Gun Control (v.2)

We require licenses to drive. There are many laws and restrictions on driving. Cars are necassery for many people just to get to work and get the shopping done.

Obviously, liscencing drivers doesn't really keep the idiots in the world from being able to drive, does it?

That's why there are lifeguards. Anyway, water is a natural resource that is necassery for every human just to live. We have been using water to drink and clean ourselves since the beginning of mankind.

My point was the people to die in water.

Well... uh... what's alchohol good for again? What can i say? Millions upon millions of people use alchohol for recreational reasons.

Millions upon millions of people use guns for recreational purposes. Guns are also used for practical purposes. Maybe you should get alcohol outlawed before you move to guns?

We need electricity to power the appliances we use in our home and work.

The human race survived for thousands of years without electricity. What's more important to you; the safety of the human race, or the convenience of electricity?

How many people kill themselves and others with lawnmowers???

I had a cousin who's friend ran him over with a lawnmower.

Those kinds of accidents are very rare. You need a license to have amusement park rides.

They still happen. Are the lives of those who die in amusement park accidents worth any less than the lives of those taken by guns?

Knives are a necassery cutting appliance. Knives are in virtually every home in the western world. There are restrictions on the kind of knives people can have.

Guns are necessary shooting appliances. Guns are in a myriad of homes in the Western world. There are restrictions on the types of guns people can have.

JS: "People kill themselves and others with razor blades."

Well, theres a shocker.

So...should they be outlawed?

Airplanes are necassery to travel to far off places quickly. There aren't that many airplane accidents, and you need a license to fly an airplane.

But people die in airplanes. Why should they be legal?

What was your point again??

You couldn't figure it out for yourself? Alright, you want to protect people from themselves and others, but you only cite guns as a danger. I am pointing out to you that everything can be a danger to anybody. So in order for your regime of safety to work, you have to outlaw everything.

Hey, you sort of abandoned the Death Penalty topic, JediStryker, and i was telling you off there too.

You've already been banned once for flaming me, KD. Do you really want to continue the trend by telling me off in various threads, too?

 

"It is not acceptable to me that you want to take away our God given Constitutional rights when you don't even live here because you can't keep a gun out of your mouth. That scares me more than anything"

It's not a God given Constitutional right. It was an idea thrown around by John Locke and the founding fathers borrowed it and made it the model for America. The flaming bush didn't come to none of the founding fathers or John Locke saying "I hereby declare that guns will be supported by me" Now the NRA would love to believe that and have Charleton Heston be in the starring role of their propaganda VHS tape on sale for 24.99 with a two year membership for only 59.99, but I'm not buying into that mumbo jumbo.

John Locke said life, liberty, and property were the essential freedoms. However Lockes liberal views were used by the Old South to justify slavery. Even Locke himself wrote the following about slavery "they cannnot in that state be considered as any part of civil society; chief end whereof is the preservation of property" Slavery, he concluded " is the State of war continued" If you want a reference to this here it is. Slavery and Freedom: An interpretation of the Old South. By James Oakes. Page 70-71.

So later on our founding fathers adobted basically the same thing which was life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These were the same individuals who were all for denying freedom to an entire group of people for whom they didn't even think were human. Therefore it's important for all of you who think our founding fathers were 100% right in every single thing they ever said or did is BS. They did some good things and some bad things. Learn, live it, know it. So I would say the 2nd ammendment is seriously flawed by todays standards. We no longer have Militias unless you want to call the national guard the Militia of modern times, however what happens with people who join the National Guard. They go through formal training. The Milita was the army, and the militia was the citizens of the U.S. What good was it back in 1789 to not allow your people to have weapons when these are the same people who would provide for the common defense?????? The government back then certanly didn't have the money or funding to provide firearms to create a army. Professional Armies and soldiers were looked down upon up until the time of the Civil War.

So until someone can point out in the Bible that having guns is a God given right then your reasoning is seriously flawed. Now sure it's a basic fundamental right to defend your life, but as I've already pointed out that there are several alternatives to self defense rather than a gun.

 

***walks in...see's dead horse...walks out*****

 

DARTHPIGFEET:

Dude, you sound like you're on the verge of a heart attack. Calm down, bro.

What you say is interesting, but ultimately pointless. Perhaps the Constitution is flawed in it's guarantee that the everyday citizen can bear arms. But until it's changed (which I don't think it will be in my lifetime), I can own a gun. That's final.

Now, your contention that the 2nd Amendment was written specifically for the militia is not necessarily true, and I believe that the quote provided on the last page helps prove that. Our founding fathers believed in their right to personal property, and their right to protect their personal property. How can you do that? Buy a gun.

I have a questions for you. I am qualified on a couple of guns, and get qualified on the M16 everyear. I am obviously able to handle weapons safely and efficiently. When I get out the military and become a civilian again, do you not believe that I should be allowed to own a gun? I can handle one better than many of my peers who are in the military, but simply because I would be a civilian I shouldn't have one? I'll tell you now, I know many civvies who handle guns better than many military personnel.

Mostly those 'red-neck hicks'.

 

I never said I wanted civilians to not be allowed to have guns. Well, actually I don't want them to, but it's a law that's pointless to make. So....

What I said I thought would be a very good law without taking away your precious guns is to require a training class and a simple test, and then if you pass, you may own one of your precious guns. Since you know so much about them, surely you could pass?

Oh, and by the way, I need that knife so I can slice my apple. Does a gun have ANY practicle purpose in everday use, like a knife? NO.

 

What about changing the channels when I can't find the remote?

 

What I said I thought would be a very good law without taking away your precious guns is to require a training class and a simple test, and then if you pass, you may own one of your precious guns. Since you know so much about them, surely you could pass?

Why should I have to take a class? I take one every year already. Are you going to make civilians take a class every year? That's ridiculous.

Oh, and by the way, I need that knife so I can slice my apple. Does a gun have ANY practicle purpose in everday use, like a knife? NO.

Let's be honest, you don't need knives. It's a very convenient tool, but you don't need them. You could eat your apple whole, or sharpen a rock and cut it.

Of course, I could kill someone with a slingshot. A crossbow. Throwing a rock. Should we outlaw...or require licensing for any potential projectile weapon?

 

Why should I have to take a class? I take one every year already. Are you going to make civilians take a class every year? That's ridiculous.

No. Just before they get a gun license. Once they get the gun license, they can buy or use any legal gun. Just like a driver's license. And I think it's ridiculous that anyone who is not a criminal or mentally ill can buy a gun.

 

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ? Thomas Jefferson

This quote highlights, in my mind, that the purpose of the second amendment was both defense against foreign invasion and against domestic tyranny.

Guns are the most potent defense people have. They ensure that a government by the people will endure. I'll not wager my freedom by giving up my right to self defense.

There was this general (I forget who) being interviewed on the radio about the right to bear arms, and he and the host(ess) were talking about programs which instructed kids in the proper use and storage of firearms. She kept railing against them, and finally claimed: "You're equipping our youth with the weapons of murders!", or something to that extent. Then the general said, "Well you're equipped to be a prostitute, but I don't see you hanging out on street corners."

She didn't have any kind of response for that one

Training would obviously be the best idea for gun owners. If I ever purchased a gun, I'd learn how to use it properly first. But I'm not going to make a law that people have to be licensed by the government to defend themselves. It's like David asking Goliath for permission to pick up some pebbles for his sling.

People need to learn to use guns, and the best way to make that happen is if we start taking pride in our guns and in our firearm skills. Training and awareness will both go up, which are both key to safety. Trying to sweep guns under the carpet only increases mishandling of firearms because guns, along with training, become somewhat of a taboo topic.

 

And I think it's ridiculous that anyone who is not a criminal or mentally ill can buy a gun.

 

Pardon? ?

 

Dang double posts.

 

Basically, your sentence indicates that you think only criminals and the mentally ill should be able to buy guns.

 

Um. no it doesn't. I said that I think it's ridiculous that as the law stands anyone who is not a criminal, or mentally ill, is allowed to buy a gun. Just because you're not a criminal and sound of mind doesn't make you capable of owning a gun. Which is why I think licensing is such a good idea. And it doesn't take away your rights! If you are fit to own a gun you will be allowed to do so!

 

"Well you're equipped to be a prostitute, but I don't see you hanging out on street corners."

Well, theres a man i'd want to listen to! NOT!

 

Eh?

 

And I think it's ridiculous that anyone who is not a criminal or mentally ill can buy a gun.

I can't buy a gun??? Oh no!!! How can I live the rest of my life...?

 

When the Second Amendment mentions "militia," it doesn't refer to a body of the government. If the Second Amendment referred to militia as a State-run institution, then the Second Amendment itself would be granting power to the Government. However, the Bill of Rights was not written to grant powers to the Government. It was written to enumerate specific rights of individuals, notice the use of "...the people's right..." (stress added) in describing whose right it is. Besides, it is specifically enumerated as a "right", all of which belong to the people, while powers granted to the government are specifically referred to as "powers", because they are derived from the people, and therefore subordinate to the people's rights.

As to a law forbidding the ownership of guns, we can't exactly assume that people who regularly break the law will suddenly decide to follow it in respect to some new gun ban. So why do it, if those who it is written to stop from having guns will have guns anyway?

As to violent crime and its cause, it's all based on supply and demand. A man who makes a living from accosting relatively harmless individuals will continue to do so as long as there is a population of relatively harmless individuals to accost. The more people who own guns, the less likely it is that the next person that man waylays will be harmless, and the more likely it is that he will be hurt or killed for making the attempt. In the case of more people owning guns, the risks involved with crime become higher and the payoffs decrease. Just like any other profession, when the risk gets bigger and the compensation smaller, a career change is in order.

As to idiots owning guns, I considered this for a while. Unfortunately, considering how many people actually prove incapable of getting a drivers license, I don't see how tests could possibly help with rooting out the "idiots" as we call them.

Perhaps we should base people's rights in society on their intelligence quotient. You know, like anyone with an IQ above 100 has the right to drink, 120 the right to own a car, 140 to own a gun.

IQs below 100 could be relegated to being house servants, window washers, garbage collectors, or prostitutes.

Perhaps the Hindu parts of India had it right with their caste system. It would keep all those idiots out of our hair.

By the way, the fact that my right to life outweighs some kid's right to find daddy's gun and plug me in the back by mistake, doesn't mean it won't happen. If only our rights did have precedance in our circumstances. My best friend's right to walk outweighed some random moron's right to get to work on time. But he is in a wheelchair nonetheless. Does he blame that person's right to drive a car for crippling his left leg? No, he blames her abuse of her right.

We can not deny a right simply because it may be abused. As I have said before, legislation doesn't create better people, it limits their options. Prohibition didn't create better people in the US, it created a generation of criminals. Not necessarily because they were bad, but because they broke a law that was written to keep them from doing what they were going to do anyway.

As to learning to use guns responsibly before aquiring them, well yes. I think that should be a foregone conclusion. I personally don't know any case in which someone didn't learn how to use a gun responsibly before they bought one. Of course, I don't hang out with criminals.

 

but as I've already pointed out that there are several alternatives to self defense rather than a gun.

So, because criminals disobey the laws, and maybe attack you with a knife. It is now, you the victim's responsibility to defend yourself with a your bare hands. Sounds fair to me.

As I said, I'm for licensing, because it will give law abiding Americans options, as was said above. It will also put more qualified people on the streets. Even though I wouldn't suggest that Second Amamdment be read this way, but; I think citizens protecting other citizens from crime can also be a "malitia."

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that it says that only the state appointed police forces will carry guns.

We don't have to call it a God given right. This statement seems to be quite contensious to the religious nitpickers among us. Let's just call it common sense. Humans should have a right to protect themselves. Currently, the gun is the chosen weapon. It was once the sling, or the club. You think good men who had to walk through the tough streets of London or New York in the 1800's didn't have a musket, or a club, or a black-jack. Our criminal justice system has gone so far left, that they have abondon common sense in their attempt to protect criminal rights.

Thugs are winning law suites because they were injured in the process of their crime.

DARTHPIGFEET

First off the only members of society even allowed to carry swords or any weapon in Japan were Samurai because it was out of respect and was a titled earned after years of training.

This was not always the case. In 1588 Hideyoshi instituted katana-gari, the great sword hunt. Disarming farmers as a class. The farmers invented things like the tonfa, nun-chucks, and others to defend themselves from opression.

 

"I have a questions for you. I am qualified on a couple of guns, and get qualified on the M16 everyear. I am obviously able to handle weapons safely and efficiently. When I get out the military and become a civilian again, do you not believe that I should be allowed to own a gun? I can handle one better than many of my peers who are in the military, but simply because I would be a civilian I shouldn't have one? I'll tell you now, I know many civvies who handle guns better than many military personnel"

To answer your question. Yes I have absolutley no problem with former military or Law Enforcement to carry firearms. They know how to use the weapon better than your average Joe. So my mandatory gun training course you would be an exemption since you have prior training classes and your ex military which in my book and many expert books would say your qualified to keep that weapon. I have no problem with it at all.

"This was not always the case. In 1588 Hideyoshi instituted katana-gari, the great sword hunt. Disarming farmers as a class. The farmers invented things like the tonfa, nun-chucks, and others to defend themselves from opression"

Yes I know that. The Shoguns who really ran Japan, because the Emperor was more of a figure head who really didn't do much would send their samurai and enforcers out to collect weapons from the farmers.

However lets not forget that in their society authority for the most part is seen to be respected and often farmers would try to employ samurai who were Rogue who had no masters or people they worked for.

I don't like the fact that they took swords away from peasants, but at the same time I love the fact that only certain members of the society could carry them to begin with and that was because they mastered the weapon.

 

i am against any kind of gun control

 

I don't like the fact that they took swords away from peasants, but at the same time I love the fact that only certain members of the society could carry them to begin with and that was because they mastered the weapon.

The reason the samurai were allowed to carry their sword was because they were absolutely loyal to their masters, who made the rules. They mastered the sword because it was the implement of their craft. I'm sure there were plenty of farmers who had mastered the art of the sword before they had theirs taken away, simply because they had not sworn absolute allegiance to their shogun.

The idea of disarming the peasants was not to prevent people who didn't know how to use the weapons from hurting themselves. The shogun didn't sit down and think, "Well, all those farmers who haven't completely mastered the sword, they might hurt someone by accident." He was thinking that armed peasants could mean trouble if they didn't like his governance.

The rule was made so that the only people who were armed were those who were absolutely loyal to the regime, not out of some concern for the saftey of the people.

Training and responsibility are necessary for proper gun use, yes. But the maintenance of an elite class who are allowed to carry weapons because of their loyalties is both nearly impossible to do in our society and ultimately ineffective.

From my point of view, starting with the assertion that most people are inherantly good and responsible, it seems more likely that gun proliferation will serve as a better detterant to crime and violence than stripping the guns from those who are willing to give them up.

Making those who are ok with the law disarm is like asking the nations on Earth that favor peace to give up their militaries. Just because there are less weapons over all will not mean that those nations who keep their weapons will suddenly decide not to use theirs, either. In fact, it accomplishes the opposite: it leaves the most power for destruction in the hands least trustworthy with it.

 

DARTHPIGFEET:

Please explain to me why I have to prove I am responsible enough to own a gun, yet O.J. Simpson DIDN'T have to prove he DIDN'T commit two murders?

Why is it that a gun owner has to get WORSE treatment from the government than an accussed murderer?

 

That is irrilivant Jedismuggler. O.J was not convicted in a court of law. In a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. O.J was not proven guilty. Would you want us to treat him like a guilty person even though he was not convicted?

 

KaineDamo:

No, I wouldn't.

Why, then, am *I* treated as though I am guilty until proven innocent just because I might want to own a gun?