lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Amendment #2 - its importance
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-16-2006, 08:42 AM   #1
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Amendment #2 - its importance

This thread in response to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight
Personally, for me the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st.
Would you mind telling me just how that is?

There are lots of countries that "infringe on the basic right to own an AK-47". In fact, in most countries you aren't allowed to own a heavy machine gun at all ( Shock and Horror! ). However, many of those countries easily outrank the US when it comes to low crime rates and liberties both.

How is your "right" to own a handgun/machine gun as important as free speech? And don't come dragging in some conspiracy theory á la "the government will come thundering in to take away our other liberties once we give up our guns". That never happened in other countries with stable, healthy democracies where citizens were dis-armed. But then again, maybe you're sub-consciously afraid that with the PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo Torture, wire-taps, insulting of dissenters, and other un-democratic incidents, the USA might not be as friendly as you think?

Quote:
The ACLU doesn't see it that way and I think that's wrong. This goes to you too, Toms, no right in the constitution shall be infringed regardless of how scary some people might think it.
That's the problem here: Different people have different views on what you should have the right to do.

I think free health care is a right, most neo-cons disagree.

I think you should have the right to not be tortured - most neo-cons appear to disagree (at least after I prove to them that Bush ordered the Guantanamo torture - before that point, they tend to be "aw, come on, we've got it under control there have been tonnes of dishonorable discharges, don't try to link Bush to such atrocities).

I think it's a right to marry whoever you want, the neo-cons think that if your mythology says otherwise, that should override that right.

Let's not start discussing gay marriage, health care, and torture here. I'm just saying that if you state that something is "in the Constitution, which deems it a basic right, so it's right and shouldn't be altered" is simply not enough. If gay marriage, free health care, and torture-free prisons for everyone was in the Constitution as basic, set-in-stone rights, would you support them? Nope, don't think so.

So how, exactly, is it that the 2nd should be set in stone?


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 05-16-2006 at 08:52 AM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 12:59 PM   #2
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Well, to start off with, if you can show me where the Constitution says that there is a right to free health care, I'll agree with you. If you want that to be a basic right, write to your Senators & Representatives and push for a Constitutional amendment. Personally, I disagree with the basic ideology behind it...but if gay marriage, torture-free prisons, and socialized health care (don't ever call it free, because it isn't) were in the Constitution, I may not agree with the ideology behind them, but they would be part of the law.

But on to the 2nd Amendment. I have mixed feelings (of amusement and disgust) when I hear liberals (or anyone else, for that matter) talk about how America is turning into some kind of Stalinistic/Hitlerian police state, and then turn around and knock the right to keep and bear arms. If it's really as bad as many around here seem to believe, those people should be the first ones on the 2nd Amendment bandwagon...because if George W. Bush's secret police are going to haul me off in the dead of night, I'm not going down without a fight.

The right to keep and bear arms isn't just a crime issue (though communities that have fewer restrictions on gun ownership have been shown to have less crime - criminals are less likely to try and pull something if they don't know who will shoot back, whereas communities with harsh gun restrictions have been shown to have more crime - not necessarily more gun crimes, but more crime in general, and bolder criminals). Think about the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written: if England had had the same kind of gun control laws that they do now, the American colonists wouldn't have been able to revolt. So yeah, you can restrict gun ownership in the name of reducing crime...but don't come complaining to me when you couldn't defend yourself from that robber. And on top of that, if/when that Stalinistic/Hitlerian police state does arrive, don't be complaining when the people can't defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

That is why the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 01:21 PM   #3
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
The second ammendment is so badly written as to be almost unenforceable anyway... as nobody, not even constitutional experts, seem to able to agree on what it actually means. In a case where a law is vague and subject to multiple interpretations it makes sense for an organisation like the ACLU to say "damned if we know what it actually means.. so we can't really argue about it in court if we don't understand it".

For info:
Quote:
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

"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."

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

"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."'

Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.
Unfortuantely commas can be important in the english language and proper use of them can change the meaning of the sentence.

------------------------

Does State refer to the Nation State of the Individual states within the nation?

Does security mean security of state independence from National government? Security from invasion? Security of citizens in their homes?

I've heard it said that the 2nd ammendment is to allow citizens to protect their rights under the constitution and 1st amendment and overthrow any government that infringes those rights... but it doesn't read that way.

We all know the unending arguments about the meaning of militia.

I have to say that I don't rate the relative importance of the 2nd ammendment as that high. At least not in today's world.

What actual USE is the right to bear arms now?

- It wouldn't allow the people to overthrow a corupt government. It wouldn't help if the USA was attacked/invaded by a foreign power. It wouldn't increase the security of the state as a whole.

In order to do any of those things it would need to allow people to have tanks and anti-air systems and nukes. Though as I read it it doesn't specify WHICH arms they should be allowed... so maybe they should all have those already.

- It would let you go hunting. Which is fun... but hardly an essential basic human right. Not now that hunting isn't required to survive.

- It might let you defend your home... but then it also lets those invading your home have guns too. And makes you near enough as likely to injure yourselves as anyone invading. ANd if you have the right to defend your home.. you have the right to defend yourself in the street... so we are back to a wild west situation of everyone walking around with UZIs.

So basically: doesn't increase security noticeably. doesn't safeguard freedom. doesn't increase safety.

Even if we are generous and say it doesn't make things worse.. or even makes each of those things slightly better... its still harldy as important as the right to be free - the right which people often claim it was set up to defend in the first place. (would be odd if the "the right to defend freedom" was more important than the "right to have freedom" even if it worked.)



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 02:45 PM   #4
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Well, to start off with, if you can show me where the Constitution says that there is a right to free health care, I'll agree with you. If you want that to be a basic right, write to your Senators & Representatives and push for a Constitutional amendment. Personally, I disagree with the basic ideology behind it...but if gay marriage, torture-free prisons, and socialized health care (don't ever call it free, because it isn't) were in the Constitution, I may not agree with the ideology behind them, but they would be part of the law.
Not very democratic of you, is it? I suppose, then, that you want Amendment XVIII, the "Liqour abolished"-amendment, back in, too?

I hope you see what I mean. You can say "it's the law" all you want, but that doesn't make it more or less right. In fact, you seem to know this yourself, as you whole-heartedly support the NSA and PATRIOT ACT as they overlook just about any amendment in the Constitution they can overlook.

Quote:
Think about the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written: if England had had the same kind of gun control laws that they do now, the American colonists wouldn't have been able to revolt.
And since the USA's still under a tyrannical State across the Sea, we need guns for the big revolt. Right

Quote:
But on to the 2nd Amendment. I have mixed feelings (of amusement and disgust) when I hear liberals (or anyone else, for that matter) talk about how America is turning into some kind of Stalinistic/Hitlerian police state, and then turn around and knock the right to keep and bear arms.
Even more so vice-versa, ask you me.

The neo-conservatives sit idly around as right after right, and amendment after amendment is removed (another hypocritical statement: First the Bush-supporters blindly follow the Second Amendment, then it's OK when the PATRIOT ACT and all the other Dubyan actions take tonnes of other amendments away), but then hold onto their guns because they're afraid of a dictatorship. It's akin to letting a forest fire spread towards your neighbourhood without doing anything, and then install smoke detectors in your house because "well, we never know, someday there might be a fire..."

The liberals try to stave off the dictatorship, the neo-cons can't even see it coming, but prepare "just in case someone tries to take away my Sacred 2nd Amendment - we can't lose any Amendments, you know, except the ones His Holiness Bush has taken away".

Can anyone else than me see the oxymoron here? Neo-cons are the first to defend the PATRIOT ACT, which allows for searches of suspects' library records and other insignificant things. However, checking to see if a terrorist suspect's bought a gun? Too dangerous for democracy...

PS: Not to say Bush is necessarily trying for a dictatorship, far from it. But it's possible, which is what I'm saying.

Not to mention that if the wrath of the US government does turn against you, a couple of civilians with rifles wouldn't change a thing. Is the insurgency in Iraq making a huge difference? Nope. Killed 2000 soldiers, no more. US is still determined to get there, with a ton of tanks and airplanes and soldiers.

Quote:
The right to keep and bear arms isn't just a crime issue (though communities that have fewer restrictions on gun ownership have been shown to have less crime - criminals are less likely to try and pull something if they don't know who will shoot back, whereas communities with harsh gun restrictions have been shown to have more crime - not necessarily more gun crimes, but more crime in general, and bolder criminals).
Can you prove that somehow? I'm asking because all the statistics I have ever seen prove the exact opposite. The more guns, the more crime. The tighter gun regulations, the less crime. Look at the UK - crime rate went up a bit after guns were banned, but then - surprise, surprise - it plummeted. So much for your argument.

And of course, unless you can prove to me that most gun deaths are from defensive firing, not from offensive ones, your argument is even more void.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 05-16-2006 at 02:56 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 04:01 PM   #5
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
I have no problem with people having guns so long as they're responsible with them. I do think that there need to be restrictions placed on who can have them and what they can do with them. I see no reason why the second amendment should just be ignored and people would be denied access to weapons, but I don't like the idea of some wacko going ape-s*** in a public space and killing people-and having restrictions on where and to who guns (and ammunition for that matter) can be sold/can be sold to can help prevent... bad things.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 05:24 PM   #6
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
I think we need to look at the lesson of prohibition... it doesn't make something go away, it only makes a huge criminal black market for it. So criminals will have it and those who obey the law will not have it.

So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.

There's probably different studies showing different results from tighter or looser gun restrictions, but here's an interesting interview with an author who wrote a book about how more guns equal less crime:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 08:51 PM   #7
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Guns misfire, in which case, guns do kill people



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 08:53 PM   #8
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142
Guns misfire, in which case, guns do kill people
Only until someone invents a gun with artificial intelligence will that argument be invalidated.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-16-2006, 08:55 PM   #9
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Only until someone invents a gun with artificial intelligence will that argument be invalidated.
Ehhh, who would get the blame in that situation? As far as I know neither fate nor bad luck are physical entities capable of being blamed for something. The resultant of an action is not dependant on it's original intent (or lack thereof).

***Edit***
Did you mean validated?



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-17-2006, 11:49 AM   #10
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142
Did you mean validated?
Nah, I meant invalidated, but meant the original argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-17-2006, 04:51 PM   #11
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Nah, I meant invalidated, but meant the original argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Whatever, it's an off-topic argument anyways.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2006, 01:16 PM   #12
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
I think we need to look at the lesson of prohibition... it doesn't make something go away, it only makes a huge criminal black market for it. So criminals will have it and those who obey the law will not have it.
Prohibition is unlikely to work in the US because there is already such a huge cache of guns there. If they had never existed in the first place then the issue might be different.
Its getting worse in the UK, but guns are essentially prohibited here and gun deaths are way lower even if the only guys with guns are the bad guys.
I can never imagine a criminal even considering the probability of the homeower having a gun to be honest... criminals don't tend to think that far ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.
Though you'd be more likely to be shot by that gun than your parents need to use it to defend your home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
There's probably different studies showing different results from tighter or looser gun restrictions, but here's an interesting interview with an author who wrote a book about how more guns equal less crime:
None of those studies is worth a damn.. because its all either guesswork or comparing different cultures. Who knows what would happen if they banned guns in the US. My guess would be very little would change. there is too much of a gun culture and too many weapons in circulation. Regulation and taxation might slowly reduce the number though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.
God.. every time i hear that I want to kill people, if only myself.

---

BUt anyway... the merits of guns aren't really the point of this thread.
The question is about the relative importance of the right to have a weapon.

My argument would be that the advances in military weaponary, surveilance and communication have made the right to bear arms near enough irrelevant.

It used to be that a group of citizens armed with weapons might have had a chance against invading troops armed similarly(see that horrendous film The Patriot).. but these days they'd be up against Tanks, Jets, helicopters, cruise missiles, etc... and wouldn't even be on the same playing field.

- I can see the importance of the 1st ammendment.
- 3rd is kind of irrelevant today for the same reasons as the 2nd.
- 4th to 8th all seem pretty important to ensure a fair justice system.
- 9th and 10th are catchall exceptions that make sense.
- 11-27 are mostly tweaks and clarifications.

Of the major ones i'd rather sacrifice 2 and 3 than 1 or 5-10.

But i'd like to hear from someone who is PRO gun ownership why they feel that they are so important that they need constitutional protection??
the 9th ammendment explicitly states that there are additional rights not contained in the constitution and defined by case law (such as the right to privacy) and i'd think that this would be sufficient.
Whether you aare pro or anti or neutral on gun ownership I just don't see that its an important enough right to need an expicit constitutional ammendment.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2006, 02:03 PM   #13
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
But i'd like to hear from someone who is PRO gun ownership why they feel that they are so important that they need constitutional protection??
Probably because if it weren't for the 2nd Ammendment, guns would have already been outlawed as they are in the UK.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2006, 08:07 AM   #14
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Not my argument, but my teacher recently argued that getting rid of guns would cause a decrease in crime rate because there's the lack of a double motive, criminals have guns so I should have a gun too type mentality.

Of course you get criminals who buy black market stuff, but still, the rate would go down.

*shrug*

I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an ak to defend their front lawn.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2006, 09:59 AM   #15
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.
Sure, because we all know that all burglars want is kill you because they're all evil.

Or maybe they're just after your money or valuables and just as likely to run off as committ mass murder upon being detected. Just maybe.

Seriously, though, if you're afraid of burglars, invest in deterrants such as burglar alarms, solid locks, etc. In semi-anarchist countries where it actually is a problem that AK-47-wielding mafias kick your door in, steal all your belongings, and rape and/or kill you for good measure, guess what people do? They buy good locks. They build iron gates in their houses, sealing off whole sections of it. And so on. They certainly are not dumb enough to get into a firefight.

So in other words, if you really are that paranoid about burglars that you feel you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, set up deterrants such as iron gates or burglar alarms. Then there's a 99% chance you'll never see a burglar in your life.

Quote:
And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.
:hurl:

Quote:
I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an AK to defend their front lawn.
Exactly.

Quote:
It used to be that a group of citizens armed with weapons might have had a chance against invading troops armed similarly(see that horrendous film The Patriot).. but these days they'd be up against Tanks, Jets, helicopters, cruise missiles, etc... and wouldn't even be on the same playing field.
Exactly. Gun supporters can push the "we need to defend our country"-cliché-excuse all they want, but I'd be more convinced if they actually acted as if that was what they needed guns for. In other words, form organized militias, get your hands on some heavy weapons, and train for armed combat and guerilla warfare. And so on.

Thousands of untrained little morons with AK-47s don't stand a chance against the combined arms of the elite US Army. The above-mentioned gun-toting "if you enter my house, I have the right to kill you to protect the $598 in my drawer"-style coach potatoes know that.

It's akin to me buying a life ring and saying "oh, who knows, maybe there'll be a flood one day?". Or a pilot packing a pack of Band-Aids instead of a parachute because he's "afraid the plane might crash and he might get hurt".

Sorry, but I don't quite buy that.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2006, 10:01 AM   #16
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
So basically, criminals will have guns, and no one else outside law enforcement. So if a thug breaks into your house you're ****ed. I'd sleep better at night if my parents owned a gun.
Sure, because we all know that all burglars want is kill you because they're all evil.

Or maybe they're just after your money or valuables and just as likely to run off as committ mass murder upon being detected. Just maybe.

Seriously, though, if you're afraid of burglars, invest in deterrants such as burglar alarms, solid locks, etc. In semi-anarchist countries where it actually is a problem that AK-47-wielding mafias kick your door in, steal all your belongings, and rape and/or kill you for good measure, guess what people do? They buy good locks. They build iron gates in their houses, sealing off whole sections of it. And so on. They certainly are not dumb enough to get into a firefight.

So in other words, if you really are that paranoid about burglars that you feel you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, set up deterrants such as iron gates or burglar alarms. Then there's a 99% chance you'll never see a burglar in your life.

Quote:
And remember... guns don't kill people, people kill people.
:hurl:

Quote:
I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an AK to defend their front lawn.
Exactly.

Quote:
It used to be that a group of citizens armed with weapons might have had a chance against invading troops armed similarly(see that horrendous film The Patriot).. but these days they'd be up against Tanks, Jets, helicopters, cruise missiles, etc... and wouldn't even be on the same playing field.
Exactly. Gun supporters can push the "we need to defend our country"-cliché-excuse all they want, but I'd be more convinced if they actually acted as if that was what they needed guns for. In other words, form organized militias, get your hands on some heavy weapons, and train for armed combat and guerilla warfare. And so on.

Thousands of untrained little morons, even with AK-47s, don't stand a chance against the combined arms of the elite US Army. The above-mentioned gun-toting "if you enter my house, I have the right to kill you to protect the $598 in my drawer"-style coach potatoes should know that.

It's akin to me buying a life ring and saying "oh, who knows, maybe there'll be a flood one day?". Or a pilot packing a pack of Band-Aids instead of a parachute because he's "afraid the plane might crash and he might get hurt".

Sorry, but I don't quite buy that.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2006, 03:04 PM   #17
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Probably because if it weren't for the 2nd Ammendment, guns would have already been outlawed as they are in the UK.
But that implies that GUNS THEMSELVES are the end objective? Surely it is the benefits that the owenership of guns bring that was the objective when the 2nd ammendment was added? And as i've stated I don't believe that you have any more of those benefits with an Uzi under your bed than you do without.. as guns no longer matter in the way they once did.

Its the right to guns in order to protect freedom, not freedom in order to protect the right to guns.
(or at least that was the original idea)



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2006, 05:22 PM   #18
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
I'm all for having a gun. If you want it, take it. But c'mon. No one needs an ak to defend their front lawn.
Says you. And hey, you probably got an AK yourself, gangsta!

My house can't have iron gates (or any front fence for that matter), because it's against the regulations of the neighborhood. Locks don't always work, because windows can be broken. An alarm would be good for my house, because it's in a neighborhood, but what about the old guy with his family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods? An alarm wouldn't work for him, because there would be no one around to hear it. The ONLY option he would have is a gun. Don't count on the cops to save you... it'll be a half hour before they get out there. When it comes down to it, YOU are the one who is responsible for defending yourself. Not the police, not the government, not your neighbor. And I don't see any harm in having a gun under your bed. The idea that the government could take away your right to defend yourself is scary.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2006, 07:24 PM   #19
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
A) The old guy with a family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods doesn't have neighborhood regulations prohibitting iron gates.

B) If the alarm is an audible one, and it signals the police, then the burgler will almost CERTAINLY flee unless it was their goal to murder the family in the first place, and in that case you having a gun won't do much good as they'll probably kill you in your sleep. Just because it could take the cops awhile to get there, they WILL get there, and a burgler won't want to be trucking around out in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of stolen goods/dead bodies when the cops are coming.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2006, 08:00 PM   #20
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
A) The old guy with a family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods doesn't have neighborhood regulations prohibitting iron gates.
True, but an iron gate isn't sure to stop someone intent on murdering, raping, whatever.

And chances are a gun would be cheaper than building a damn moat around your house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
B) If the alarm is an audible one, and it signals the police, then the burgler will almost CERTAINLY flee unless it was their goal to murder the family in the first place, and in that case you having a gun won't do much good as they'll probably kill you in your sleep. Just because it could take the cops awhile to get there, they WILL get there, and a burgler won't want to be trucking around out in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of stolen goods/dead bodies when the cops are coming.
A killer could very well break into your house, kill everyone, and get the hell out in five minutes. By the time the police arrive all they can do is collect evidence, and haul away your body and that of your wife and kids... okay, so I'm getting overly dramatic.

Also, if young women would be trained with concealed guns they could fend off an attacker if they have to walk alone at night.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2006, 11:36 AM   #21
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
An alarm would be good for my house, because it's in a neighborhood, but what about the old guy with his family sitting on a twenty acre lot out in the middle of the woods? An alarm wouldn't work for him, because there would be no one around to hear it.
Alarms nowadays are connected to security companies, which immediately scramble when the electronic siren alerts them.

Quote:
True, but an iron gate isn't sure to stop someone intent on murdering, raping, whatever.
It's a deterrant, so yes, it will.

Quote:
The ONLY option he would have is a gun.
And here I was thinking there were such things as self-defense courses, mace, guard dogs, "Panic Rooms", traps (), etc.

Come to think of it, mace and martial arts would work far better in such an enclosed facility as a house. If you lived in a sleeping bag in the middle of an open field, sure, a gun might be useful as the thieves would have to charge fifty metres of open ground to reach you. In a house? Nope, guns would be tactically unsound. Not to mention that there are such things as Less-Lethal guns, too, built to wound, not kill. What do you need a freaking AK-47 for? Next they neo-cons will be asking for TOWs and Stingers in the event of a break-in by helicopter- or tank-borne rapists .

Oh, and as for murderers killing you in your house in general: How often does that happen? Look, if you've pissed off Bubba or something, sure, get a gun/police protection/whatever. But owning a gun in case someone randomly breaks into your house? Nonsense.

Quote:
The idea that the government could take away your right to defend yourself is scary.
But that's not what we're discussing, so no worries. We're talking about guns -one of many ways of defending yourself- and the second amendment.

Quote:
Also, if young [men and women] were trained with concealed guns they could fend off an attacker if they have to walk alone at night.
Incredibly unsound argument. A gun is useless in meele (sp.?) combat. Mace, PepperGard, or even knives are far more effective, not to mention your good old martial arts.

And why concealed guns? Is it that important for you to be attacked, or is it just that you have no faith whatsoever in the deterrant effect?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2006, 11:50 AM   #22
Cheech Marin
Rookie
 
Cheech Marin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Thousands of untrained little morons, even with AK-47s, don't stand a chance against the combined arms of the elite US Army.
*Points to Iraq*
Cheech Marin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2006, 12:02 PM   #23
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
As it were - they don't stand a chance. The Coalition rolled in unobstructed, and the "militia" has succeeded in killing "only" 2000+ US troops. That's nothing compared to the NRA's conviction that an armed rabble (and let's not get into how the Opposition in Iraq is relatively well-trained) could drive the USA out in no time and that the said rabble is all that's keeping the US juggernaut from installing a dictatorship since the said juggernaut is so terrified of them.

Quote:
And chances are a gun would be cheaper than building a damn moat around your house.
True. But the moat can double as a swimming pool if you just watch out for the sharks.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2006, 05:32 PM   #24
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It's a deterrant, so yes, it will.
Not if someone is crazy. If someone is drunk, truely desperate, or just plain insane, a gate won't stop them. See what happens with border fences... they don't work as they are now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And here I was thinking there were such things as self-defense courses, mace, guard dogs, "Panic Rooms", traps (), etc.
Self-defense courses are no good against an armed assailant, not all people can be stopped with mace, guard dogs are super expensive and can be shot and killed... a taser would be a good alternative, but still, what's the harm in owning a gun if you use it right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Oh, and as for murderers killing you in your house in general: How often does that happen? Look, if you've pissed off Bubba or something, sure, get a gun/police protection/whatever. But owning a gun in case someone randomly breaks into your house? Nonsense.
Tell that to those who lost loved ones to serial killers like BTK...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Incredibly unsound argument. A gun is useless in meele (sp.?) combat. Mace, PepperGard, or even knives are far more effective, not to mention your good old martial arts.
That's the point... if you have a gun, you don't have to get into a melee. And you have less of a chance of getting stabbed or having your weapon stolen off you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And why concealed guns? Is it that important for you to be attacked, or is it just that you have no faith whatsoever in the deterrant effect?
I wasn't sure if you could have non-concealed weapons. If you can, that'd be even better.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2006, 06:15 PM   #25
Good Sir Knight
Junior Member
 
Good Sir Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: US
Posts: 285
[QUOTE=Dagobahn Eagle]This thread in response to:

Would you mind telling me just how that is?

There are lots of countries that "infringe on the basic right to own an AK-47". In fact, in most countries you aren't allowed to own a heavy machine gun at all ( Shock and Horror! ). However, many of those countries easily outrank the US when it comes to low crime rates and liberties both.

How is your "right" to own a handgun/machine gun as important as free speech? And don't come dragging in some conspiracy theory á la "the government will come thundering in to take away our other liberties once we give up our guns". That never happened in other countries with stable, healthy democracies where citizens were dis-armed. But then again, maybe you're sub-consciously afraid that with the PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo Torture, wire-taps, insulting of dissenters, and other un-democratic incidents, the USA might not be as friendly as you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle


That's the problem here: Different people have different views on what you should have the right to do.

I'm going to post one thing in here because I feel so strongly on this issue, it's one of the only things I won't debate with someone over. I just get too fired up and it's because I'm half libertarian... no right in the constitution should be infringed or reinterpreted.

Yes Eagle, other countries infringe on the rights of their people to own weapons. That's part of what sets us apart my Norwegian friend...or are you just a yank visiting?

At the end of the day, I look at the constitution and I don't espouse what is important in the document purely on my little oppinions.

There is nothing there that states that the first amendment is better than the second, nothing.

I also can help but agree with RC, with this supposed Orwellian nightmare going on wouldn't you want to protect your family? It's amazing that people feel they are that important...to be spied on... makes you wonder....

So yeah, I believe in the right for every person to own any weapon he wants. Just like how I believe everyone has the ability to insult/inflame people verbally via the first amendment. All rights were bestowed on the people and any attempt to infringe or reinterpret them is horrendous.

Of course liberals and conservatives alike believe that what they are doing is right and of course, they are wrong. Always about furthering there little agenda.

I believe in a free country. It's amazing that liberals stand behind these universal principles of freedom except for when it comes to someone owning a gun or offending a lifestyle.

After all it's okay to throw pictures of a depraved jesus/mohammed at Christians/Muslims but if you tell a homosexual that he lives a dirty lifestyle you're a bigot.

Just a point of view and I bid you adu.
Good Sir Knight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2006, 12:46 PM   #26
Good Sir Knight
Junior Member
 
Good Sir Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: US
Posts: 285
Oh I can't help it...I'll stay in this thread and have some fun.



"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell
Good Sir Knight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2006, 05:51 AM   #27
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
At the end of the day, I look at the constitution and I don't espouse what is important in the document purely on my little oppinions.

There is nothing there that states that the first amendment is better than the second, nothing.
As I already said, that's not democratic at all. "It's in the Constitution, so it's right"? Come on, now. Dissent always was, is, and will always be a vital part of democracy (in my little opinion).

Quote:
So yeah, I believe in the right for every person to own any weapon he wants. Just like how I believe everyone has the ability to insult/inflame people verbally via the first amendment.
There are laws against slander, untrue statements, and threats, so no, technically you don't.

Quote:
All rights were bestowed on the people and any attempt to infringe or reinterpret them is horrendous.
I addressed this one, too.
OK, then the US is horrendous for infringing the citizens' right to marry freely, even within their own gender. Damned re-interpreting of "right to pursue happiness".

The US is horrendous for denying its citizens the right to free (socialized in Neo-Con Political Correct-ish) Health Care.

The US is horrendous for... And so on. See, everyone has a different opinion about what your rights should be.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2006, 11:30 AM   #28
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
The constitution isn't fixed. The fact its had so many ammendments shows that. It also isn't exclusive.

I still don't get WHY the right to bear arms is held so dear by so many americans though. I'm asuming it must be due to some collective hangover from the war of independence?

Though most of the time, and especially with the NRA types, it seem like it is simply a love of guns.

The constitution wasn't ammended to make sure everyone had guns to play with.. it was ammended to ensure everyone had what guns could provide.
If chickens could have provided the same functions as guns then maybe the 2nd ammendment would have been the right to bear chickens. It isn't the guns themselves that are important.

But times change. The function and relative importance of items inthe world changes. The creation of Jets, apaches, tanks, WMDs and Nukes have made the right to bear a rifle kind of meaningless.
Can anyone think of a revolution that has occurred in the past 50 years where a dictatorship has been overthrown where guns have played a big part? People power, global communications and free speech, the internet, tv, mass protests and even the odd molatov cocktail.. but guns?

Most democracies don't have the right to guns, but are just as democratic. Guns have no demonstrable effect in making people safer or not in their own homes. Guns don't overthrow governments.. blogs do. A militia with rifles can't stand up against enemies who can take them out from a safe distance. If the government comes to get you then guns don't help a lot (think waco).

So maybe the 2nd ammendment needs to be updated to include the right to have WMDs.. or jet planes. Heck, maybe there is still a minor value in the 2nd ammendment.. but I cna't see how anyone can argue that it is close to being as important as the first - or close to being as important and relevant as it once was.

If they tried to ban something I was attached to like computer games then i'd be up in arms about it too. Which is understandable because i'm attached to them. But i wouldn't be able to logically argue that it was important enough that there be a "right to video games" ammendment. IMHO the right to bear arms isn't important enough these days to need its own ammendment... its one of those miscelaneous additional rights to be determined by the courts.. like the right to privacy, or the right to imformation, or the right to video games.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2006, 05:10 PM   #29
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Though most of the time, and especially with the NRA types, it seem like it is simply a love of guns.
I agree. I think that a lot of the southern types around where I live DO just love guns. They like to collect guns, go hunting, or just shoot crap on their property. But I don't see why that's bad... I wouldn't hunt, because I don't see how killing animals could be a source of entertainment, but just because I wouldn't do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected (gay marriage, anyone?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
But times change. The function and relative importance of items inthe world changes. The creation of Jets, apaches, tanks, WMDs and Nukes have made the right to bear a rifle kind of meaningless.
Hey, look at Iraq. The U.S. military has all the best technology and yet a bunch of nuts with AK's can still do so much damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Guns have no demonstrable effect in making people safer or not in their own homes.
If I have a gun under my bed, and I hear a window shatter, I grab said gun and go shoot whoever has broken into my house. If guns were prohibited, the criminal would be the only one with the gun. I would not. I would be dead.

And then you have situations like in New Orleans where citizens needed guns to defend themselves when there was no order.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 06:17 AM   #30
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Can anyone think of a revolution that has occurred in the past 50 years where a dictatorship has been overthrown where guns have played a big part? People power, global communications and free speech, the internet, tv, mass protests and even the odd molatov cocktail.. but guns?
Nepal. Right now. Thank Heaven the world media's finally paying attention to the situation there.

Quote:
Hey, look at Iraq. The U.S. military has all the best technology and yet a bunch of nuts with AK's can still do so much damage.
Already been addressed. How many Coalition soldiers are in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands? 2000 killed, in that case, is not "so much damage".

Quote:
If I have a gun under my bed, and I hear a window shatter, I grab said gun and go shoot whoever has broken into my house.
And that's why so many people want guns banned - because too many people think they have the right to take upon themselves the role of judge and jurty and sentence people to death for things that a real judge and jury would only give you a fine or jailtime for.

Quote:
If guns were prohibited, the criminal would be the only one with the gun. I would not. I would be dead.
That's already been brought up, too. This is going around in circles.

Quote:
And then you have situations like in New Orleans where citizens needed guns to defend themselves when there was no order.
But of course, if the National Guard was levied on time there wouldn't be a riot.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 09:13 AM   #31
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Already been addressed. How many Coalition soldiers are in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands? 2000 killed, in that case, is not "so much damage".
And yet we have thousands upon thousands upon thousands more of U.S. and coalition casualties, Iraqi police and army deaths and casualties, civilian deaths and casualties, and the destruction of so vehicles. You sound like a neo-con when you say that the Iraq war, eh, only 2,000 killed, not so much damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And that's why so many people want guns banned - because too many people think they have the right to take upon themselves the role of judge and jurty and sentence people to death for things that a real judge and jury would only give you a fine or jailtime for.
If someone breaks into my house with the a gun know I'm gonna shoot the bastard. And if I'd have to kill him I would. I'm defending myself, and I don't wait for the government to do that for me (when it's too late). There is NOTHING wrong with killing someone who has broken into your house with a gun. What would you THINK if that happened to you?

"Oh, I'll just hope he's a nice guy and I'll just wait 'till the cops catch him, and he'll get thrown in prison!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
But of course, if the National Guard was levied on time there wouldn't be a riot.
But it wasn't, and that's the point. I wouldn't want to die because my government screwed up and couldn't put in protection.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 09:15 AM   #32
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
I should point out at the start that I'm not calling for guns to be banned, or even the 2nd ammendment protection to be removed... just pointing out how it doesn't seem to be remotely important compared to most of the other rights declared in the constitution (and a few outside it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Nepal. Right now. Thank Heaven the world media's finally paying attention to the situation there.
But again.. the maoist rebels have been fighting an armed war for years.. had no effect whatsoever. Its only when the people themselves started taking to the streets (and not with rifles or guns from anything i've seen), writing about it in papers and on the internet and the world media started to pay attention that anything began to change.

I know that "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a cliche.. but it does seem to hold pretty true.
The only armed uprisings i can think of are the ones that have INSTALLED dictators, not overthrown them. And most have THOSE have been by the army and not the people. All the major overthrowings of dictators (east germany, eastern europe etc..) have been largely peaceful and unarmed on the part of the people.

Almost no other democracies feel the need to enshrine the right to bear arms (do ANY?) and yet they are still democratic. Everyone in iraq or the middle east or parts of africa seems to be armed... yet it hasn't brought them democracy or safety.

In iraq you had a properly trained army.. yet they still stood no chance against a load of jets and tanks.
Those that are causing trouble now are doing so mostly with guerilla/terrorist tactics.. to which the right to bear arms is irrelevant. Just look at the attacks by the IRA or ETA or Tim McVey.. they managed to carry out pretty effective terror tactics in without needing to have a right to arms.

Quote:
If I have a gun under my bed, and I hear a window shatter, I grab said gun and go shoot whoever has broken into my house. If guns were prohibited, the criminal would be the only one with the gun. I would not. I would be dead.
Do you have a gun under your bed? If not, why not?
If you didn't have a gun then why would they kill you? No one would be dead.

I don't want to get into the annoying gun safety arguments here as they are neverending and both sides have statistics that show they are right. But if we take an average of those views and statistics, and look at other countries then it becomes clear that guns have almost no effect on public safety.
More people with guns = more guns getting into the hands of criminals - so it evens itself out.
I don't know that burglary rates differ significantly at all betwen countries with guns and those without. I doubt it.

I think guns have just become so ingrained in american culture and psyches that they are now inseperable. Whether they are needed or not is now beside the point. I might never need it, it might never help me, but pry it from my cold dead hands anyway!

I can't help but think that if it wasn't guns but chickens then the glamour wouldn't be there. Every film and tv series wouldn't involve stylish chicken-outs. Everyone wouldn't want them. ;-)

I've lived alone for a reasonable time, often in some dodgy neighbourhoods and i have to say that it has NEVER crossed my mind that "oh, if only i had a gun i'd be so much safer!". if only we all had guns...

[edit]
Ok.. some quick top of my head research reveals that:
States with lowest gun ownership:
Middle atlantic (NY,NJ,PA) 11% - Violent crime rate: 409. Property crime rate: 2400
States with highest gun ownership:
E South Central (Ala., Ken.,Miss.,Ten.) 28% - Violent crime rate: 425, Property crime rate: 3700

Now I know i just bashed these figures together. The gun rates are from 96-98 and the crime figures from 2003 (per 100,000pop) and that many other factors can influence crime rates (such as poverty, ghettos, culture etc..)
But even if you factor in a major amount of error you can see that gun ownership appears to have no real correlation to crime rates. (even within each block some were high and some were low). Its a non issue either way...



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)

Last edited by toms; 05-24-2006 at 09:36 AM.
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 01:43 PM   #33
Good Sir Knight
Junior Member
 
Good Sir Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: US
Posts: 285
<I drafted this message yesterday and wasn't able to post, I look over the replies since then but for now here it is>


Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
The constitution isn't fixed. The fact its had so many ammendments shows that. It also isn't exclusive.

I still don't get WHY the right to bear arms is held so dear by so many americans though. I'm asuming it must be due to some collective hangover from the war of independence?

Though most of the time, and especially with the NRA types, it seem like it is simply a love of guns.

The constitution wasn't ammended to make sure everyone had guns to play with.. it was ammended to ensure everyone had what guns could provide.
If chickens could have provided the same functions as guns then maybe the 2nd ammendment would have been the right to bear chickens. It isn't the guns themselves that are important.

But times change. The function and relative importance of items inthe world changes. The creation of Jets, apaches, tanks, WMDs and Nukes have made the right to bear a rifle kind of meaningless.
Can anyone think of a revolution that has occurred in the past 50 years where a dictatorship has been overthrown where guns have played a big part? People power, global communications and free speech, the internet, tv, mass protests and even the odd molatov cocktail.. but guns?

Most democracies don't have the right to guns, but are just as democratic. Guns have no demonstrable effect in making people safer or not in their own homes. Guns don't overthrow governments.. blogs do. A militia with rifles can't stand up against enemies who can take them out from a safe distance. If the government comes to get you then guns don't help a lot (think waco).

So maybe the 2nd ammendment needs to be updated to include the right to have WMDs.. or jet planes. Heck, maybe there is still a minor value in the 2nd ammendment.. but I cna't see how anyone can argue that it is close to being as important as the first - or close to being as important and relevant as it once was.

If they tried to ban something I was attached to like computer games then i'd be up in arms about it too. Which is understandable because i'm attached to them. But i wouldn't be able to logically argue that it was important enough that there be a "right to video games" ammendment. IMHO the right to bear arms isn't important enough these days to need its own ammendment... its one of those miscelaneous additional rights to be determined by the courts.. like the right to privacy, or the right to imformation, or the right to video games.

This is pretty funny, I have two people one from the UK and one from Norway telling me that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individual gun ownership even though the ACLU can't help but admit it (though fight against it).

You also go on to blast us for not putting free health care into it....it's also not free...it'd only be free to those who don't work for a living.

Have you seen Canada's healthcare system? With a large nation like that, just forget about getting cancer treatment or an organ transplant...just right it off and die or have the money to come down to the states. Sure if you break your leg it's great but just count on you and your family never getting a major illness.

On to the subject at hand......

You're entitled to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You can think of it as our National Guard... hardly a militia as it'd Federally funded and fighting in that war people cry about but okay, hardly a peoples militia wouldn't you say? I don't think there is a civilian counsel for the National Guard so the militia argument is not only bogus but it's false.

A great many people disagree with you. People that were raised in families that honored the right to bear arms. If you haven't been around guns, if you haven't had the training and if the only thing you know about them is from movies and your parents then I think you're being a little naive.

It's natural for us to be scared of what we don't understand. I'm sure it's been vilified over and over and pressed into your brain that guns are bad.

Truth is, guns are nothing more than tools. You may fear guns, I don't, I own a few. I fear people because a gun cannot hurt you with out a malicious or careless person.

Restricting rights to firearms because of criminals and a few idiots is naive, totally naive.

You have more to fear from your common man and if I'm not mistaken England has seen it's stabbings increase year after year. Better ban those kitchen knives too.


Stabbings 'a public health issue'
Good Sir Knight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 04:43 PM   #34
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
You also go on to blast us for not putting free health care into it.
Don't remember doing so in this thread. I said different people have different views on what your "rights" are, and thus you can't just say that "this is my right, period, no one infringe on it or you're evil". I think you missed the whole point.

Quote:
A great many people disagree with you. People that were raised in families that honored the right to bear arms. If you haven't been around guns, if you haven't had the training and if the only thing you know about them is from movies and your parents then I think you're being a little naive.

It's natural for us to be scared of what we don't understand. I'm sure it's been vilified over and over and pressed into your brain that guns are bad.
And I'm sure you understand that ad hominem remarks aren't really useful here. No offense. However, just to do it I'd like to point out that my father's heavily into hunting and thus own four shotguns.

Quote:
Truth is, guns are nothing more than tools.
Try "weapons". A "tool" is used to mend, build, alter, etc. A gun is used to kill and destroy. Big difference.

Quote:
Restricting rights to firearms because of criminals and a few idiots is naive, totally naive.
A few criminals and morons? Don't 11 000 people get shot in the US each year?

Quote:
This is pretty funny, I have two people (...) telling me that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individual gun ownership even though the A.C.L.U. can't help but admit it (though fight against it).
You're right, there's a contradiction in the amendment (it says gun owners are to be in an organized militia and then says there's no need for organization or militia-membership whatsoever as the right to bear arms shall not be attacked).

Quote:
You sound like a neo-con when you say that the Iraq war, eh, only 2,000 killed, not so much damage.
Not compared to the total, no.

And I'm not trying to rationalize the Iraqi invasion - the US, her allies, and the Iraqi law enformenent forces, armed forces, and civilians have combined lost a lot of men, most of whom would still be alive today had Bush&Co. not gone into the God-forsaken country. However, I can say that without contradicting myself as the casualty number, although high, has not really put a dent in the Coalition as a whole. They're still determined to stay in Iraq, they're still strong, and they're not going to be driven out.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 05:29 PM   #35
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Do you have a gun under your bed? If not, why not?
I would like to, but I'm not really ready to go take all the required training. My dad has asked around, though, about getting some type of pistol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
If you didn't have a gun then why would they kill you? No one would be dead.
No one put up resistance to BTK, and yet he killed everyone. Why did HE kill all those people?

You can call me paranoid... I don't think I'm paranoid, I just would want to be prepared. The same way you have a fire extinguisher in your house. Chances are you won't have to ever use it... but you still have it right? I would not want to wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a broken window... and think, damn, we're helpless if this guy has a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
More people with guns = more guns getting into the hands of criminals - so it evens itself out.
But the criminals already have guns, at least in the U.S. Maybe not in Europe. More guns means more citizens who can defend themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
They're still determined to stay in Iraq, they're still strong, and they're not going to be driven out.
Not if you ask Murtha, but that's a different argument.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 05:34 PM   #36
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
You can defend your home just as well with a .9mm instead of a freaking AK/RPG/MTA Missle/Nuke, and with a hell of a lot less damage.

I'm all for keeping the amendment in there.

But there should be a sense of restraint. I.E. The First Amendment a while back, where anti-homosexuals made a ton of noise at a gay soldier's funeral.

Similarly, the government should refrain from letting certain guns be owned, especially without a specific license.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 06:06 PM   #37
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
You can defend your home just as well with a .9mm instead of a freaking AK/RPG/MTA Missle/Nuke, and with a hell of a lot less damage.
Of course, but what if someone wants an AK just as a part of a gun collection? Or to just shoot cans and **** with in their property? As long as they aren't shooting up people, or my house or car with it, I don't care if they want to have one.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 06:28 PM   #38
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
You miss the part where I said "with a license"?

Gun collections are an irrelevant argument/red herring. This the right to bear arms. If you want to pop cans, hey, that's fine. Get a full AK license.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 06:31 PM   #39
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
What if someone wants a nuclear bomb just as part of a weapons of mass destruction collection? Or just to blow up small uninhabited islands with? As long as they aren't blowing up people, or my house or car with it, etc. etc.

I know it's an extreme, but I really don't see any reason for people to have automatic weapons. If you want a pistol or a hunting rifle, then whatever.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-24-2006, 07:49 PM   #40
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
I know it's an extreme, but I really don't see any reason for people to have automatic weapons. If you want a pistol or a hunting rifle, then whatever.
There's a lot of things that you may not see reasons to do, hey, I would never go hunting, but if it isn't going to harm me or anything else, even though I don't understand why you would do it, why should I care?

Automatic weapons should be licensed, though, I'd agree with that.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Amendment #2 - its importance

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.