|
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 30 2012 03:22 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them. By far the most coherent and comprehensive post here. Just sticky it to the start, then choose a "pro" post that seems good to you and we can lock this thread :p
IDK, a lot of his points are kind of flawed:
the whole "assault rifle vs. tank LOL! you lose" argument is flawed on it's face. the military is not the only form of governmental oppression that a gun can protect you from. case in point: there have been cops who exercise their authority in a disgusting manner, sometimes assaulting or even murdering innocent people. two, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the military would all, as one, join in the destruction of a rebellion (if one should occur). common sense would lead us to believe that at least some of the military would join the rebellion and would take their tanks with them. three, something is better than nothing, and the idea that a well-armed populace is useless against a modern military betrays a complete lack of understanding of the nature of modern warfare. (especially warfare against one's own populace)
furthermore, the argument that guns kill people and therefore need to be destroyed is ridiculous. of course they kill people. killing people ain't always a bad thing (even if it is always an undesirable thing).
three, he completely strawmans the opposition by assuming it's all based on "guns are so cool brah!" and not on a coherent, logical line of thinking that just happens to disagree with his own reasoning. he follows this by insulting everyone who disagrees with him ("stupid political ideology" and "pathetic ideology"). people need to learn to argue these things without resorting to such childish insults.
four, he neglects the practical impossibility of removing guns from a society like ours.
and finally, and most importantly, he acts as though a constitutionally enshrined right is something to be simply ignored because it was written a couple hundred years ago. any such interpretation of law is doomed to failure.
|
On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? Show nested quote +http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them.
Pretty much summed up all my thoughts on the issue. Also I think after so many pages of debate, it seems like the anti -gun control side still doesn't realize that the pro- gun control folks dont want an outright ban on guns. Only that stricter regulations should be established to acquire weapons. Heck, we have a much stricter evaluation and licensing system for people to wishing to drive cars. Shouldn't we atleast have something comparable for people wanting to own guns?
|
On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? Show nested quote +http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them.
Dude, a gun can be a defensive tool, heres an example.
Your walking down a side walk and are grabbed and thrown into a alley, not knowing what is to come, you quickly grab your revolver that you have stuffed away in your jacket, and aim the gun towards the person, he did not know you had a weapon so he had not drawn his yet, but you beat him to it. No point in killing him, call the police and get him arrested, you and him didn't die. That gun just saved your life, you had no idea what his intentions were...but you stopped it and thats all that matters.
|
On December 30 2012 03:37 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them. Pretty much summed up all my thoughts on the issue. Also I think after so many pages of debate, it seems like the anti -gun control side still doesn't realize that the pro- gun control folks dont want an outright ban on guns. Only that stricter regulations should be established to acquire weapons. Heck, we have a much stricter evaluation and licensing system for people to wishing to drive cars. Shouldn't we atleast have something comparable for people wanting to own guns?
I understand both sides of the argument, there just needs to be a agreement between the two....no need to worry, one will be found.
|
On December 30 2012 03:37 dronesss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them. Dude, a gun can be a defensive tool, heres an example. Your walking down a side walk and are grabbed and thrown into a alley, not knowing what is to come, you quickly grab your revolver that you have stuffed away in your jacket, and aim the gun towards the person, he did not know you had a weapon so he had not drawn his yet, but you beat him to it. No point in killing him, call the police and get him arrested, you and him didn't die. That gun just saved your life, you had no idea what his intentions were...but you stopped it and thats all that matters.
OK. Let's consider that example.
How many ppl actually carry guns with them? Very few. This means that your scenario of using it for defense is pretty much irrelevant, unless we change so that everybody carries guns. So, should everybody else be carrying guns too? What would it be like if everybody was carrying guns?
Here's some things I can see:
1. If everybody had guns, it would be mainly about reacting fast, which would lead to more reckless shooting and collateral damage and killings.
2. Guns would occasionally be used recklessly as a power tool to threaten ppl who don't agree with you, which would lead to guns being fired much more often in trivial scenarios.
3. There would be a lot of accidental shootings, where someone was shot simply because of being perceived as a threat, regardless of what their true intentions were. This would also lead to a lot of fear. The fear of getting shot without a reason.
4. What about ppl who are under the influence of drugs, or who are mentally unstable? Can we rely on them using their weapons responsibly? Can we really rely on ppl in general to be responsible with a lethal weapon?
5. What if you get caught off guard, and don't get the opportunity to grab your weapon? Then, you're screwed.
6. What if a kid got access to a gun?
Also, consider that the same thing happened in a western european country, and that you had a knife for protection instead. The knife would protect you just the same. And please don't use the a gun will offer better protection argument, because there will always be someone with a bigger gun. Didn't that Colorado cinema shooter wear a body armor? How could you possibly fight against someone like him on equal terms?
In western europe, the police have monopoly on legal guns, and the organized crime have monopoly on illegal guns. Statistics shows that ppl who are not involved in organized crime pretty much never get shot. What this shows is that organized crime never targets normal citizens. Strict gun control removes the guns from the picture when it comes to crime among normal citizens. In other words, it prevents school shootings and other mass shootings, and it minimizes the escalation potential of domestic violence.
This is the real world, not Gotham City. The criminals are not out to get you, but the depressed kid in the neighborhood might be, if he doesn't get enough help.
|
On December 30 2012 06:29 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 03:37 dronesss wrote:On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them. Dude, a gun can be a defensive tool, heres an example. Your walking down a side walk and are grabbed and thrown into a alley, not knowing what is to come, you quickly grab your revolver that you have stuffed away in your jacket, and aim the gun towards the person, he did not know you had a weapon so he had not drawn his yet, but you beat him to it. No point in killing him, call the police and get him arrested, you and him didn't die. That gun just saved your life, you had no idea what his intentions were...but you stopped it and thats all that matters. OK. Let's consider that example. How many ppl actually carry guns with them? Very few. This means that your scenario of using it for defense is pretty much irrelevant, unless we change so that everybody carries guns. So, should everybody else be carrying guns too? What would it be like if everybody was carrying guns? Here's some things I can see: 1. If everybody had guns, it would be mainly about reacting fast, which would lead to more reckless shooting and collateral damage and killings. 2. Guns would occasionally be used recklessly as a power tool to threaten ppl who don't agree with you, which would lead to guns being fired much more often in trivial scenarios. 3. There would be a lot of accidental shootings, where someone was shot simply because of being perceived as a threat, regardless of what their true intentions were. This would also lead to a lot of fear. The fear of getting shot without a reason. 4. What about ppl who are under the influence of drugs, or who are mentally unstable? Can we rely on them using their weapons responsibly? Can we really rely on ppl in general to be responsible with a lethal weapon? 5. What if you get caught off guard, and don't get the opportunity to grab your weapon? Then, you're screwed. 6. What if a kid got access to a gun? Also, consider that the same thing happened in a western european country, and that you had a knife for protection instead. The knife would protect you just the same. And please don't use the a gun will offer better protection argument, because there will always be someone with a bigger gun. Didn't that Colorado cinema shooter wear a body armor? How could you possibly fight against someone like him on equal terms? In western europe, the police have monopoly on legal guns, and the organized crime have monopoly on illegal guns. Statistics shows that ppl who are not involved in organized crime pretty much never get shot. What this shows is that organized crime never targets normal citizens. Strict gun control removes the guns from the picture when it comes to crime among normal citizens. In other words, it prevents school shootings and other mass shootings, and it minimizes the escalation potential of domestic violence. This is the real world, not Gotham City. The criminals are not out to get you, but the depressed kid in the neighborhood might be, if he doesn't get enough help.
1. If everybody had guns, it would be mainly about reacting fast, which would lead to more reckless shooting and collateral damage and killings.
Reacting fast yes, but in the world today guns are used for killing, and defense. Why take the guns away from the people who merely just use them for defense? There are thousands of lives saved each year due to them having a gun on them.
2. Guns would occasionally be used recklessly as a power tool to threaten ppl who don't agree with you, which would lead to guns being fired much more often in trivial scenarios.
I could simply use a box cutter to threaten you, or a knife, a crow bar.
3. There would be a lot of accidental shootings, where someone was shot simply because of being perceived as a threat, regardless of what their true intentions were. This would also lead to a lot of fear. The fear of getting shot without a reason.
Lol, there are already thousands of accidental shootings every day, thats due to in proper training...I kinda agree with you on this but not because of guns, just lack of training. Also, If i see you in my house at 3am, I dont care what your intentions are, your going to get shot.
4. What about ppl who are under the influence of drugs, or who are mentally unstable? Can we rely on them using their weapons responsibly? Can we really rely on ppl in general to be responsible with a lethal weapon?
Lethal weapon, knife? Needle? Glass? Guns are not the only thing that can kill a person.
5. What if you get caught off guard, and don't get the opportunity to grab your weapon? Then, you're screwed.
Ban knifes then, it can be the same scenario.
6. What if a kid got access to a gun?
If you know the laws, which can be different in other states, I live in VA. And the law states if you have children, your weapons must be locked away in a safe. Sharp kitchen knifes are in a kitchen, what if your child got access to one of those?
A knife can not always protect you, I can shoot you before you can even start running towards me.....knifes are good weapons dont get me wrong, but you will never get rid of all the guns.
Also, dont you think home invasion will increase due to criminals knowing the house in unarmed? Happen to the UK, when they banned guns home invasion increased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything. Show nested quote +
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) 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. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
District of Columbia v. Heller
And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again.
Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape.
|
On December 30 2012 07:07 dronesss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 06:29 ninini wrote:On December 30 2012 03:37 dronesss wrote:On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them. Dude, a gun can be a defensive tool, heres an example. Your walking down a side walk and are grabbed and thrown into a alley, not knowing what is to come, you quickly grab your revolver that you have stuffed away in your jacket, and aim the gun towards the person, he did not know you had a weapon so he had not drawn his yet, but you beat him to it. No point in killing him, call the police and get him arrested, you and him didn't die. That gun just saved your life, you had no idea what his intentions were...but you stopped it and thats all that matters. OK. Let's consider that example. How many ppl actually carry guns with them? Very few. This means that your scenario of using it for defense is pretty much irrelevant, unless we change so that everybody carries guns. So, should everybody else be carrying guns too? What would it be like if everybody was carrying guns? Here's some things I can see: 1. If everybody had guns, it would be mainly about reacting fast, which would lead to more reckless shooting and collateral damage and killings. 2. Guns would occasionally be used recklessly as a power tool to threaten ppl who don't agree with you, which would lead to guns being fired much more often in trivial scenarios. 3. There would be a lot of accidental shootings, where someone was shot simply because of being perceived as a threat, regardless of what their true intentions were. This would also lead to a lot of fear. The fear of getting shot without a reason. 4. What about ppl who are under the influence of drugs, or who are mentally unstable? Can we rely on them using their weapons responsibly? Can we really rely on ppl in general to be responsible with a lethal weapon? 5. What if you get caught off guard, and don't get the opportunity to grab your weapon? Then, you're screwed. 6. What if a kid got access to a gun? Also, consider that the same thing happened in a western european country, and that you had a knife for protection instead. The knife would protect you just the same. And please don't use the a gun will offer better protection argument, because there will always be someone with a bigger gun. Didn't that Colorado cinema shooter wear a body armor? How could you possibly fight against someone like him on equal terms? In western europe, the police have monopoly on legal guns, and the organized crime have monopoly on illegal guns. Statistics shows that ppl who are not involved in organized crime pretty much never get shot. What this shows is that organized crime never targets normal citizens. Strict gun control removes the guns from the picture when it comes to crime among normal citizens. In other words, it prevents school shootings and other mass shootings, and it minimizes the escalation potential of domestic violence. This is the real world, not Gotham City. The criminals are not out to get you, but the depressed kid in the neighborhood might be, if he doesn't get enough help. 1. If everybody had guns, it would be mainly about reacting fast, which would lead to more reckless shooting and collateral damage and killings. Reacting fast yes, but in the world today guns are used for killing, and defense. Why take the guns away from the people who merely just use them for defense? There are thousands of lives saved each year due to them having a gun on them.2. Guns would occasionally be used recklessly as a power tool to threaten ppl who don't agree with you, which would lead to guns being fired much more often in trivial scenarios. I could simply use a box cutter to threaten you, or a knife, a crow bar.3. There would be a lot of accidental shootings, where someone was shot simply because of being perceived as a threat, regardless of what their true intentions were. This would also lead to a lot of fear. The fear of getting shot without a reason. Lol, there are already thousands of accidental shootings every day, thats due to in proper training...I kinda agree with you on this but not because of guns, just lack of training. Also, If i see you in my house at 3am, I dont care what your intentions are, your going to get shot.4. What about ppl who are under the influence of drugs, or who are mentally unstable? Can we rely on them using their weapons responsibly? Can we really rely on ppl in general to be responsible with a lethal weapon? Lethal weapon, knife? Needle? Glass? Guns are not the only thing that can kill a person.5. What if you get caught off guard, and don't get the opportunity to grab your weapon? Then, you're screwed. Ban knifes then, it can be the same scenario.6. What if a kid got access to a gun? If you know the laws, which can be different in other states, I live in VA. And the law states if you have children, your weapons must be locked away in a safe. Sharp kitchen knifes are in a kitchen, what if your child got access to one of those?A knife can not always protect you, I can shoot you before you can even start running towards me.....knifes are good weapons dont get me wrong, but you will never get rid of all the guns. Also, dont you think home invasion will increase due to criminals knowing the house in unarmed? Happen to the UK, when they banned guns home invasion increased.
Thousands lives being saved every year because of guns? You can't be serious? If someone is out to kill, it doesn't end with him running away if he sees that you have a gun aswell, it ends with him shooting you off guard, or atleast a minor shootout. If there's a burglary and you bring out a gun, it might lead to him fleeing though, but it could also just escalate things, and then there's a higher risk of someone getting hurt.
In western europe, it's actually harder to commit burglary than in the US, because it's very hard to get guns, and other weapons don't give as much of an edge to the attacker. The aggressor typically gets his weapon ready first, so it's rare that you can grab your gun during a home invasion, and if you do, there's a chance of escalation, which is bad. It's better that the thief can go and get the things he wants and later, the insurance covers your losses. The only guys who actually have guns here, are the ones involved in organized crime, and the only burglary they might get involved in is in wealthy ppl's homes, and these ppl tend to have good alarms, which means that they have to be quick, or disable the alarm somehow. They avoid homes where ppl are at home for those reasons. It's silly to have a gun to protect yourself against burglary. It's just not worth risking lives for something as petty as material things that could be replaced by insurance, especially since it doesn't increase the chances of the criminal getting caught. In fact, the less resistance you make, the longer time he is likely to spend in your house, which increases the chances of him getting caught by the police.
Anyway, it's much harder to catch someone off guard with a knife compared to a gun. You don't have to sneak up to someone and point the gun at them to catch them off guard. Just preventing them from accessing their gun is enough.
A knife can not always protect you, I can shoot you before you can even start running towards me.....knifes are good weapons dont get me wrong, but you will never get rid of all the guns.
You don't get it do you? In Sweden, where guns are banned, the chances of someone threatening you (with material aims in mind) with a gun is extremely rare, and the chances of someone actually wanting to kill you with a gun is non-existent. Here, if someone was trying to murder you, he would wield a knife in 90% of the cases, and another household item in 10% of the cases. Guns just doesn't exist in our civilian crime scenes, with one exception, gang shootings. Is that so hard to understand?
Anyway, when it comes to killings in a household, like a man shooting his wife, having access to a gun serves pretty much no defensive purpose whatsoever, because the aggressor will have the initiative. In Sweden, your only option is a knife or some close range weapon, and there's a much higher chance to escape such a situation. It also takes a lot more to stab someone with a knife compared to shooting them. To shoot someone, you point and pull a trigger, while stabbing is very physical. You need to slash with conviction and blood will splash at you, and you will hear the screaming at close range. There's a chance that it will lead to a struggle. There's even a chance that the victim might disarm you. Just thinking about murder with a knife makes me feel uneasy. It takes a lot more to kill someone with a knife compared to a gun, both physically and mentally. Guns have no purpose whatsoever in a civil society, just like nuclear weapons, tanks, and all of the military weapons we've invented.
|
On December 30 2012 08:27 a176 wrote:thats glad to know.
It's good evidence that anything involving gun control gets massaged to fit an agenda by a news outlet (one way or the other, depending on political leanings), to the point that news related to anything along those lines is really more like propaganda.
It really helps highlight why people need to have a major skepticism filter turned on when they're reading about anything politicized like this.
Hell, it even lends some credence to the NRA's "Shame on you media" bit in their press conference, even if they did mostly sound batshit.
|
On December 30 2012 07:07 dronesss wrote:
3. There would be a lot of accidental shootings, where someone was shot simply because of being perceived as a threat, regardless of what their true intentions were. This would also lead to a lot of fear. The fear of getting shot without a reason.
Lol, there are already thousands of accidental shootings every day, thats due to in proper training...I kinda agree with you on this but not because of guns, just lack of training. Also, If i see you in my house at 3am, I dont care what your intentions are, your going to get shot.
4. What about ppl who are under the influence of drugs, or who are mentally unstable? Can we rely on them using their weapons responsibly? Can we really rely on ppl in general to be responsible with a lethal weapon?
Lethal weapon, knife? Needle? Glass? Guns are not the only thing that can kill a person.
[…]
Also, dont you think home invasion will increase due to criminals knowing the house in unarmed? Happen to the UK, when they banned guns home invasion increased.
Home invasion (with violent intentions, i.e. others than pure theft) is, I believe, not really an issue in the UK or anywhere else in western and central Europe. It certainly isn't in Germany. Is it an issue in the USA?
To point 4: It's not about being able to kill people with an object. You can do that with just about anything. It's about how easily you can kill with it. A drunk person holding a knife is bad enough, but in most incidents of that kind nobody dies. Drunk person with a gun? Now that is a recipe for trouble.
To point 3: Why does anyone think it's okay to shoot someone on the grounds of them being in your house, 3AM or not? It may be legal where you live (I guess that's different from state to state, though I don't really know), but that is something I could never understand. In Germany you would be tried for manslaughter. Killing a person is only legal if said person threatens to kill other people, and then only if there are no other reasonable means to remove the threat.
One of the main problems of a high gun distribution in a society is that it breeds a culture of fear. And that fear leads to trigger happiness. To justify that claim I present the following scenario:
Imagine you are a burglar. You break into a house and you can assume that the owner possesses a gun (and no, this won't deter burglars). Someone comes down the stairs. He may have his gun on him, so you shoot him before he shoots you.
Now you are the same burglar, but this time in a country where nearly no-one owns any guns. You break into a house; someone comes down the stairs. What do you do? You probably just get the hell out of there.
I, for one, prefer the latter scenario.
|
I think that my fellow country mates (europeans, even british, see how my mind's open...) forgot something : USA is fucked with guns.
There's way too much guns in the us the change the shit. They can't do anything. Killers won't give back their guns, red necks either.
They'll continue to kill eatch other and think that they do it for their own protection. It's in their culture. Please stop trying to give them lessons.
They reached the "non return point" since decades.
The only hope for the US is a Martin Luther King against guns. I doubt he's born though.
|
On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) 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. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape.
The supreme court are the experts on constitutional law, and their decision in Heller being 5:4 correctly reflects the fact that since the time it was written there has never been a consensus on whether the amendment was intended to protect individual or collective rights. Even during the period it was written down in, it might have been a debatable topic because of major political, economic, and social differences between then and now; the loose ties between federal and state powers being the major one, as well as the lack of organized military and police forces being of only slightly less import.
|
On December 30 2012 09:06 Naeth wrote:
To point 3: Why does anyone think it's okay to shoot someone on the grounds of them being in your house, 3AM or not? It may be legal where you live (I guess that's different from state to state, though I don't really know), but that is something I could never understand. In Germany you would be tried for manslaughter. Killing a person is only legal if said person threatens to kill other people, and then only if there are no other reasonable means to remove the threat.
Because we have a right to protect ourselves and our family. Intrusion into a home in the U.S. is the most severe type of intrusion. It's not coincidental that law enforcement can't even enter a home without court approval, or other exigent circumstances. We in America put a high value on protecting our families in our homes. You violate that, you give up your right to life.
On December 30 2012 09:06 Naeth wrote:
One of the main problems of a high gun distribution in a society is that it breeds a culture of fear. And that fear leads to trigger happiness. To justify that claim I present the following scenario:
Imagine you are a burglar. You break into a house and you can assume that the owner possesses a gun (and no, this won't deter burglars). Someone comes down the stairs. He may have his gun on him, so you shoot him before he shoots you.
Now you are the same burglar, but this time in a country where nearly no-one owns any guns. You break into a house; someone comes down the stairs. What do you do? You probably just get the hell out of there.
I, for one, prefer the latter scenario.
What kind of dumbass hypothetical burglar is going to burglarize the home of someone he knows is: a) home, and b) armed. It's a fantasy land you are creating. A burglar will avoid such a circumstance and burglarize the house where it's unlikely armed resistance will be encountered.
|
I was reading this thread and don't understand something. Why do people constantly compare the two incidents one in Connecticut where a lot of people died and one in China where no one died, and ignore all the other ones, and use it as a staple in their arguments for gun control. They are on completely different sides of severity spectrum. I can easily can find an incident where no guns were involved and plenty of deaths and then use it to compare to a shooting with no fatalities involved. Don't get me wrong I realize that guns are more destructive than knives or other tools in the hands of the psychopath, but it's no where near as bad as some people make it out to be.
|
On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) 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. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape.
wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right.
|
On December 30 2012 13:17 iplayBANJO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) 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. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. The supreme court are the experts on constitutional law, and their decision in Heller being 5:4 correctly reflects the fact that since the time it was written there has never been a consensus on whether the amendment was intended to protect individual or collective rights. Even during the period it was written down in, it might have been a debatable topic because of major political, economic, and social differences between then and now; the loose ties between federal and state powers being the major one, as well as the lack of organized military and police forces being of only slightly less import.
They are the final say on the cases that come before them and nothing more, they outsource to other experts to explain t them matters of constitutional law and draw their conclusions from that and their own biases. They aren't experts in linguistics or history, they are judges, not scholars.
|
United States41958 Posts
On December 30 2012 03:11 dronesss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 03:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 03:01 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 02:57 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:55 KwarK wrote:
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible. So, if I am not mistaken. You are saying everyone is guilty with a firearm, because they haven't killed anyone "YET"? That is wrong for someone to sit here and say that. that's not what he's saying.... at all. I mean, I probably agree with you on the actual laws and what-not, but come on, that isn't even close to what he said. Listen, you can not point fingers at gun owners and say "Hes responsible, but he could snap" Why cant I just point my finger at every driver and say, hes a good driver....but what if he started to drink and drive! Oh no! take his license and car away before he does drink and drive......does that sum up on what hes trying to say?> I agree that you can't do that. he is not suggesting that. I'm pretty sure the point is that you can't screen out criminals and insane people from getting guns, because a lot of criminals and insane people don't advertise this fact, and some of these mass murderers have no priors at all. so when you allow easy access to guns, you necessarily open yourself up to those types of people getting guns. you and I might think that it is a worthy trade-off. that our rights as non-criminals and perfectly sane people to own and possess guns outweighs the potential security risks. but it is perfectly valid to lean the other way, and you can argue that on it's merits without strawmanning his point. Ok, then why do we not just enforce our current gun laws better? Instead of just taking them away, just make it harder to get a gun, plain and simple. when you get rid of guns, people will still find ways to kill people so don't expect peace. Just when I or anyone else on this forum is attacked by a criminal and he has a knife, I am sure you and I both would want to be on the end with a gun. Just saying.
My point is exactly he explained it to you, that it does absolutely no good to use the subsequent irresponsible usage of guns to claim these people shouldn't have had guns when, before the incident, they were unremarkable. You cannot treat them as isolated cases, they are certainly abnormal and not representative of the responsible majority but nor are they an identifiable and isolatable group. The finger gets pointed at responsible gun owners because it's difficult to narrow it down beyond that demographic and identify those who won't always act responsibly. As I said, the firefighter shooter was, I believe, a law abiding citizen for a good twelve years before doing this out of the blue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
