Oh, yes, burglars are unstoppable crime machines who break into your house without a sound and can't be killed except by silver bullets, and if they bite you, you become one. No, a gun in the bedroom is really a reasonable solution. Odds are the burglar is not going to risk going into your room because they don't want to wake you up.

Let get this straight some could rob your house and not wake you.
Gee your gun proved to be real useful NOT!

The 2nd amendment is not out of context. Read the actual documents written by Jefferson and the gang. There are THREE main reasons for the 2nd amendment: defense from foreign invaders, self-defense from criminals, and defense from a tyrannical government. It is for all three of these reasons that it is wrong to deny people armament.

If you want to use arms to change the government its called a civil war not a very bright idea.
You dont suppose it is the US militarys job to protect the USA from foreign invaders? I guess the US government spends $359 billon just to annoy those evil liberals.
Did guns prevent the 9-11 hijackings ?
Ever heard of the police force ? Its there job to fight crime not yours. Like I said get to know your neighbors.

One might think it would be common sense to deny ordinary people "assault" weapons, but you never know. In the inner city ghetto you just might want to have some extra firepower. In those areas you don't always face robbers one at a time.

You dont suppose that it would be better to look for solutions rather then add to the problem?

'Free' education and health care go a long way towards bribing people to let you trample their freedoms. Sometimes voting isn't enough to stop something wrong from happening, and for that reason armed rebellion must remain an option. It should be the last option on the list, but it must remain on the list.

Wouldnt want joe bloggs to be able to afford health care after he/she has been shot by a bank robber who was preventing crime.
The only freemdom affordable education and health trample on is the right to go bankrupt because joe bloggs could pay off his student loan till he stopped working. Joe bloggs then coudnt pay off his/her student loan and pay for the health he/she received.
Dude your a right wing nut case what ever your on I want some.

To deny armament to the people is to pave the way for a police state. To allow people weapons but take away anything that's too fast, too accurate, too ugly, or too powerful according to a set of arbitrary standards is almost more devious.

Not when the person trying to harm you has a gun. Your pretty limited in how to defend yourself in those cases.
You dont suppose if that person didnt have a gun
you would be able defend your self?

Originally posted by xpert11

You dont suppose if that person didnt have a gun
you would be able defend your self?

Not likely since if they want to harm you and couldnt get a gun they will just get a knife.

Do you think banning legal ownership of guns is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals ?

cryptorsa1001 Your comparing China to the USA ! Thats like comparing apples to oranges. You see the China is a dictatorship and the USA is a democracy. There are two differnt types of government at work.

I dont think Aks would be a match for tanks you have been watching to many movies objects dont explode when you touch them.
Dont tell me the Chinese should carry anti tank weapons with them better take anti tank minies to work.

Let me rephrase the question. What freedoms do Americans have (other then the right to bear arms) that other democracys dont have?

Not likely since if they want to harm you and couldnt get a gun they will just get a knife.

You have more chance of defending against a knife then a gun.

Do you think banning legal ownership of guns is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals ?

Outside of gangs which make up a very minor section of the population illegal gun ownership isnt wide spread.
People in Urban areas for example dont have a need for guns legal or illegal to defend themselvs.

Originally posted by xpert11
...
Let me rephrase the question. What freedoms do Americans have (other then the right to bear arms) that other democracys dont have?

That's enough.

Originally posted by xpert11

People in Urban areas for example dont have a need for guns legal or illegal to defend themselvs.

Millions of legal gun owners that live in Urban areas would disagree with you on that. Urban areas just happen to have the higher violent crime rates.

Lets look at some Urban areas were they banned all legal gun Ownership. NYC and D.C are too great examples. They happen to have some of the highest violent crime rates in the whole country.

Gun control works real well there

That's enough.

The right to bear arms is more of a liability then a right. Looks like there are no facts to back up the dumb statement that Americans have more freedoms then other people do in other democracies.

Originally posted by xpert11
The right to bear arms is more of a liability then a right. Looks like there are no facts to back up the dumb statement that Americans have more freedoms then other people do in other democracies.

As much as it breaks your heart we will retain the right.

Your statement that Illegal gun ownership not being widespread is hogwash. NO CRIMINAL is allowed to own a firearm and almost every violent criminal in prision has a record of arrests. If gun laws worked NONE of them would have been armed.

Originally posted by xpert11
Let get this straight some could rob your house and not wake you.
Gee your gun proved to be real useful NOT!

Well, that would suck, wouldn't it? But the gun is the reason the burglar would try his best not to wake me up. He'd stay out of my room and go after the electronics before looking in my underpants drawer. It's possible that he wouldn't wake me up, but then again it's possible he will make enough noise to wake me. If that happens, he's dead.

If you want to use arms to change the government its called a civil war not a very bright idea.

It's a dangerous idea, not a 'not very bright' idea. If the government truly goes bad then dangerous courses of action are justified.

You dont suppose it is the US militarys job to protect the USA from foreign invaders?

I do suppose that. I also suppose that it is a bad idea to abdicate all responsibility for my safety to the government. The government is an impersonal force that cannot possibly gove a proper level of attention to the safety of me, my friends, or my family. Under the hypothetical foreign invasion, there may be many things the US military would have to do, and there may be a number of higher priorities in the country than coming to my rescue.

Did guns prevent the 9-11 hijackings ?

They would have if they were allowed on airplanes. Sure, the terrorists would have had guns too probably, but they would have to take out all the armed passengers before securing control of the plane.

Ever heard of the police force ? Its there job to fight crime not yours. Like I said get to know your neighbors.

The problem with the police force is that they do not have instantaneous teleportation technology. They have to rely on quaint little machines called "cars" and thus cannot be expected to get to your home sooner than 10-20 minutes after you call. In those ten minutes the criminal will have done everything he wanted to do. The police cannot get to you in time to save you from an imminent threat. It's impossible. Therefore it is irresponsible to abdicate responsibility to the police for protecting you from crime.

You dont suppose that it would be better to look for solutions rather then add to the problem?

If the problem is gangs, then shooting gangsters hardly adds to the problem.

Wouldnt want joe bloggs to be able to afford health care after he/she has been shot by a bank robber who was preventing crime.

If Joe has a decent job, he can afford health insurance.

Dude your a right wing nut case what ever your on I want some.

What am I on? That's a good question. Everything I've said is realistic and logical, and that makes me a nut case who is 'on' something.

Amuk should murder be legal because the law dosnt prevent 100% of murders from happening?
illegal gun ownership might be wide spread in the USA but that dosnt mean that illegal gun ownership is widespread in New Zealand or other parts of the world.

Originally posted by xpert11
Amuk should murder be legal because the law doesn't prevent 100% of murders from happening?

Killing another person is legal in a lot of circumstances, like self protection and warfare. Should baseball bats be illegal because some people use them for killing people. Being armed saved me and my wife from being robbed and possibly murdered or her being raped one time. We were faced by 5 young men would have harmed us if I hadn't been armed. I would have killed EVERY ONE OF THEM before that happened but like MOST gun incidents like this seeing the gun was enough to send them searching out easier prey. You know some one unarmed.

illegal gun ownership might be wide spread in the USA but that doesn't mean that illegal gun ownership is widespread in New Zealand or other parts of the world.

Not to be insulting but I couldn't care less if any other country has gun laws or not. Its not my business or my problem. And if yall cant handle the fact that we ARE armed then don't come here. The right to bear arms is GUARANTEED to us in the Constitution. The reasons are simple and most of us understand and agree.

Why should we care if the rest of the world doesnt?

Well, that would suck, wouldn't it? But the gun is the reason the burglar would try his best not to wake me up. He'd stay out of my room and go after the electronics before looking in my underpants drawer. It's possible that he wouldn't wake me up, but then again it's possible he will make enough noise to wake me. If that happens, he's dead.

If you kill the burglar arent you going to be charged with murder?

It's a dangerous idea, not a 'not very bright' idea. If the government truly goes bad then dangerous courses of action are justified.

Last time I checked the USA isnt a thrid world countrie. What do you mean by goes bad? Is that when common sense infiltrates (that is when guns are left at the firing range.)

I do suppose that. I also suppose that it is a bad idea to abdicate all responsibility for my safety to the government. The government is an impersonal force that cannot possibly gove a proper level of attention to the safety of me, my friends, or my family. Under the hypothetical foreign invasion, there may be many things the US military would have to do, and there may be a number of higher priorities in the country than coming to my rescue.

If the Government isnt responsible for the safety of its citzens then what do your tax dollars pay for?
How is an AK going to protect your family ?
By all means fight the invaders but I think you would draw the enemys attention to your family.

They would have if they were allowed on airplanes. Sure, the terrorists would have had guns too probably, but they would have to take out all the armed passengers before securing control of the plane.

So you admit that guns wouldnt have prevented the 9-11 hijackings. So what use is there in carrying a gun on an airplane?

The problem with the police force is that they do not have instantaneous teleportation technology. They have to rely on quaint little machines called "cars" and thus cannot be expected to get to your home sooner than 10-20 minutes after you call. In those ten minutes the criminal will have done everything he wanted to do. The police cannot get to you in time to save you from an imminent threat. It's impossible. Therefore it is irresponsible to abdicate responsibility to the police for protecting you from crime.

It seems to me that guns are the quick fix solution arm the population rather then taking on the harder task of improving the police force.

If the problem is gangs, then shooting gangsters hardly adds to the problem.

You dont suppose that innocent people get caught in the cross fire.

If Joe has a decent job, he can afford health insurance.

I sure hope joe dosnt have a min wage job.

What am I on? That's a good question. Everything I've said is realistic and logical, and that makes me a nut case who is 'on' something.

Buddy you & me have differnt definitions of logic.

Why do you yanks even bother with a government ? You carry a gun to defend yourself. You pay huge amounts for healthcare get the monkey off your back completely after all you seem to think government services suppress your rights and are unable to deliver adequate service.




[edit on 5-2-2005 by xpert11]

Killing another person is legal in a lot of circumstances, like self protection and warfare. Should baseball bats be illegal because some people use them for killing people. Being armed saved me and my wife from being robbed and possibly murdered or her being raped one time. We were faced by 5 young men would have harmed us if I hadn't been armed. I would have killed EVERY ONE OF THEM before that happened but like MOST gun incidents like this seeing the gun was enough to send them searching out easier prey. You know some one unarmed.

Let me put it this way if those young men had had been smarter they would have attacked you and wife from behind (knocked you on the back of the head ) chances are they would have used your own gun against you.
Im am sorry that you and your wife almost came to harm.

Not to be insulting but I couldn't care less if any other country has gun laws or not. Its not my business or my problem. And if yall cant handle the fact that we ARE armed then don't come here. The right to bear arms is GUARANTEED to us in the Constitution. The reasons are simple and most of us understand and agree.
Why should we care if the rest of the world doesnt?

Relax you dont have to debate this topic with me if it makes you uncomfortable in any way. I choose this topic because I knew it would make a good debate with some logic.
If something is in the Constitution is it the right thing by default?
or another way of asking the question might be Is everything the government says right?

Originally posted by xpert11

Let me put it this way if those young men had had been smarter they would have attacked you and wife from behind (knocked you on the back of the head ) chances are they would have used your own gun against you.
Im am sorry that you and your wife almost came to harm.

And if a frog had wings it wouldnt bump its butt when it hopped....LOL.

And just EXACTLY how would me being unarmed made it better?Are you saying it would have been better for us to have been robbed and killed for NOT being armed than to take a chance on them taking my gun?

Your arguement makes no sense

[edit on 5-2-2005 by Amuk]

Amuk my argument makes a lot of sense.
Heres an example.
You are in a bank when there is an armed hold up. You could pull your gun out but somehow I think the robbers would shoot you. Chances are the robbers will take your gun off you.

Your gun could be used against the people in the bank although it seems more likely that your gun will be used in a future crime. Your gun could be used in a future crime against you.
In all of this your gun proved to be useless and possibility a future danger to you,your family and other people.

Originally posted by xpert11.
You are in a bank when there is an armed hold up. You could pull your gun out but somehow I think the robbers would shoot you. Chances are the robbers will take your gun off you.

How will they take my gun if I shot them first? Your entire arguement consists of "if you have a gun they will take it from you", pardon me if this arguement fails to impress me.....LOL

You still didnt answer my question....

How would it have been better for me to have been UNARMED and at the mercy of the gang? Dont say they will take my gun away because they didnt.

Originally posted by xpert11
I live in New Zealand and I hate to breake this to you but it is a lot harder to obtain a gun by legal and illegal means then it is in the USA.
You dont ever wonder how so many guns end up on the black market sure some find there way into the USA . More guns would end up on the black market in the USA because guns that are legaly owned would be stolen and sold on.
I know this is hard for some Americans to grasp but outside of the USA guns dont make up a part of the fabric of society so there is less demand for them.

Well, thats you, were talking about the US.

You can keep socialized medicine, and social welfare, we prefer to reward people who actually work then to give free handouts to everyone. So you can keep it. Not that we really care.

But this is America, Americans like guns, and we will keep them. No connection between guns and violence has been truly shown.

Until the 1960's, just about everyone in this country had a gun. For almost 200 years, even teengaed boys owned them. We had no problems No school shootings ect.

The problem is the degradation of basic morality. Not gunsd. Removing those will not change the core of the problem: lack of personal responsibility, honor, integrity, and moral stances.

You still didnt answer my question....

How would it have been better for me to have been UNARMED and at the mercy of the gang? Dont say they will take my gun away because they didnt.

I have answered the questions chances are the gun wont help you.
If it is five gang members vs the two of you isnt it reasonable to assume that if they were intend on harming you they could overwhelm you before you could use your gun.
Can your your gun protect you from a sniper ?
Can your your gun protect you from a drive bye ?
Dose your gun stop bullets from hitting you ?
The answer to the above questions is NO. Is your gun really offering you that much protection?