|
On December 24 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
The malitia part is a confusion on your part. When they wrote it the only military the nation had was varius state militias. It means the same thing if they said a military is needed for the defence of a free state but the military shall not infringe on the peoples rights to bear ( scotus has ruled this means carry outside the home keep means inside the home) arms.
..
I don't understand what you said at the end there... but understand this..
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”
I didn't say this..Justice Scalia did.. but here's what SCOTUS said..
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Now let me quote you someone you know.. but I had to edit it slightly
You should really be less argumentative ... about something you don't understand.
|
You did suggest c4, when you said I dunno about c4 of explosives (did you mean or? Anyways...). It should be an emphatic no. You also said almost any weapon. Where is the cutoff? Which weapons are acceptable and which aren't?
Now, my point wasn't that I would go out killing people. Thank you for taking an obviously ridiculous statement seriously. It's that I do not feel comfortable with a number of armed people surrounding me, exercising their rights to carry weaponry, especially when I have no knowledge of their training, their psychological well-being, whatever. Who is to say that a person near me is unstable? If that person is armed, they are that much more dangerous. A dangerous person can get a weapon from almost anywhere, an argument frequently made by the gun lobby, which is true; a man out for my life will get a weapon from somewhere. But I'd much prefer to be running from a man with a cleaver than a man with an assault rifle.
Now, I was asking you to refute what I was saying because you've made no real attempt to argue that gun ownership is a good thing, and should be protected. The second amendment is a leftover from a different time, created to answer a certain set of circumstances which no longer apply, yet people are using it to defend their rights to own 'almost any weapon', as you put it. And yes, I am aware the SCOTUS has ruled on the second amendment, it doesn't mean I agree with their ruling. The US legal system has also legalised extraordinary rendition, suspending habeas corpus and wire tapping - doesn't mean it's right, but that's a different argument for a different time.
I am simply asking for a gun owner to please come up with decent arguments why gun ownership is a good thing, why a law crafted for the US in a different time still has any relevance today. I can understand the notion that the gun culture in the US is simply so ingrained that you might as well let people legally carry, but given the choice between a gunless society and a gun carrying one, I would choose the former every day of the week, and find it hard to understand anyone who would argue for the latter.
|
On December 24 2012 07:25 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +
On December 24 2012 03:24 Sjokola wrote:
I think that even with heavier weaponry civilians couldn't do anything substantial. Untrained, unorganised, and still w/o tanks real AA. You could only stop an invader from keeping you occupied but not from advancing to f.e. the capital.
OK.. so then you are suggesting.. that since, in your mind, I MIGHT not "realistically" be able to stand my ground with even modern weaponry.. I should just live on my knees and allow someone to oppress me? If you could not make an impact an when a foreign power would invade the US (which will not happen (in our lifetime at the least)) do you still think it's worth all the death, murder and killing that is happening and being possible because of the wide spread of guns?
I like you... First you come out with a 100%.. (which will never happen)... then your rationality hit you.. (in our lifetime at the least) You allowed like a .5% chance..because smart people know.. there's always a chance
I couldn't honestly answer your question until it's the end of my lifetime.. I'm barely through a quarter of it (hopefully)... Should something happen to the U.S. and our gun actually needed to repel such an invasion.. then yes.. The right to own guns would have been very much worth it..
But as of right now.. I can't give you a yes or a no.. can I get back to you when I'm dying? I tell you honestly.. I don't want innocent people to die at the hands of crazies.. but I don't wanna punish people who haven't done anything wrong..
|
You make the mistake of saying it was made for a different time when that doesn't really matter. The ability of the people to bear arms is still as relevent as parliment having the sole duty and power to raise taxes. Guns crime in usa is almost soley in the cities where and not where the gun toteing rednecks live. Criminals being the only ones allowed to have guns simply makes no sense and nowhere does more gun laws stop criminals from getting guns.
Also c4 just refers to a military grade mix of explosives. Its like saying strawberry cake is the most evil cake and should be banned.
|
On December 24 2012 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
Your comments about anti tank weapondry and c4 not being allowed in the hands of people is silly. You can make all these things with simple chemicals from your bathroom and from a farm. Electronics are wildly availiable and easy to wire for explosives.
The malitia part is a confusion on your part. When they wrote it the only military the nation had was varius state militias. It means the same thing if they said a military is needed for the defence of a free state but the military shall not infringe on the peoples rights to bear ( scotus has ruled this means carry outside the home keep means inside the home) arms.
You should really be less argumentative when asking about something you don't understand.
The Constitution was written after the Revolutionary War. The Continental Army already existed. The Legion of the United States followed. And the United States Army in it's formality was already implemented a year before the Constitution was enacted. It was formed under the Articles of Confederation and was carried over to the the Constitutional United States.
|
On December 24 2012 07:45 Sanctimonius wrote:
Now, I was asking you to refute what I was saying because you've made no real attempt to argue that gun ownership is a good thing, and should be protected.
OK buddy.. I want to do this.. but I want you to do something for me first.. Put my name in the search bar and search by context.. The just please look over what I've said so far in this thread.. Or would you rather me send it all to you in a PM.. because I don't want to keep repeating myself but I would love to have a serious conversation with you about it.
If you search for it yourself I promise I'll cut back on my periods..
|
It should be noted that the bill of rights has a trend: they are protections of the individual from intrusions, demands, and burdens assigned by militaries and governments. Regardless of the language that particular amendment is coated in, when you take it in context, it was obviously intended to permit individuals to own guns for defense of their Castle.
I've heard a lot of creative arguments about the militia thing, but the truth is we don't read it that way, we don't interpret it that way, and nobody understood it to mean that back when they wrote it.
|
You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA. That at the expense of (gasp) some personal freedom. What do you really need a gun for anyway? Shooting for fun, hunting and mudering people. I would argue that you can live a perfectly happy life without these forms of entertainment. And if you say that you need gun for protection, I'll ask you to shoot yourself in the foot, but your own argument does it.
I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible.
Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing.
By the way, I think drugs should be legalized, because:
1. It will stop drug cartels' trading and the violence they cause.
2. Making drugs tax regulated will, in the end, bring more wealth to everybody.
3. You can't blow off another person's head with a lumb of weed, and it's completely optional if you want to blow off your own.
I felt like clearing my view on drugs aswell because I think guns, drug trafficking and murder rates are closely related.
|
On December 24 2012 04:14 Gentso wrote:
Having weapons to protect yourselves from government might have worked when the constitution was created, but good luck fighting against the U.S. government nowadays while they have an organized military with tanks, jets, bombs, navy, etc...
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan beg to differ. Not to mention various other rebellions against organized militaries in places like Syria, Libya, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Palestine,
On December 24 2012 04:14 Gentso wrote:
What other purpose does this amendment have? Having weapons to defend yourself is great, but there are many non-lethal weapons as well!
None of which are effective weapons for most citizens when faced with an (illegally) armed assailant.
On December 24 2012 04:14 Gentso wrote:
I'm personally just have very little confidence in people in general. I don't trust half the people on the road to drive a car let alone handle a weapon that kills so easily.
So you want to decide who gets to drive as well as who gets firearms? Sounds legit...
|
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA. That at the expense of (gasp) some personal freedom. What do you really need a gun for anyway? Shooting for fun, hunting and mudering people. I would argue that you can live a perfectly happy life without these forms of entertainment. And if you say that you need gun for protection, I'll ask you to shoot yourself in the foot, but your own argument does it.
I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible.
Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing.
By the way, I think drugs should be legalized, because:
1. It will stop drug cartels' trading and the violence they cause.
2. Making drugs tax regulated will, in the end, bring more wealth to everybody.
3. You can't blow off another person's head with a lumb of weed, and it's completely optional if you want to blow off your own.
I felt like clearing my view on drugs aswell because I think guns, drug trafficking and murder rates are closely related.
No, they don't. It's muddy at best.
You can live a perfectly happy life without drugs too, and they often cause danger. Don't come in here with your weak analogies and use language like "clear story" and comparing gun rights defenders to religious nuts.
Your argument and what you wrote above shows a complete lack of understanding of what a "right" is and how negative externalities work.
|
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA.
No, they don't. Refer to legitimate criminological sources rather than politically biased ones, and you'll quickly discover that the United States is a major outlier (among first-world nations) in terms of all types of violent crime, not just gun violence. The reasons why are complex, ranging from wealth inequality and population demographics to the war on drugs, but gun control is most certainly not a solution. Local governments in America which have outlawed firearms do not actually see any statistically significant decrease in violent crime.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible.
If you don't understand what a constitution is, or what it's purpose is, please refrain from making bullshit arguments about it.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing.
Shitty strawman. No one is arguing that we shouldn't change anything. Those of us who understand the facts are simply pointing out that outlawing firearms is not the solution.
|
On December 24 2012 09:10 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA. That at the expense of (gasp) some personal freedom. What do you really need a gun for anyway? Shooting for fun, hunting and mudering people. I would argue that you can live a perfectly happy life without these forms of entertainment. And if you say that you need gun for protection, I'll ask you to shoot yourself in the foot, but your own argument does it.
I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible.
Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing.
By the way, I think drugs should be legalized, because:
1. It will stop drug cartels' trading and the violence they cause.
2. Making drugs tax regulated will, in the end, bring more wealth to everybody.
3. You can't blow off another person's head with a lumb of weed, and it's completely optional if you want to blow off your own.
I felt like clearing my view on drugs aswell because I think guns, drug trafficking and murder rates are closely related. No, they don't. It's muddy at best. You can live a perfectly happy life without drugs too, and they often cause danger. Don't come in here with your weak analogies and use language like "clear story" and comparing gun rights defenders to religious nuts. Your argument and what you wrote above shows a complete lack of understanding of what a "right" is and how negative externalities work.
Point 1. Ok, I don't think so.
Point 2. I not trying to advocate the usage of drugs. I'm saying that the regulation of drugs is a cause a lot of violence in USA as well as many other places in the world.
Point 2b. If you hold your arguments to old text, you are locking yourself in - just like I feel biblical literalist do.
Point 3. You're in your full right to say and think that I'm wrong, just like I say and think that you're wrong, but please bring something better to the table than to question my understanding of a word I didn't even use in my original post.
|
On December 24 2012 09:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA. No, they don't. Refer to legitimate criminological sources rather than politically biased ones, and you'll quickly discover that the United States is a major outlier (among first-world nations) in terms of all types of violent crime, not just gun violence. The reasons why are complex, ranging from wealth inequality and population demographics to the war on drugs, but gun control is most certainly not a solution. Local governments in America which have outlawed firearms do not actually see any statistically significant decrease in violent crime. Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible. If you don't understand what a constitution is, or what it's purpose is, please refrain from making bullshit arguments about it. Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing. Shitty strawman. No one is arguing that we shouldn't change anything. Those of us who understand the facts are simply pointing out that outlawing firearms is not the solution.
1. Well, I'm not, at least not intentionally, looking at political bias. But I also tried to rougly base my argument on logic. If fewer people had guns, wouldn't that lead to fewer people dying from guns?
2. How have I even argued WHAT a constitution is. And please tell me how I'm wrong, not that I'm wrong. You gain no credibility just by being you.
3. Assuming you've already posted exactly what you think should be done instead, please link me to that post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
