Gun rights

[CCS]

Mexico does not allow guns, right? Don't they have extreme shooting down there, way more than up here?

Before we take away all our guns, shouldn't we first take all guns away from other countries? You know gansters are just going to get their guns from another country, bring them in here, and then shoot whom they want since they know we don't have any. They don't have to be afraid because they know this whole country is becoming a weapons free zone. You can't have take a fork out of your kitchen or dining room anymore because it is a weapon.

 

[Hammy070]

I really get puzzled with gun control debates. To me a lot of proponents really are not interested in actual analysis of the issue, they either a) like guns or b) want to religiously 'protect' the US Constitution without examining the context of it.

"We need guns to protect ourselves!" is the oft repeated mantra.

I'm not entirely convinced by that sentiment. Since isn't it illegal to carry around weapons, you remain open to a gun-toting criminal outside, virtually the majority of crimes. I can't recall many instances of gun use by a criminal at the victims property. In fact, an intelligent response to an armed robber is to give them what they want, armed robbers repeat offend and are often already on police systems, they do get caught, eventually. Most robbers do not intend to use the weapon unless threatened with like. So perhaps owning a gun and using it against a robber, gives you only a 50/50 chance of living if he shoots better. Not having a gun gives you and any potential family, a better chance of living.

But aside from that, both schools of thought, apparently believe in protection/security and/or saving lives. I don't see why all arms manufacturing shouldn't be nationalized. That way only national bodies have access to firearms and custom-ammunition. That way, even if a weapon or two were stolen, the ammunition is not universal and will not be replaced very easily. My original suggestion would be to ban weapons outright, but America wouldn't be America without some form of projectile impulse. :roll:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's what your Constitution says about gun ownership.

The first part of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many of the Revolutionary Era state Constitutions. This Declaration states

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[31]

oops :crazy:

The law actually was inherited from English Common Law, but obviously not entirely. The original laws stated a right of arms except in cases of rebellion :whistle:

America itself is a breaking of Constitutional Law, albeit the English one. :freak:

Anyway despite all the above, the issue is cultural. Scotland has a binge drinking problem, a huge one, it's cultural though, banning alcohol doesn't stop the underlying issue. Likewise there are many countries where guns are legal but have a low homocide/gun-crime rates. The gun problem in America is symptomatic, the French don't binge drink despite making the best wine.

Guns are the easiest way to kill. It's a trigger pull. Not much to it, suicide is easier, murder, accidents, everything.

Personally, I am in favour of complete banning of anything related to guns or any kind of firearm, any component. What's wrong with swords? Practising sword stances and combat techniques will discipline children, you could get rid of ADHD and obesity within a year. :mrgreen:

The above is a flowery collection of statements, I don't know too much in detail about the various arguments as I'm not exposed to it often. So I'm receptive to reasoned counter points. Not that it matters I'm not voting am I...and I don't have a gun, but I do have a samurai on display, a more elegant weapon, from a more civilized age (Obi-Wan).

 

[s.a.f]

Its true people who own guns are actually more likely to be killed than those who dont.

 

[bubka]

Where is he getting this "take our guns away" nonsense? Seriously?

 

[Bryan]

Where is he getting this "take our guns away" nonsense? Seriously?

Beats me. Right-wingers like my friend "Old Baldy" (and now CCS appears to be similar) are constantly talking about their worst nightmare, which apparently is the deep fear that somebody is going to get elected who will "take away all our guns". I consider that possibility to be PROFOUNDLY unlikely, but you just can't shake them of that fear. Hell, I'm pretty damned liberal myself (VERY liberal in certain issues), and even _I_ own a gun!

 

[HughJass]

You know gansters are just going to get their guns from another country, bring them in here, and then shoot whom they want since they know we don't have any.

Guns Flow Easily Into Mexico From the U.S.
'Cop-killer' guns from US seen crossing into Mexico

 

[optimus prime]

The question really should be, why are guns not banned already?

 

[HughJass]

Where is he getting this "take our guns away" nonsense? Seriously?

presumably because Dems, soon to be in power, might institute some kind of gun control and as far as republicans are concerned gun control=gun ban :dunno:

unless they can own an m60 machine gun, it's a police state.

 

[Old Baldy]

I won't waste much time trying to convince rabidly anti-gun Hammy or Aussie but Bryan and Bubka are another matter. (From here on out, whenever I use the name Bryan, I'm including Bubka also.)

("The best thing to do is just give the criminal what he wants". WTF!!?? That could be the most naive, ridiculous statement I've ever heard. That type of statement usually comes from someone who has never experienced violence directed towards them by a criminal. Sometimes criminals don't want to leave witnesses for Godsakes. I grew up in Detroit and experienced violence on numerous occasions. I never did what the criminal told me to do unless I had no choice. And when I had a firearm, I used it. The prosecutor concluded it was self-defense. At least some government officials feel we aren't just supposed to do whatever the criminal tells us to do. I would have been killed, no doubt about it. The 2nd amendment saved my life for Godsakes.)

Here's why I absolutely fear Obama: (From my beloved NRA)

Obama"s 10 point plan to change the 2nd amendment 1} Ban use of firearms for home defense 2}Pass federal laws to eliminate your Right-To-Carry 3} Ban the manufacture, sale, and possesion of handguns 4}Close down 90% of the gun stores in America 5}Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting 6} Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500% 7} RESTORE VOTING RIGHTS FOR 5 MILLION CRIMINALS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF USING A GUN TO COMMIT A VIOLENT CRIME 8} Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms 9} Mandate a goverment-issued license to purchase a firearm 10} Appoint judges to the US Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary who share his veiwson the 2nd amendment.

A simple bit of research will reveal Obama has NEVER voted against ANY anti-gun bill that has come across his desk.

He supported DC's TOTAL gun ban on residents of that crime ridden metropolis and has gone on record as stating handguns should be totally banned nationwide. I repeat, he supported DC's total ban on firearms ownership in the landmark DC vs. Heller Sup. Ct., decision. (Thank God my side won that case, albeit by a narrow margin, but this narrow margin also scared me Bryan.)

That's why I fear him Bryan. What more proof do you need for Godsakes!!??

He has gone on record stating ALL semi-auto firearms should be banned. (Whenever you hear someone say that, he/she is really for a total ban on the private ownership of firearms.)

Don't let the rhetoric fool you Bryan. Obama hasn't the faintest idea of what it means to freely own a firearm. He is totally unfamiliar with the function and uses of a firearm by law abiding citizens and believes that the whole country should be forbidden to privately own firearms because of what he has seen in inner cities. (And, his take on the what the inner cities "need" firearms wise is naive and stupid IMHO.)

I'd hate to have our wonderful country run primarily based upon the concerns of how the inner cities are living out their American dream. And, as stated, Obama's solutions are naive IMHO.

You simply do not forbid law abiding residents of inner cities the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes. You're making them slaves of (1) the State and (2) criminals IMHO. Law abiding residents of inner cities require the right to own a firearm more than any other segment of our society IMHO. Obama disagrees with me. That scares me Bryan.

The dregs of society should never, I mean never, dictate whether law abiding citizens should own firearms to guard against lawlessness and tyranny.

How a man can believe the honest residents of DC don't have the right to own a firearm is beyond me (i.e., because I don't believe in tyranny and do believe in self-defense). Obama's views support tyranny and the non-recognition of self-defense. The real danger is I believe Obama doesn't really "know" that he favors these draconian beliefs. He is young and very naive in this area IMHO.

I'm telling you Bryan, Obama has probably NEVER had a criminal point a firearm at him in the dead of the night with the clear intent of killing him so as to not leave a witness. I have in no uncertain terms. Thank God I had a firearm nearby that I was able to barely get to. A LEGALLY owned firearm.

In DC I could have been prosecuted for possessing a firearm even though I wouldn't have been prosecuted for self-defense actions. Now isn't that ridiculous? However, this is just what has happened, more than once in DC, due to their ridiculous anti-gun laws.

Obama is a nice, decent man but he is WAY off base and naive on this one IMHO.

Obama, and four justices of the SCOTUS , do not believe the 2nd amendment affords an individual right to own a firearm. That scares me to death Bryan. That's how tyranny eventually takes hold IMHO. (Also, isn't it ironic that Obama and his family are protected by armed Secret Service personnel?)

If I lived in DC Bryan and (1) abided by their anti-gun laws and (2) had the experience I described above in Detroit as a young man, I would be dead. Let me repeat, I would be dead, (and the prosecutor agreed with me for Godsakes). It's just that plain and simple for me. Life has told me the 2nd Amendment is the most sacred right a human being has IMHO.

Finally, Bryan and you young Democrats on this board, please don't take my rantings as an insult. Please just think about what I have experienced and think deeply about it. All it takes is one occurrance to change your life in a very detrimental way.

This should NEVER be a left or right wing "controversy/issue". How it ever got this way is beyond me. This is a freedom "thing" and applies to ALL OF US.

 

[iamnaked]

I don't believe gun ownership is the real problem. Norway and Switzerland both allow civilian gun ownership, and gun crime rates are extremely low over there.

I also disagree that you can close pandora's box once you've opened it. I certainly wouldn't feel safe in a US neighbourhood like Detroit without a gun in my house just because the law had said it is now illegal, as I'm sure the non-compliance rate would be pretty high.

 

[bubka]

OldBald: you are telling me you can really believe that NRA propaganda and still look yourself in the mirror every day? I know this comes of condescending, but unless you are in the Michigan militia, I find that difficult to believe.

 

[HughJass]

I don't believe gun ownership is the real problem. Norway and Switzerland both allow civilian gun ownership, and gun crime rates are extremely low over there.

culture definetely plays it's part, but I don't know why anybody would think giving more guns out to people in an already violent society would make them any less violent. The opposite usually happens.

 

[badasshairday III]

Come on now. If someone breaks into your house, you are going to wish you had a gun to protect your family.

Q. Why the hell do you call the cops?
A. Because they have guns to protect you with.

Are the cops really going to come that quickly from stopping a psychopath from doing some heinous crime against your family? Probably not. But you better damn well believe if you had the shot gun and buck a shot towards that person, they are going to be running for the f*****g hills.

Next, as wel all know, nobody can predict the future. Nobody can say there would never be some crazy conflict on the scale (or greater scale) than World War II. Let's just say the US and China get into some serious beef 10 years from now... Do you realize how much manpower the Chinese Army has? If they were able to perform some full scale invasion on us with their 10 million soldiers, they wouldn't have a problem raping our moms, sisters, wives, daughters, and looting our families and killing us if we did not have the right to bear arms. You wouldn't be able to do sh*t to protect yourself without a gun. But the fact is that since we do have the right to bear arms, you can basically add our domestic army manpower by another 100 million because we'd have grandma's blasting shots. Now that sh*t is called homeland defence. :firing:

 

[badasshairday III]

I don't believe gun ownership is the real problem. Norway and Switzerland both allow civilian gun ownership, and gun crime rates are extremely low over there.

culture definetely plays it's part, but I don't know why anybody would think giving more guns out to people in an already violent society would make them any less violent. The opposite usually happens.

Gimme a break man. If I was a firefighter, teacher, nurse, doctor.. ect I would never want to work in inner city Detroit, Southside Chicago, South Central Los Angeles, or any other poor and dangerous community if I could not protect myself and my family in our own home. Those areas have an extreme amount of violent crime, but it doesn't mean there are decent people out there who need to be educated by teachers, or need protection from fires, or need healthcare.

 

[HughJass]

Come on now. If someone breaks into your house, you are going to wish you had a gun to protect your family.

what about when the gun laws have helped arm that robber and increased the chances that the home invasion is going to end up with someone being shot?

from memory we have a pretty high rate of break and enters in this country and if we had the kind of gun culture you have an America I'm confident we'd have a pretty high rate of gun homicide. There are still plenty of violent attacks but I'd rather face off a burgler with a crow bar than a gun. Having a gun in the house just increases the risk of homicide anyway...

Next, as wel all know, nobody can predict the future. Nobody can say there would never be some crazy conflict on the scale (or greater scale) than World War II. Let's just say the US and China get into some serious beef 10 years from now... Do you realize how much manpower the Chinese Army has?

the US nukestock pile would make short work of them. In a modern conventional war between superpowers, large amounts of ground forces would be absolutely useless.

I'm confident that the Chinese, with their distinct lack of morals, would be able to crush any guerilla movement pretty quickly. It's easy when you don't have to concern yourself with civilian casualties etc

 

[HughJass]

Those areas have an extreme amount of violent crime, but it doesn't mean there are decent people out there who need to be educated by teachers, or need protection from fires, or need healthcare.

the whole idea of arming everybody to shoot back when shot at is just a band aid. I doubt that it would even give you much more of a chance statistically, just an illusion of security.

how about actually stem the flow of weapons to violent communities so you wouldn't need to defend yourself in the first place, instead of just knee jerk responses?

legal ownership seems pretty self defeating when it similtaneously fuels gun crime....

 

[s.a.f]

No one has guns here in the UK except some criminals, and are we all at the mercy of them? No.
If guns were legal over here every low life and punk kid would be arming themeselves and the murder rate would treble overnight.
The cops are not armed either and are probably less likely to be killed on duty than their U.S equivelent.
The only people who seem to be getting shot in the UK are rival armed gang members.

Next, as wel all know, nobody can predict the future. Nobody can say there would never be some crazy conflict on the scale (or greater scale) than World War II. Let's just say the US and China get into some serious beef 10 years from now... Do you realize how much manpower the Chinese Army has? If they were able to perform some full scale invasion on us with their 10 million soldiers, they wouldn't have a problem raping our moms, sisters, wives, daughters, and looting our families and killing us if we did not have the right to bear arms. You wouldn't be able to do sh*t to protect yourself without a gun.

Man this idea is hilarious I can imagine those chinese plotting right now. "hey lets invade America so we can rape their women and steal their plasma tv's".
If your armed forces with their Aircraft carriers and hi tech missles cant stop an invasion force you think a few householders with shotguns are going to be able to drive them off.
I think you've been watching too much Red Dawn.
[attachment=1:2c054evm]red_dawn_ver3.jpg[/attachment:2c054evm]
But come to think of it maybe you're right, maybe us Brits should tool up just incase the vikings make a comeback. :mrgreen:
[attachment=0:2c054evm]Media,7256,en.jpg[/attachment:2c054evm]

 

[badasshairday III]

Man this idea is hilarious I can imagine those chinese plotting right now. "hey lets invade America so we can rape their women and steal their plasma tv's".
If your armed forces with their Aircraft carriers and hi tech missles cant stop an invasion force you think a few householders with shotguns are going to be able to drive them off.
[attachment=0:113ilmy3]Media,7256,en.jpg[/attachment:113ilmy3]

Come on saf, let's be real. No they aren't plotting to invade America so they can rape and steal tvs. I'm just saying that in any invasion there is this type of crap that goes on. I'm just saying we don't know what the future holds. Nobody could have predicted WWII or any major conflict before it happens. Have you heard of the Rape of Nanking? It was when the Japenese invaded China during WWII and they basically pillaged the town called Nanking. The sh*t they did was heinous. If the Chinese were armed back then, I doubt it would have been as terrible as it was.

Let's also recall that it was the British who were trying to keep arms away from normal Americans so that they could keep the 13 colonies under their control. With weapons, normal citizens can and will fight back.

 

[badasshairday III]

And just for the record. I'm not a hardcore NRA guy. As a matter of fact I don't own a gun... yet. I'm just arguing that the right to bear arms should not be eliminated. But I do believe that ammunition should cost about 50$ a bullet to keep people from being to trigger happy.

 

[bubka]

I want to own my own RPG, maybe a suitcase micro nuke