Alright anti-gunners, lets have it out

Originally posted by lightyears
Of course a lot of violence does not happen when you can't grab a gun so easily. Say that you get fired. A lot of people get angry then. But when you don't have a gun at home you can't immediately shot down your boss. You first need to get a gun (from criminals) and before you get a gun must people have calm down already. On the other when you have a gun at home it is quite easy to commit a murder before your emotions are back to normal.

You really think the act of MURDER hasn't been around since before the dawn of guns? First off that analogy is ridiculous. If I get fired from my job I'm not going to go home and grab my sidearm and come back and shoot the place up. The thought won't even cross my mind. You are saying that because you won't have a ready access to guns that people will be less violent? There are an unlimited amount of ways for one person to inflict pain and kill another person and we have been doing it for thousands of years before guns were invented. If someone really went into a murderous rage and they were sans a gun than they would find a knife, a rock, a car, a shard of glass, a dumbell, a cheese grater whatever. People will find a way to exact those feelings regardless of gun accessibility.

The ONLY thing banning guns will do is put them into the hands of criminals. Take a cue from what Prohibition did for the mafia.

Being a mix of liberal and conservative ideas . Following the constitution I follow in the strictest interpretations.

Second amendment say to keep and bear arm thats what it means .

As for the USA murder rate yes we are higher than some but if you compare the chart here en.wikipedia.org...
we are not the top dog

And as for whether gun laws change murder rates Harvard has a study that contradicts that more gun laws equal less gun murders
www.accessmylibrary.com...

I believe its the culture of the USA that tv movies games and dreaming of the old west or colonial days is pushing the murder rates high . Many movies we have here with all the blood and gore are rated differently in other nations where teens wouldn't be able to watch them with out parental guidance . Where in the USA a movie with sexual themes are Xrated . You cant show people making love on the Big Screen but you can show them getting shot sliced diced and mutilated what sense is that . The culture of getting mad and going down and kick some ones ### is prevalent in the American society . Which even is displayed in the policy in the middle east WMD give em up or we blow you up . Is basically the way it goes . That attitude from our policy makers has a trickle down effect to the rest of the population .

I will just keep my guns and go hunting mmmm fresh deer duck or rabbit . Not bambie or thumper I wait till they grow up .
thank you very much

Originally posted by cannonfodder
You want to stop gun crimes? Get rid of all the guns. Make them illegal, so when one is found, it is destroyed. If the criminals and the people don't have guns, then we are all on the same playing field.

Not quite...A tyrannical government isn't going to be on that same playing field & that's why the US Founding Forefathers put no restrictions on the type of Arms rightfully owned by the People: With no restrictions, the People can at least stay on the same playing field as the government.

As for those who use Arms to commit crimes, this obviously shows their willingness to abuse the Rights of others & means the course of "due process" removes Arms from the criminal (assuming he's still alive by the time court judgment is enacted).

Originally posted by mOOmOO
You where not given the rights to use them for crime, but to defend your freedoms. You have not defended your freedoms and therefore do not deserve those rights. You abused those for crime.

One of the major mistakes that "gun control advocates" make is that each & every Right guaranteed by Constitutional Law carries its own inherent responsibility not to abuse that Right...The responsibility includes that you cannot violate the Rights of others while exercising your own Right. Committing violations on the Rights of others also means that you forfeit your own. In short, you cannot be regulated or held as a criminal simply because you own Arms...But you can revoke your own Right to own Arms by committing criminal actions with them.
Yet, the 2nd Amendment is only the last resort for defense of your Rights...The 1st Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances is the first resort. And yet, if you look at the on-going case in the Courts right here, you can see how well it's not working...Which means that the 2nd Amendment must still stand strong as our last defense of all of our Rights.

And yet, it's not up to the People or the Feds/State governments to "vote away" or "legislate" any Rights out of existence..
US Constitution:

Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Note the keyword "ALL." There are no exceptions. Presidential Executive Orders are nothing less than than usurping Congressional Power of legislation. Special interest groups, corporations, even Treaty Terms with the United Nations & other nations cannot usurp Congressional Power of legislation in the USA.

2nd Amendment:
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.

So if only Congress can legislate, but not even Congress can infringe on the Right of the People to Bear Arms, then there can be no justifiable restrictions imposed by anybody, until "due process" runs its course in criminal court proceedings.

Originally posted by merryxmas
I would also be in favor of a mandatory safety class for every person who purchases their first gun. There is no reason not to learn how to properly and safely handle and maintain a firearm. They are dangerous in the hands of someone who buys one and has never fired a gun before. Safety should be priority number 1 and the more people that learn to respect firearms the safer we all are.

This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it still amounts to a restriction that neither the Federal or State governments can legally deal with...This boils down to something else you also mentioned: Personal responsibility to exercise your Right without such exercise being dangerous to yourself or family! Those people who can't handle the responsibility are just going to create trouble for themselves & should take their responsibility for safety willingly rather than forcing it on him...Besides, those who aren't smart enough to be safe with their hardware are likely to show up at this website anyway & remove their stupidity from our genepool.

Originally posted by lightyears
And for the argument that you need a gun to defend yourself: when nobody has a gun, you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

But criminals will always find ways to get guns, even if they have to break more "laws" to do it...So this is a stupid argument. If only "law abiding" people don't have guns, they become easy prey to those who do have them...Including a tyrannical government. If the People allowed the government to have guns but deny guns to themselves, then tyranny is born.
People should not fear their governments...Governments should fear their People.

The Constitution was not written in a manner that allows for nit-picking it to death, even though that's what the government's been doing for over 100 years. The constitution was written to be more than just the sum of its parts...Each part works in synergy with other parts & as a whole.

This is not a matter of public policy...Not a matter of social convention...Not a matter of treaty...It's not a matter of morality, religion or ethics. It's a matter of adhering to the Supreme Law of the Land & enforcing the Constitution itself upon those who swear/affirm the Oath of Office (which is everybody in government Office, State & Federal levels, all three Branches) to serve under it! Refer to Article 2, Section 1 Clause 9 & Article 6, Clause 3 for the Oaths of Office in particular.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

I have one request. For those that keep mentioning the statistics or data could you please provide a source for your data.

BTW I think it is very sad that people are so willing to give up their rights and ask to be regulated. There are Country's that serve that purpose the United States isn't supposed to be one. We are supposed to be free. Fight to keep it that way.

Originally posted by madhatr137
I'm caught somewhere in the middle on the issue of gun ownership. Obviously there is the Constitutional argument in favor of ownership.

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.

I think that a lot of gun-owning Americans, these days, tend to attribute an opinion to the framers that, simply, is far too extreme in its assumptions. All too often the first half of the amendment is completely ignored....you know, the "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," bit. We no longer live in a society where there are functional militias defending States rights and 'freedom.'

You are correct, but you missed something important:

uscode.house.gov...

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Majal]

Originally posted by Spreadthetruth

Do you know how simple a gun is to make?

No, but I bet it is harder than say making meth, or large bombs out of fertilizer, yet these aren't legal because they are harmful to humans, just like guns.

reply to post by cannonfodder

No, but I bet it is harder than say making meth, or large bombs out of fertilizer, yet these aren't legal because they are harmful to humans, just like guns.

Last I checked fertilizer is legal not to mention most of the ingredients needed to make meth. Are you proposing that fertilizer should be illegal?

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
Following the constitution I follow in the strictest interpretations.

If you really did follow the constitution, you wouldn't believe in the right to bear arms because it is an ammendment, as in it wasn't in the original constitution.

And ammendments can be repealed, as in the 18th ammendment - That is the prohibition of alcohol for those of you not in the know.

The second ammendment was enacted way back in 1791. Think of what has changed in 217 years. In 1790 there were no cars, no TV and a US population was just under 4 million. Slavery was legal. Arms have gone from single shot black powder muskets with a rate of fire of 2 shots a minute, to fully automatic pistols that can pop off 18 shots+ in 3 or 4 seconds. I'd like to think society has evolved enough since then to realize this ammendment is not for this era, guns are way too dangerous, and civil disobedience (not even a concept in 1790) is way more effective at overthrowing governments.

Originally posted by harvib

Last I checked fertilizer is legal not to mention most of the ingredients needed to make meth. Are you proposing that fertilizer should be illegal?

I think you missed the point. The fact is, bombs and drugs are illegal, regardless of how easy they are to make, because they are harmful to society.

And if you think fertilizer isn't carefully monitored, try buying a large amount without an agricultural purpose.

[edit on 2008.6.25 by cannonfodder]

Posted this on the other thread but I want it here also:

In the USA:

Fact: Doctors kill more people than guns
Fact; Automobiles kill more people than guns
Fact; Boating accidents kill more people than guns.

Firearms are a right not a privilage, Boats, Dr.s and Cars are not. No license to purchase or own or collect is needed. The government should have no right to tell anyone what they should own nor how many. Taxing our rights is anethema to Americans and should be forever. No police force or cop can be every where they are needed to keep the peace. Only armed citizens can. The argument that citizens are not trained to use arms is a misnomer. many are. In the past alot more where but through political correctness it is slowly being denied the common person!

Zindo

reply to post by cannonfodder


Ummm... The whole Bill of Rights are admendments.

I'd like to think society has evolved enough since then to realize this ammendment is not for this era, guns are way too dangerous, and civil disobedience (not even a concept in 1790) is way more effective at overthrowing governments.

So are you anti gun altogether? In other words is it your position that no one should have guns. Not the military, not law enforcement, not civilians? Or do you believe that in this "era" guns are only dangerous in the latter’s hands but acceptable in the hands of militaries and law enforcement?

reply to post by cannonfodder

I think you missed the point. The fact is, bombs and drugs are illegal, regardless of how easy they are to make, because they are harmful to society.

I think I am still missing your point. Is it your position that everything that can be harmful to society should be made illegal. If that is the case I think we should create a list of what should remain legal as that list would be very short.

Originally posted by harvib

So are you anti gun altogether? In other words is it your position that no one should have guns. Not the military, not law enforcement, not civilians?

In a perfect world, a ban of all guns would be ideal, but I know we don't live in a perfect world, and I know governments certainly are not going to give up their guns. So let the government have guns. We already give them a tactical superiority by letting them have tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons, artillery, killer satellites, etc. I don't think guns are going to skew that battle much.

Now here is a question. Where in the last 20 years has a government been overthrown an by an armed revolt? It certainly didn't work for the Kurds against Saddam, or Palestinians versus Israel. However, without guns, Ceausescu fell, as did the puppet government in Ukraine. A better way has been found, and it works without a 30-06.

Originally posted by harvib

Is it your position that everything that can be harmful to society should be made illegal. If that is the case I think we should create a list of what should remain legal as that list would be very short.

No, that would also be unrealistic. But guns only have one purpose - to kill, and kill as many times as the owner can pull the trigger. They aren't made to grow crops or cut vegetables. Do we really need to have access to something whose sole purpose is killing, which is illegal, immoral and creates fear which is destroying our society?

Why do you ban private citizens from having nuclear weapons? Aren't these considered arms? I think whatever reasons citizens don't have nukes could be applied to guns as well.

Originally posted by cannonfodder



No, that would also be unrealistic. But guns only have one purpose - to kill, and kill as many times as the owner can pull the trigger. They aren't made to grow crops or cut vegetables. Do we really need to have access to something whose sole purpose is killing, which is illegal, immoral and creates fear which is destroying our society?

Why do you ban private citizens from having nuclear weapons? Aren't these considered arms? I think whatever reasons citizens don't have nukes could be applied to guns as well.

As I said before, guns have one purpose, and it isn't killing.

A gun is made with one objective in mind: To fire a projectile. The person holding the gun determines where said projectile goes.

Ever hear of a gun shooting someone without a human operating it?

What is this object you describe as illegal, immoral, and creates fear?

As for your nuke question: Where does the government get the authority to possess them?

The people cannot delegate a power to the government unless they have that power first.

As in: You cannot give something you do not have.

reply to post by cannonfodder

So let the government have guns. We already give them a tactical superiority by letting them have tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons, artillery, killer satellites, etc. I don't think guns are going to skew that battle much.

So it is your position that only Governments should have the weopons. I am curious as to why you believe the 2nd admendment was created.

Now here is a question. Where in the last 20 years has a government been overthrown an by an armed revolt? It certainly didn't work for the Kurds against Saddam, or Palestinians versus Israel. However, without guns, Ceausescu fell, as did the puppet government in Ukraine. A better way has been found, and it works without a 30-06.

I don't know the answer to that question. However I believe it is a moot point regardless. The right to beat Arms is just that, a right. A right cannot be taken away. Those that call for one right to be taken away are asking for them all to be taken away. If you set a precedent that a right can be removed at will then you concede that you really don't have any rights at all.

Originally posted by slackerwire

As I said before, guns have one purpose, and it isn't killing.

A gun is made with one objective in mind: To fire a projectile. The person holding the gun determines where said projectile goes.

I suppose swords only have one purpose as well - cutting. What they cut is up to the user. And I suppose Nukes purpose is to explode. Vaporization is only a side effect.

Of course guns are made for killing. Bullets are designed for maximum damage upon impact on biological creatures. Targets show human silhouettes with higher points for fatality areas. They are instruments of armed forces whose purpose is to eliminate hostiles (aka people).



If you want to take the stance, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - fine. I would prefer is someone had a homicidal tendency they wouldn't have a means as easy as twiching their finger from half a football field away, and then a means to do it again within the time it takes to move the barrel to the next target. Sure knives kill people, but they won't take out an entire school in 15 minutes.

Originally posted by cannonfodder

I suppose swords only have one purpose as well - cutting. What they cut is up to the user. And I suppose Nukes purpose is to explode. Vaporization is only a side effect.

Of course guns are made for killing. Bullets are designed for maximum damage upon impact on biological creatures. Targets show human silhouettes with higher points for fatality areas. They are instruments of armed forces whose purpose is to eliminate hostiles (aka people).



If you want to take the stance, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - fine. I would prefer is someone had a homicidal tendency they wouldn't have a means as easy as twiching their finger from half a football field away, and then a means to do it again within the time it takes to move the barrel to the next target. Sure knives kill people, but they won't take out an entire school in 15 minutes.

If bullets are designed to maximize damage on human tissue, why is the most effective "damaging bullet" design illegal in military uses?

Take out an entire school in 15 minutes????? Exaggerate much?

If someone had a homicidal tendency to create a large body count, a gun isn't the best choice.

Hint: Think car.

Originally posted by harvib

So it is your position that only Governments should have the weopons. I am curious as to why you believe the 2nd admendment was created.

Beats me, I'm Canadian - we don't have the right to bear arms, though we still have them.

I can only surmise it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. In 1790, the US had "overthrown" a "tyrannical government" 24 years prior, and as it founded your country, appeared to be a good thing. In 1790, there were few weapons superior to a musket. There were no gatling guns, self propelled grenades, tanks, nukes, netc., and a well armed militia would actually have a chance of making a decent stand. Today, there is not the same opportunity. Times have changed, like it or not.

As for the right thing, the right to bear arms is not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as set forth by the UN (www.un.org...). It is also not a right enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a matter of fact, the US may be the only country in the world that this is actually a right. I'm sorry for any offense, but I don't know how to put this delicately - maybe it is possible in this one instance, the US got it wrong.

reply to post by cannonfodder


The UN is the biggest joke on the planet. They have zero jurisdiction here, and the moment they try to impose a ban on firearms in the U.S., the largest world war the planet has ever seen would begin.