|
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 March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's kinda funny really, people like you not doing research on another country's society, then proposing changes.
Why would a ban on private ownership be impossible? Go ahead, ban them. Good luck collecting them.
If any new amendment were to redact what something in the bill of rights gauranteed, heads would roll. Literally.
the US Constitution is the document on which the US supreme court bases it's decisions on, so I don't know what you're getting at by saying it isn't. Maybe in your derptastic country the basis of law might be something other than it's constitution, which would frankly be very... interesting.
If the US did, in any way, make firearm ownership illegal, it would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, taken to court, declared that it voilated the constitution and therefor invalid. (frankly I'd be surprised if it even reached the supreme court, considering the precedents)
Do you even have the slightest clue how the US court system works? You clearly have no idea about the basic fundamentals of our laws, considering you said the Constitution was not the highest source of the law.
What is this, babbies first argument against firearm ownership?
|
On March 01 2012 20:40 falaakr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
the point of allowing guns has nothing to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. So you would give all the criminal guns in exchange for maybe have a higher change to win an hypothetical revolution that could maybe happen one day, maybe, when the goverment would have turned evil. Are you aware that your son being shot by a thug that paniced is very mire likely to happen? I hope then you will think about why did this thug had a gun.
Why do go back to saying it like that? I told you how dishonest that wording is. "GIVE ALL THE CRIMINALS GUNS". Yes, I'm sure EVERY responsible American wants to go out door to door handing every known criminal a gun and saying "Have fun!"
HELLLLLLL NO. Everyone wants to do whatever possible to keep them out of their hands, while still maintaining the right to keep it in mine. It's a compromise. For liberty. You can say it's not worth it. I can say I disagree.
But stop saying anyone is a proponent of providing criminals with guns.
And my son won't have to worry about being shot by a petty thug, because he will have the training neccessary to disarm a petty untrained criminal if the situation calls for it, and he will be encouraged to train defend himself using firearms if he chooses to want to know that.
Yes, I would risk the tiny little chance of my son ever being shot and killed by a gun, to keep gun ownership legal in this country. (OHHH DID HE JUST SAY THAT? OMG HE'S SUCH A DOUCHE.) I would go to war and die for your right to own a gun in this country if someone threatened to take it away. Notice I said I would go to war and die for your RIGHT. You can follow the word right with whatever right you want.
|
mr_tolkien France. March 01 2012 20:50. Posts 2183 PM Profile Blog Quote # Reading this thread hurted my brain. Misconceptions, misconceptions everywhere. #1 think I'll remember from US gun-nuts is that if you don't have a gun, you're not in safety. THAT MAKES SENSE, look at Europe ! We're all fearing for our lives ! Last edit: 2012-03-01 20:50:49 French Caster - http://www.youtube.com/user/mrtolkien
You can speak, you live in a military school.
|
On March 01 2012 20:49 falaakr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:42 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
In fact these place do exist. At least something that is very close to it.
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. You are implying that the American people on majority would ever do such a thing. They won't. It's like asking Brits to get rid of the Queen, or the Netherlands to ban wooden clogs.... I know these are bad examples because there is no terrible statistics to justify getting rid of 'em, but I'm saying it's part of the country's ancestry, heritage, culture....everything that they feel makes them countrymen. Firearms in America represent more than just personal protection and safety, they represent an ideal.....an ideal that you will always be so individual that you are allowed to own a deadly weapon, but so unified as a nation that you could band together with your weapons to overthrow your government or any foreign invaders. An ideal that for 200+ years your ancestors have fought and died by the gun for freedom and liberty, and you have not just the right but the obligation as an American citizen to do the same thing if need be. 'Put your trust in God; but mind to keep your powder dry' -Cromwell Well, in fact the majority of americans don't even need to accept that. But it's true that very few political men would do such thing, because they usually want to be reelected. (and that's why democraty is bad, but sadly all the other systems we know are worse). But i think that one day americans will change their mind. At least i hope so.
It's not about being reelected. It's about representing the American people and doing what they want. The way our government works would require a VAST majority of the American people to want to ban guns, and that will never happen. Democracy is bad because it lets the people choose what they want instead of having some wealthy/powerful guys who claim to be super wise and know what's best for us tell us how we are going to live instead of letting us decide for ourselves?
This is why you will never understand American gun law, because you don't understand freedom and liberty, or its price.
|
On March 01 2012 20:40 falaakr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
the point of allowing guns has nothing to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. So you would give all the criminal guns in exchange for maybe have a higher change to win an hypothetical revolution that could maybe happen one day, maybe, when the goverment would have turned evil. Are you aware that your son being shot by a thug that paniced is very mire likely to happen? I hope then you will think about why did this thug had a gun.
are you aware that you are arguing a position that doesn't actually exist in reality? please point to where i mentioned anything about giving criminals any guns. they are banned from owning guns and it has already been explained in the thread that they can only procure guns illegally, which they can do anyway in any country. they are already breaking the law by having one, so whether they're banned in the first place or they're banned after you're a criminal, they can still come by them illegally if they try hard enough.
are you also aware that my son being shot by a thug is actually less likely to happen than the US government becoming so corrupt that we need to have a revolution to restructure it? it is already this way now, whereas almost nobody ever gets shot out of something like emotional panic. that's not your point though, you are essentially asking whether it's important to have liberty or security. the ben franklin quote suffices. it comes in many forms, but:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
if my son were to be shot by a thug, it wouldn't be because of a "thug panicking." having actually lived in the ghetto, that is such an unlikely hypothetical situation that i'm not sure how to even respond to it. my hypothetical situation is at least based on a REAL situation that is the basis for the entire argument in the first place, you just made some shit up. i can just say to you back, "what if my son got shot by a thug that panicked, and he died because he didn't have a gun to defend himself?"
ignoring the fact that the right to bear arms has to do with government, the very fact that guns are easy to come by via illegal means as long as they can access an illegal supplier means that regardless of whether they are banned or not, the hypothetical thug will still have one. thus, your whole position is pointless and your appeal to my emotion by bringing my family into it is rather an immature way to argue.
|
On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47.
Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors.
|
On March 01 2012 20:49 falaakr wrote:
Well, in fact the majority of americans don't even need to accept that. But it's true that very few political men would do such thing, because they usually want to be reelected. (and that's why democraty is bad, but sadly all the other systems we know are worse).
But i think that one day americans will change their mind. At least i hope so.
Well if this were a democracy, we wouldn't have elected officials. We're a Republic.
Why would we want to surrender our rights? Where does it stop? I mean, throughout history, it can be argued very easily that Speech has led to the use of force fairly often, so why not ban free speech? Hell, might as well not let people assemble, because that leads to the use of force. And you want the right to trial? Well, the government knows best, you're probably in prison for a good reason.
Yeah, you're just stupid.
|
On March 01 2012 20:50 mr_tolkien wrote:
Reading this thread hurted my brain. Misconceptions, misconceptions everywhere.
#1 think I'll remember from US gun-nuts is that if you don't have a gun, you're not in safety.
THAT MAKES SENSE, look at Europe ! We're all fearing for our lives !
Not right now. I hope for your sake it never happens. But you'll wish your countrymen had not given up your gun rights so easily if your country ever collapses into a tyrannical police state, or you are ever invaded by an enemy on a large scale. The American people don't want to play those odds.
|
On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors.
i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis.
in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering.
also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for.
|
On March 01 2012 20:52 allerion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's kinda funny really, people like you not doing research on another country's society, then proposing changes. Why would a ban on private ownership be impossible? Go ahead, ban them. Good luck collecting them. If any new amendment were to redact what something in the bill of rights gauranteed, heads would roll. Literally. the US Constitution is the document on which the US supreme court bases it's decisions on, so I don't know what you're getting at by saying it isn't. Maybe in your derptastic country the basis of law might be something other than it's constitution, which would frankly be very... interesting. If the US did, in any way, make firearm ownership illegal, it would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, taken to court, declared that it voilated the constitution and therefor invalid. (frankly I'd be surprised if it even reached the supreme court, considering the precedents) Do you even have the slightest clue how the US court system works? You clearly have no idea about the basic fundamentals of our laws, considering you said the Constitution was not the highest source of the law. What is this, babbies first argument against firearm ownership?
Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law.
I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change.
Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants?
|
On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for.
It would seem that most of their argument comes down to whether your use of the word "slightly" more difficult for criminals to obtain is accurate. This seems to be the crux of their view: that it is damn near impossible for a common criminal to get a gun in a society that has banned guns. I would love to see some statistics that back up this hypothesis, but unfortunately black market gun dealers and criminals aren't known for their willingness to participate in surveys about their undertakings. Just the fact that crimes involving the threat or use of guns continue to occur in these European nations should be proof that guns are still attainable, even if it is more expensive or more scarce. Is the price/scarcity in the black market, and the reduction of accidental injury and death from irresponsibility worth a complete ban for all upstanding members of society? They say yes. I say no. That's pretty much the end of the discussion I guess.
|
On March 01 2012 21:10 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:52 allerion wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's kinda funny really, people like you not doing research on another country's society, then proposing changes. Why would a ban on private ownership be impossible? Go ahead, ban them. Good luck collecting them. If any new amendment were to redact what something in the bill of rights gauranteed, heads would roll. Literally. the US Constitution is the document on which the US supreme court bases it's decisions on, so I don't know what you're getting at by saying it isn't. Maybe in your derptastic country the basis of law might be something other than it's constitution, which would frankly be very... interesting. If the US did, in any way, make firearm ownership illegal, it would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, taken to court, declared that it voilated the constitution and therefor invalid. (frankly I'd be surprised if it even reached the supreme court, considering the precedents) Do you even have the slightest clue how the US court system works? You clearly have no idea about the basic fundamentals of our laws, considering you said the Constitution was not the highest source of the law. What is this, babbies first argument against firearm ownership? Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law. I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change. Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants?
There is a huge difference in America between just the generic word for superseding federal law (Constitution) and the Bill of Rights..... the Bill of Rights is like an American Human Rights declaration, pretty much non-negotiable here. And protection of gun ownership falls under the Bill of Rights.
EDIT: My point: gun rights in America are seen as just as common as the right to drive a vehicle or the right to eat meat. The government can't 'decide' to take it away, it's engrained in society.
|
On March 01 2012 21:10 Ryder. wrote:
Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law.
I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change.
Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants?
What I am opposed to is the idea that the government can take away the rights of the people. Whether you agree with those rights is irrelevant, the idea that someone could support the idea that the government should take away a right currently guaranteed to the people is disturbing.
Well, in regards to quoting the constitution isn't a good argument against change-
The US Constitution is a guideline as to how the country is run. It has been amendended quite a bit, actually, once you take into account the process of ratifying an amendment. It is a document that is able to adapt if a vast majority of the federal or state governments see fit. To disregard it as irrelevent because the original document was written 230ish years ago is frankly quite silly. Taking that attitude toward the document is undermining what progress the country has made in it's lifespan, and in my opinion, a view that will only delay progress.
|
On March 01 2012 21:23 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:10 Ryder. wrote:On March 01 2012 20:52 allerion wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's kinda funny really, people like you not doing research on another country's society, then proposing changes. Why would a ban on private ownership be impossible? Go ahead, ban them. Good luck collecting them. If any new amendment were to redact what something in the bill of rights gauranteed, heads would roll. Literally. the US Constitution is the document on which the US supreme court bases it's decisions on, so I don't know what you're getting at by saying it isn't. Maybe in your derptastic country the basis of law might be something other than it's constitution, which would frankly be very... interesting. If the US did, in any way, make firearm ownership illegal, it would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, taken to court, declared that it voilated the constitution and therefor invalid. (frankly I'd be surprised if it even reached the supreme court, considering the precedents) Do you even have the slightest clue how the US court system works? You clearly have no idea about the basic fundamentals of our laws, considering you said the Constitution was not the highest source of the law. What is this, babbies first argument against firearm ownership? Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law. I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change. Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants? There is a huge difference in America between just the generic word for superseding federal law (Constitution) and the Bill of Rights..... the Bill of Rights is like an American Human Rights declaration, pretty much non-negotiable here. And protection of gun ownership falls under the Bill of Rights. EDIT: My point: gun rights in America are seen as just as common as the right to drive a vehicle or the right to eat meat. The government can't 'decide' to take it away, it's engrained in society. EDIT2: In fact, they are seen as more common, more obligatory than that. Gun rights are in the Bill of Rights, which means it is on the same level as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
|
On March 01 2012 21:23 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:10 Ryder. wrote:On March 01 2012 20:52 allerion wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's kinda funny really, people like you not doing research on another country's society, then proposing changes. Why would a ban on private ownership be impossible? Go ahead, ban them. Good luck collecting them. If any new amendment were to redact what something in the bill of rights gauranteed, heads would roll. Literally. the US Constitution is the document on which the US supreme court bases it's decisions on, so I don't know what you're getting at by saying it isn't. Maybe in your derptastic country the basis of law might be something other than it's constitution, which would frankly be very... interesting. If the US did, in any way, make firearm ownership illegal, it would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, taken to court, declared that it voilated the constitution and therefor invalid. (frankly I'd be surprised if it even reached the supreme court, considering the precedents) Do you even have the slightest clue how the US court system works? You clearly have no idea about the basic fundamentals of our laws, considering you said the Constitution was not the highest source of the law. What is this, babbies first argument against firearm ownership? Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law. I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change. Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants? There is a huge difference in America between just the generic word for superseding federal law (Constitution) and the Bill of Rights..... the Bill of Rights is like an American Human Rights declaration, pretty much non-negotiable here. And protection of gun ownership falls under the Bill of Rights. EDIT: My point: gun rights in America are seen as just as common as the right to drive a vehicle or the right to eat meat. The government can't 'decide' to take it away, it's engrained in society.
Again honest question (because I don't know US history): but does the Bill of Rights ever get updated? It's not word for word the same thing as what US founding fathers wrote for a country in different times is it?
And yeah, as an Australian looking in, I'm against guns as a whole, but your point is true. Banning guns in USA tomorrow would make the issue worse, but regulating the ownership of guns more strictly (as we discussed on the previous page) would be accepted more easily and be a step in the right direction.
|
On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. + Show Spoiler +i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis.
in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering.
also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for.
It's a baseless assumption that the majority of soldiers would oppose the government. And in any case the guns that civilians own would have absolutely no bearing on the result of a civil war. As I tried to explain to you: our military is extremely advanced. The AK-47 that you're so fond of isn't going to help you against air strikes or any of the other features of a modern force. Of course this all irrelevant though; only in the paranoid mind of a militia member is there any possibility that the United States government is going to turn tyrannical. If we're going to shape gun laws around a supposed danger then there should be evidence of it.
|
On March 01 2012 21:35 bittman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:23 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Ryder. wrote:On March 01 2012 20:52 allerion wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's kinda funny really, people like you not doing research on another country's society, then proposing changes. Why would a ban on private ownership be impossible? Go ahead, ban them. Good luck collecting them. If any new amendment were to redact what something in the bill of rights gauranteed, heads would roll. Literally. the US Constitution is the document on which the US supreme court bases it's decisions on, so I don't know what you're getting at by saying it isn't. Maybe in your derptastic country the basis of law might be something other than it's constitution, which would frankly be very... interesting. If the US did, in any way, make firearm ownership illegal, it would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, taken to court, declared that it voilated the constitution and therefor invalid. (frankly I'd be surprised if it even reached the supreme court, considering the precedents) Do you even have the slightest clue how the US court system works? You clearly have no idea about the basic fundamentals of our laws, considering you said the Constitution was not the highest source of the law. What is this, babbies first argument against firearm ownership? Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law. I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change. Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants? There is a huge difference in America between just the generic word for superseding federal law (Constitution) and the Bill of Rights..... the Bill of Rights is like an American Human Rights declaration, pretty much non-negotiable here. And protection of gun ownership falls under the Bill of Rights. EDIT: My point: gun rights in America are seen as just as common as the right to drive a vehicle or the right to eat meat. The government can't 'decide' to take it away, it's engrained in society. Again honest question (because I don't know US history): but does the Bill of Rights ever get updated? It's not word for word the same thing as what US founding fathers wrote for a country in different times is it? And yeah, as an Australian looking in, I'm against guns as a whole, but your point is true. Banning guns in USA tomorrow would make the issue worse, but regulating the ownership of guns more strictly (as we discussed on the previous page) would be accepted more easily and be a step in the right direction.
No, the Bill of Rights is simply a name for the first 10 amendments of the National Constitution, but they are called that because they are seen as separate and unquestionable. Nothing has been changed since 1791 in these first 10 amendments, and no one, not even progressives, think it should be changed. They simply want to infer different meanings from the wording to apply to today. These 10 amendments were so well written that they surprisingly apply perfectly today as they did 200 years ago.
|
On March 01 2012 21:39 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. + Show Spoiler +i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis.
in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering.
also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. It's a baseless assumption that the majority of soldiers would oppose the government. And in any case the guns that civilians own would have absolutely no bearing on the result of a civil war. As I tried to explain to you: our military is extremely advanced. The AK-47 that you're so fond of isn't going to help you against air strikes or any of the other features of a modern force. Of course this all irrelevant though; only in the paranoid mind of a militia member is there any possibility that the United States government is going to turn tyrannical. If we're going to shape gun laws around a supposed danger then there should be evidence of it.
Just because we live in a modern society doesn't mean that man's base nature hasn't changed or history won't repeat itself. Look at the collapses of nations in the past. Look at revolutions. The only thing that can preserve America as it stands now is an armed populace, because, as you said, not all military members will forsake duty for country.It's a baseless assumption to assume the majority would hold fast to their orders. For you to call his position baseless, you obviously don't know how military members are inducted here. The majority would take up arms with the people against tyrannical government. When they are sworn into service, they are sworn to protect the Constitution, and they are sworn to turn on the government if the government ever commands them to turn on the Constitution or the people. And they care a lot about defending the American people, or else they would not have given everything up to do what they do.
Also, you have this notion that air strikes and drone recon and ground armor assault and naval warfare is conducted by anyone but the average US soldier. It's not. Obviously pilots are above average in intelligence, but that's even more reason that they would be thinking people who would not drop bombs on their countrymen when they know their countrymen are trying to defend what they themselves are called to defend. They are not cold emotionless killers who don't have individual thoughts. Your argument makes less and less sense as I think about it.
EDIT: Just because you say we've evolved as a society and there is zero chance America could collapse into tyranny doesn't make it so. As I said, history repeats itself. Sure, I'll concede the chance is very slim. But as long as there is a chance, there will be patriots at the ready to defend. But the reason the chance is very slim here is because of the threat they pose. As someone said before, a government should always be afraid of its people. The reason tyranny has happened in the past is the public was complacent, or couldn't do anything about it because their freedom to had been removed.
|
Carry on your argument with yourself, it has nothing to do with me.
|
On March 01 2012 21:26 allerion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:10 Ryder. wrote:
Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law.
I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change.
Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants? What I am opposed to is the idea that the government can take away the rights of the people. Whether you agree with those rights is irrelevant, the idea that someone could support the idea that the government should take away a right currently guaranteed to the people is disturbing. Well, in regards to quoting the constitution isn't a good argument against change- The US Constitution is a guideline as to how the country is run. It has been amendended quite a bit, actually, once you take into account the process of ratifying an amendment. It is a document that is able to adapt if a vast majority of the federal or state governments see fit. To disregard it as irrelevent because the original document was written 230ish years ago is frankly quite silly. Taking that attitude toward the document is undermining what progress the country has made in it's lifespan, and in my opinion, a view that will only delay progress.
I wasn't talking about the government just taking it away, I was implying something more along the lines of a referendum where it is evident that the majority of the population was in favour of it.
And I'm not saying it is irrelevant because it was 230 years old, I'm saying that values can most definitely change over that kind of time length, so treating it as gospel for the sole reason that it is the constitution doesn't make much sense to me. If people are happy with the way things are then don't fix what isn't broken, but saying that it will never ever be changed purely because it is what it is just seems silly to me.
At least judging from this thread alone most Americans seem to be pro gun ownership, so this is all hypothetical anyway.
Anyway, has been interesting reading through this thread to see all the flip side arguments, but I still think a lot of them are without merit. These seem to be the common ones;
1. Guns have other uses besides shooting other people, like hunting- Whilst somewhat relevant, this doesn't explain why handguns are legal.
2. The whole 'government becoming a tyrannical dictatorship thing'- Why would the military side with the government if this happened? I find it hard to believe they would turn on their friends and family and stand behind a crazy government. Even if that did happen, what are a couple of handguns going to do when a trained military start rolling down with tanks and airstrikes?
3. Defending your country in case of invasion; Honestly I just find this one silly; similar to point 2, if another country has the capacity to take down the most powerful military on this planet, I really don't think the rubble armed with handguns will stop them.
4. The hypothetical situations about somebody breaking into your house to rape and kill your family is just ridiculously unlikely. Unless they are psychopathic, a thief will choose not to confront the owner, the same way (as someone said earlier) that most rapists are cowards, and would much prefer to attack an alone, vulnerable woman down a dark alley, not break into your house and do it in front of you. In which case, self defense lessons/mace would probably be a better option for a woman to arm herself with.
How does the law work over in the US anyway? If you shoot and kill somebody who has broken into your house, is that a punishable offense? I have heard of so many cases over here that people trying to defend their property (without guns) have been liable if they injure the thief (either directly or indirectly).
Anyway getting tired so I will finish this post up here, not trying to be offensive so I hope my post doesn't come off the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
