Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

Like Tree162Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old February 13th, 2013, 06:26 AM   #151 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Trained and equipped like armies? Sure. But the gangs on the street are trained and equipped like armies as well these days.
That's not true. The fact that everyone except the intended target gets shot in the vast majority of gang shootings makes this crystal clear. Nor do they have the self-discipline of military and paramilitary personnel. When's the last time you saw a street gang wearing body armor, or with a full support network for communications, logistics etc.? Sorry but that excuse is an epic fail because there's absolutely nothing to it.

Quote:
Allowed to act like gangsters? No.
Saying a single word isn't proof. Look at the history of the Chicago Police Department, and its ongoing ties to the Mafia. It's well documented and very true.

Quote:
Are there bad apples? Sure. But that's the exception and not the rule.
I wish that was the case. But the fact is that the self-proclaimed "good cops" are in fact criminal conspirators with the crooked cops who they don't turn in, arrest or otherwise honor their oath of office about. Those "bad apples" wouldn't be there if the majority that allows them to operate with impunity wasn't equally crooked.

Quote:
Us vs them culture? Sadly yes. I can't really blame them for this.
Yes you can. And you would be right to do so. They're supposed to keep the peace, not terrorize innocent people.

Quote:
They routinely get crucified in the media for every little thing they do.
Sweeping generalizations about undefined bogeymen, insinuations and appeals to sympathy are not the things that truth is made of. But they are all logical fallacies. And fallacies aren't true. No sale.

Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old February 13th, 2013, 06:36 AM   #152 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

How many NRA-members do you need to change a light bulb?
The answer is: MORE GUNS!
Speed Daemon likes this.
orion877 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 07:10 AM   #153 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
That's not true. The fact that everyone except the intended target gets shot in the vast majority of gang shootings makes this crystal clear. Nor do they have the self-discipline of military and paramilitary personnel. When's the last time you saw a street gang wearing body armor, or with a full support network for communications, logistics etc.? Sorry but that excuse is an epic fail because there's absolutely nothing to it.
Criminals today are heavily armed in many cities. I know you don't like that fact, but it's still a fact.

Quote:
Saying a single word isn't proof. Look at the history of the Chicago Police Department, and its ongoing ties to the Mafia. It's well documented and very true.
Got it. One department that may be corrupt = every police department being corrupt. Makes sense to me.

Quote:
I wish that was the case. But the fact is that the self-proclaimed "good cops" are in fact criminal conspirators with the crooked cops who they don't turn in, arrest or otherwise honor their oath of office about. Those "bad apples" wouldn't be there if the majority that allows them to operate with impunity wasn't equally crooked.
By and large the people I work with at my current job are hard workers. There are a couple who are complete slackers. Do I rat them all out to management? No. Because the time I spend trying to gather evidence against the lazy co-workers is wasted time that I could spend actually doing my job. I love how you just blatantly condemn every single police officer because a handful of them are corrupt. There are soldiers who are also corrupt. How do I know this? Because every single organization of a significant size has people in it who are corrupt. It's how the world works. I suppose we should also condemn every single soldier for being corrupt as well. I'm sure there are people who work for Google who are corrupt and take kickbacks, cut corners, etc.... So everyone who works for Google is corrupt as well.

Quote:
Yes you can. And you would be right to do so. They're supposed to keep the peace, not terrorize innocent people.
Got it. You get crucified in the media on a regular basis, but this is supposed to have no effect on you at all. I don't think police officers "terrorize innocent people" as a matter of course.

Quote:
Sweeping generalizations about undefined bogeymen, insinuations and appeals to sympathy are not the things that truth is made of. But they are all logical fallacies. And fallacies aren't true. No sale.
So you just ignore all the examples I cited. Good times.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013, 04:15 PM   #154 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,066
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

I'm listening to a live stream of "by the fireside" hangout with president obama right now, and currently being discussed is his proposals on his gun bans, he says a reason for banning these "assault weapons" is they have no purpose in hunting, or in home defense and that they are primarily weapons of war.

No purpose? I have one of these "assault weapons" somewhere where I have quick access to it if there is a break in. I think that a burglar seeing me staring at them down my sights of my AR shouting commands at them would put a little more fear into them than a hand gun.

Now that said a gun is a gun and any sane person would have fear put in them in that situation with any gun. But to say there is no purpose is to me saying any gun serves no purpose in home defense.

Thats same AR I can legally use for hunting big game, and guess what... I DO!

No use in hunting or home protection? I think there is..
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pbf98 For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (February 15th, 2013)
Old February 14th, 2013, 09:22 PM   #155 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Now that is pretty much the very reason that we have a hand gun ban over here (it was when I was just a child.....)

Reason being that a hand gun is meant not for sport (hunting, target or any other types) but are designed for killing another human, close range killing...regardless of wether its done in the name of protection or for any other options, a hand gun is for killing people!

This is the same reason certain knives are banned, we live in civilised times (on the whole) and there should be no reason to carry any weapon!

Please give me any other intended use of hand guns?

(PS, I apologise for my worst than usual grammar etc, I'm typing this in a very sleep deprived position thanks to my 2.5 week old son!)
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sntaylor For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (February 15th, 2013)
Old February 14th, 2013, 10:45 PM   #156 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
kool kat2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,018
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II (stock.... for now) Acer Iconia A100 (stolen by a 2 year old:p)
Carrier: Death Star

Thanks: 212
Thanked 140 Times in 116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
there should be no reason to carry any weapon!)
i would not walk in certain neighborhoods without some sort of protection, even if its a knife. now i know we dont all live in dangerous neighborhoods but some people do and fear to go to the store because of the people they meet along the way. some people may actually need to use a weapon as self defense or to scare away a potential mugger or rapist or some other kind of psycho. surely thats reason enough to have weapons available. im sure there are many examples of people getting out of a bind like that due to a weapon. had they not had said weapon, they would be in a very different situation than today.


i know they say if a ban results in one life being saved its worth it. what about any lives lost due to lack of guns or other weapons?
kool kat2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 04:25 AM   #157 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kat2 View Post
i would not walk in certain neighborhoods without some sort of protection, even if its a knife. now i know we dont all live in dangerous neighborhoods but some people do and fear to go to the store because of the people they meet along the way. some people may actually need to use a weapon as self defense or to scare away a potential mugger or rapist or some other kind of psycho. surely thats reason enough to have weapons available. im sure there are many examples of people getting out of a bind like that due to a weapon. had they not had said weapon, they would be in a very different situation than today.


i know they say if a ban results in one life being saved its worth it. what about any lives lost due to lack of guns or other weapons?
I know the kind of areas, but I also find that over here at least, I can't think of many places if any that I would not go..... Surely going to an area with a weapon is not the answer, should it not be to focus on the problem and find a solution to making it a nicer area? To me saying, let's just carry a gun to protect myself, is the easy way out and it means there will inevitably be a death, this then creates a further downwards spiral where the shooter is effected mentally as are the families of both the dead and shooter.

There will always be bad places, bad people but again from an outside view, all I'm seeing is fear, and the thought that a gun is the answer!

I'm not for a complete ban on the things, hell I have an air gun myself that I enjoy shooting targets with, but certain guns that are purely designed for killing humans, wether on a mass or singular basis, should have no place in a civilised country, they are weapons of war!

A ban on these weapons would not solve everything as if course there will always be guns available on some black market or another, but the more taken off the streets the less available and that will steadily decline! During which of course there will be shooting of people and outrage saying if there was no ban it wouldn't have happened, but you gotta start somewhere!

How many on here, particularly those saying they would just shoot a shooter blah blah, have actually shot another human, and if those how many have killed the other....how would you feel if you missed and shot an innocent?
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sntaylor For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (February 15th, 2013)
Old February 15th, 2013, 07:46 AM   #158 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kat2 View Post
i would not walk in certain neighborhoods without some sort of protection, even if its a knife. now i know we dont all live in dangerous neighborhoods but some people do and fear to go to the store because of the people they meet along the way. some people may actually need to use a weapon as self defense or to scare away a potential mugger or rapist or some other kind of psycho. surely thats reason enough to have weapons available. im sure there are many examples of people getting out of a bind like that due to a weapon. had they not had said weapon, they would be in a very different situation than today.
That's a really good summary of the meat of the situation!

I'd like to point out that "bad neighborhoods" can come to you, so the illusion of a "safe place" has many flaws. There is always some quantifiable danger no matter where you live.

The bottom line is that humankind has never been able to create a Utopian society for any extended period of time. There will always be people with weapons of one kind or another, and hostile intentions. The most common "solution" for this perennial problem is, in essence hiring mercenaries to fight the bad guys, so that we can live hypocritically "above the fray". But this too has many unwanted consequences.

In the end, the ultimate responsibility for personal security always has been, and always lie with the person, and it doesn't matter if the weapon is a gun, a nuclear bomb or a board with a nail in it.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 09:20 AM   #159 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Reason being that a hand gun is meant not for sport (hunting, target or any other types) but are designed for killing another human, close range killing...regardless of wether its done in the name of protection or for any other options, a hand gun is for killing people!
Me thinks there are a few folks that might disagree with you. I bought my Ruger for target shooting and shooting at cans and bottles. Never had any intention of killing anyone.
JimmyRayBob likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 09:40 AM   #160 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,066
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

Where in the American second amendment does it say that the arms we have the right to keep and bear must be intended for sport and hunting?

Thats the thing, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing else to it but that doesn't matter what its made for, its the American way and it is how our country has been since the framework was written out. One problem is ignorant politicians that only look at the bad side of guns and think of all of them as evil killing machines. When really its not the gun, its the human behind it. Blaming the gun is like blaming a hammer for hitting your thumb and not the nail you were aiming for. They are both inanimate objects that have no brain, and can't do anything but sit there with out human interaction.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pbf98 For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (February 15th, 2013)
sponsored links
Old February 15th, 2013, 11:26 AM   #161 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
Where in the American second amendment does it say that the arms we have the right to keep and bear must be intended for sport and hunting?

Thats the thing, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing else to it but that doesn't matter what its made for, its the American way and it is how our country has been since the framework was written out. One problem is ignorant politicians that only look at the bad side of guns and think of all of them as evil killing machines. When really its not the gun, its the human behind it. Blaming the gun is like blaming a hammer for hitting your thumb and not the nail you were aiming for. They are both inanimate objects that have no brain, and can't do anything but sit there with out human interaction.
No where, that is where.

Heck, those passing assault weapons bans can't even describe an assault weapon or tell us what one is. From looking at the list, Pelosi apparently thinks it is all weapons.
pbf98 likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 12:24 PM   #162 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 315
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 24
Thanked 52 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Now that is pretty much the very reason that we have a hand gun ban over here (it was when I was just a child.....)

Reason being that a hand gun is meant not for sport (hunting, target or any other types) but are designed for killing another human, close range killing...regardless of wether its done in the name of protection or for any other options, a hand gun is for killing people!

This is the same reason certain knives are banned, we live in civilised times (on the whole) and there should be no reason to carry any weapon!

Please give me any other intended use of hand guns?

(PS, I apologise for my worst than usual grammar etc, I'm typing this in a very sleep deprived position thanks to my 2.5 week old son!)
If handguns are solely for "killing people" and there are MILLIONS OF THEM, why don't we have millions of gun deaths? And isn't personal protection a perfectly good reason to own a handgun?

Not too mention target shooting - which I happen to enjoy quite a bit.
pbf98 likes this.
JimmyRayBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 03:51 PM   #163 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,066
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default



This is Diane Fienstein, one of the major role players in the gun ban making and look how careless she is holding the gun. She is violating every common sense gun safety rule there is short of looking down the barrel..

Bolt is closed
Finger is on the trigger
Pointing into the audience

And she claims she knows enough about this area to write laws about it? Yea I call BS on that..
sntaylor likes this.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 04:18 PM   #164 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Me thinks there are a few folks that might disagree with you. I bought my Ruger for target shooting and shooting at cans and bottles. Never had any intention of killing anyone.
Bad wording by me,I should have said primarily designed for killing.....which hand guns are, naturally I'm sure you could find someone who will use a machine gun or rocket launcher for target practice, this doesn't take away from their original purpose of design.
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sntaylor For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (February 15th, 2013)
Old February 15th, 2013, 04:31 PM   #165 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
Where in the American second amendment does it say that the arms we have the right to keep and bear must be intended for sport and hunting?

Thats the thing, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing else to it but that doesn't matter what its made for, its the American way and it is how our country has been since the framework was written out. One problem is ignorant politicians that only look at the bad side of guns and think of all of them as evil killing machines. When really its not the gun, its the human behind it. Blaming the gun is like blaming a hammer for hitting your thumb and not the nail you were aiming for. They are both inanimate objects that have no brain, and can't do anything but sit there with out human interaction.
Where does it say in the second amendment what type of gun you must have?

As a foreigner in this debate I do find it hard to get behind the passion towards the constitution and truly understand it, there are obviously some human rights that must be protected, but in this day and age, I feel society has outgrown certain amendments/laws...... from what I can gather the second amendment is technically a law? And there are plenty of laws that will have changed over time, newer ones than those! Speed limits for a start!

"It's the American way"

I think this hits the nail on the head(forgot about your hammer thing already :-P ), I'm looking at it from an outsiders point of view, adding a new dimension into the equation as you guys see it from a for or against argument and I'm actually in both camps and see both points!

Going back to your hammer point though.....of course it's not the hammers fault, but you wouldn't hit your thumb if you didn't have the hammer in the first place!

So let's save everyone's thumbs and ban hammers! :-)
pbf98 likes this.
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 04:41 PM   #166 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,304
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Im inclined to believe your premise that handguns were designed for killing......... but you have to accept that maybe they were designed for wounding

but assuming your premise is correct that handguns were designed for killing then you must also recognize that EVERY gun is designed for killing...every weapon of every type ever designed was designed for killing.... every slingshot is also designed for killing........ baseball bats were designed for killing (orignally other cavemen)..... knives were designed for killing..... etc etc etc .... you get the point..... oh and lets not forget... the javelin.... whos only modern day useage is at track and field events such as the olympics.......... designed for killing
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 04:41 PM   #167 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyRayBob View Post
If handguns are solely for "killing people" and there are MILLIONS OF THEM, why don't we have millions of gun deaths? And isn't personal protection a perfectly good reason to own a handgun?

Not too mention target shooting - which I happen to enjoy quite a bit.
Then why won't we allow other countries to have nuclear weapons? Protection is a perfectly good reason after all!

Again I'm going for a more utilitarian view point, and I feel our countries are hypocrites when telling Iran they can't have nuclear weapons but we hold them....Scotland wants rid of them( snp which is current party in power!) And I feel that's the stance we should all go for, this stands true with guns!

As for target shooting, I've already stated that I to enjoy it and would love to have a shot with a proper gun(not going to lie!)hell I'd love to shoot all kinds of guns in a safe environment, and this I'm sure is something that could still be arranged..of course if say there was a ban on guns but an exception for target ranges, the first incident would cause uproar.

It's got to be about balance and finding a way to deal with the criminal element, then many people would feel they didn't have to have a gun for protection(imo a wrong reason to have one, but I can understand!I just don't feel the need for any protection where I stay nor anywhere I visit!) And all guns would be used responsiblyand the anti gun campaign wouldn't have an argument!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 04:47 PM   #168 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
Im inclined to believe your premise that handguns were designed for killing......... but you have to accept that maybe they were designed for wounding

but assuming your premise is correct that handguns were designed for killing then you must also recognize that EVERY gun is designed for killing...every weapon of every type ever designed was designed for killing.... every slingshot is also designed for killing........ baseball bats were designed for killing (orignally other cavemen)..... knives were designed for killing..... etc etc etc .... you get the point..... oh and lets not forget... the javelin.... whos only modern day useage is at track and field events such as the olympics.......... designed for killing
I do, and I acknowledged that guns also have other uses at shooting ranges etc, I would say that some of your examples may be very far fetched!

Primarily though, hand guns wether used for protection or not, are designed for maiming, I'm sure I've read on this forum, similar topic that aiming for limbs, although ideal, not practical, so generally they are for killing! But groups of people may use them differently, a hammer is primarily for hitting nails, but some use them for killing!

Another key point would be that hand guns were designed for killing humans, your examples although used in killing of humans, were designed for killing animals for food!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 05:00 PM   #169 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,304
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

in that line of thinking one could also argue that the internet was invented for killing humans as well

after all the military didnt invent it to schedule tea parties
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 05:07 PM   #170 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Then why won't we allow other countries to have nuclear weapons? Protection is a perfectly good reason after all!

Again I'm going for a more utilitarian view point, and I feel our countries are hypocrites when telling Iran they can't have nuclear weapons but we hold them....Scotland wants rid of them( snp which is current party in power!) And I feel that's the stance we should all go for, this stands true with guns!
The main hypocrisy with regard Iran is that we are sanctioning them despite them not having nukes (yet), while Israel has as many nuclear weapons as the UK, and no sanctions (not to mention they are involved in an illegal occupation etc but that is for another day).

Scotland wants rid of them but also wants 'more Europe', which means Scotland will never be free of nuclear weapons, lets be honest. There will be people in submarines underwater for months at a time carrying hundreds of warheads to protect Scotland anyway.
sntaylor likes this.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old February 15th, 2013, 05:13 PM   #171 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
in that line of thinking one could also argue that the internet was invented for killing humans as well

after all the military didnt invent it to schedule tea parties
Flawed as it has never physically killed anyone, but it has aided in the death of many.

I wouldn't say it was designed to actually help kill anyone, but aid in defence and attack etc which does obviously involve killing people (although there could be an argument regarding where individual targets are concerned!)
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 06:39 PM   #172 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Where does it say in the second amendment what type of gun you must have?

As a foreigner in this debate I do find it hard to get behind the passion towards the constitution and truly understand it, there are obviously some human rights that must be protected, but in this day and age, I feel society has outgrown certain amendments/laws...... from what I can gather the second amendment is technically a law? And there are plenty of laws that will have changed over time, newer ones than those! Speed limits for a start!

"It's the American way"

I think this hits the nail on the head(forgot about your hammer thing already :-P ), I'm looking at it from an outsiders point of view, adding a new dimension into the equation as you guys see it from a for or against argument and I'm actually in both camps and see both points!

Going back to your hammer point though.....of course it's not the hammers fault, but you wouldn't hit your thumb if you didn't have the hammer in the first place!

So let's save everyone's thumbs and ban hammers! :-)
First off... The second amendment is not a law, it is part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of basic human rights that every person is entitled to and can not be taken away by the government.

Yes it is correct that it doesn't say what type of guns you must have or can have. It says you can have ANY gun of your choosing. That is what the phrase "shall not be infringed" means. Technically laws that do things like ban automatic rifles are unconstitutional.

And, since you brought up hammers... If semi automatic rifles get banned then hammers should definitely be banned. More people are killed every year with hammers than rifles.
__________________
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 06:48 PM   #173 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Is there not a law that already breaks most of those rights (patriot act or something?) And as there are restrictions on criminals or people with mental health issues does that not go against it?

One of my points was that times change, and so do bills etc!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013, 10:01 PM   #174 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
The main hypocrisy with regard Iran is that we are sanctioning them despite them not having nukes (yet), while Israel has as many nuclear weapons as the UK, and no sanctions (not to mention they are involved in an illegal occupation etc but that is for another day).

Scotland wants rid of them but also wants 'more Europe', which means Scotland will never be free of nuclear weapons, lets be honest. There will be people in submarines underwater for months at a time carrying hundreds of warheads to protect Scotland anyway.
Israel is an ally though while Iran is openly hostile towards pretty much the entire world.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 01:08 AM   #175 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,304
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
I wouldn't say it was designed to actually help kill anyone, but aid in defence and attack etc which does obviously involve killing people (although there could be an argument regarding where individual targets are concerned!)

wait its impossible to tell here......... are you talking about handguns or the internet....... because your statement accurately describes both

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Is there not a law that already breaks most of those rights (patriot act or something?) And as there are restrictions on criminals or people with mental health issues does that not go against it?

One of my points was that times change, and so do bills etc!
so what youre saying is that because some laws have yet to be stricken down by a political supreme court...... then rights can be infringed?

so... just curious.... you would have the same opinion in regards to voter ID I assume?....... after all we have many laws that already infringe on the right to vote..... registration in general being the most glaring example

or the right to free speech.... we can certainly limit that however we want...... since there are some laws in place that restrict that one

or any other right for that matter......... theres laws in place that somehow limit every one of them....... does that mean they can be trampled?

times change....... rights do not
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to copestag For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (February 16th, 2013)
Old February 16th, 2013, 04:30 AM   #176 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Well hand guns were designed for the purpose of that kill shot the internet was not!

And as for rights changing....I'm sure there are many people that would disagree, actually probably well over half of America.... Womens rights to vote, black peoples rights as a whole?

But if course rights do not change so let's go back to the days if slavery!
As to voter id, I'm not sure if the current systems in place over there, we in Britain have to register to vote, we are then sent a card out in the post with polling details, its quicker and easier to bring it, if you don't, you can still vote without giving any proof..... I don't see anything wrong with this system, as the people who work at the polling stations etc are vetted and I think are volunteers, though I could be wrong as there may be a nominal pay!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 08:20 AM   #177 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

ALL guns are designed to kill though.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 09:03 AM   #178 (permalink)
Member
 
JohnLaird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 155
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 73 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Hmm...be careful with the word *ALL*. Plenty of guns are made/designed to be used expressly for target shooting...obviously they can be used to kill but the design makes it rather impractical. There are a lot of rifles out there (even AR-15s) that are so damn heavy all they are good for is bench-rest shooting (and they excel at it). There is also so-called "less-lethal" guns and ammunition to consider (typically special purpose shotgun shells).

There are also gobs of .22 rifles out there. Could it be used for killing? Sure, maybe squirrels and paper. Unless you are skilled enough to hit a person in the temple near point blank it isn't much use for killing people.

That aside...with your logic...are *ALL* knives with a blade >2" designed for killing? Are all rifle bayonets designed for that purpose? Historically all they are used for is as a camp knife or cooking implement. They just get in the way when you stick it on a rifle...good for show. Not much else.
JohnLaird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 10:27 AM   #179 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Missouri is trying to pass a bill that would require all "assault gun" owners to turn in their guns for destruction within 90 days.

Still think they do not want to disarm us?

Missouri lawmakers introduce gun confiscation bill | Joe Pags - THE 9-5-0 - RADIO MOJO - Houston's Talk Radio

I do not think it will pass.

Law abiding citizen today and felon tomorrow. The ban also includes certain magazines.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 11:38 AM   #180 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post

And as for rights changing....I'm sure there are many people that would disagree, actually probably well over half of America.... Womens rights to vote, black peoples rights as a whole?

But if course rights do not change so let's go back to the days if slavery!
As to voter id, I'm not sure if the current systems in place over there, we in Britain have to register to vote, we are then sent a card out in the post with polling details, its quicker and easier to bring it, if you don't, you can still vote without giving any proof..... I don't see anything wrong with this system, as the people who work at the polling stations etc are vetted and I think are volunteers, though I could be wrong as there may be a nominal pay!
I think rights can be added, like in your example, because they did not always apply to certain groups. Rights, however, can not be taken away. They are not given to us by anyone, including government.

With the voting system, it works the same in a lot of states here. The problem is fraud. Take just this presidential election for example. There were areas where Obama received 100% of votes, with 0 votes for Romney, which is a statistical impossibility. There were areas that Obama received as much as 120% of the votes for the registered voters in the area. There have been interviews with people admitting publicly that they voted multiple times which is a crime. The only reason this isn't changed is because without voter fraud democrats could not get elected. Having to show a valid ID would not prevent any legal citizen from voting, but democrats always resist this because they need those illegal votes.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old February 16th, 2013, 11:51 AM   #181 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 558
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 11
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Default

People should read the Supreme Court decision Heller which deals with the 2nd Amendment (ESPECIALLY PAGES 52-56):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Supreme Court is very clear. The 2nd Amendment right to hold and bear arms is NOT unlimited. Private citizens have the individual right to hold and bear arms which are lawful and were "in common usage at the time". The Supreme Court makes it clear that the government can make laws as to who cannot bear arms (eg. felons, mentally ill), where you can bear arms (eg. government buildings, schools or other sensitive areas), how you bear arms (eg. concealed carry) and what type of arms are prohibited (eg. M16 or similar military, machine guns, sawn off shot guns, dangerous or unusual weapons).

The Supreme court separates out the first part (States ability to form and regulate the people as a militia) and second part of the 2nd Amendment (individual's right to hold and bear arms). The latter part only protects the individual to hold and bear weapons which were "in common usage at the time". The court goes on to say that the fact that weaponery has become advanced does not change the court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The court gives the example of people being asked to serve in the militia and only being able to bring their home-owned rifles to fight against bombers. The fact that weapon technology has improved does not entitle gun owner access to advanced weaponery.

I cannot see how anybody can read the 2nd Amendment as the protected right to arm themselves with advanced military-type assault weapons so they can overthrow the United States government in the name of liberty.
funpig is offline  
Last edited by funpig; February 16th, 2013 at 12:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to funpig For This Useful Post:
Gmash (March 24th, 2013)
Old February 16th, 2013, 12:02 PM   #182 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
People should read the Supreme Court decision Heller which deals with the 2nd Amendment (ESPECIALLY PAGES 52-56):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Supreme Court is very clear. The 2nd Amendment right to hold and bear arms is NOT unlimited. Private citizens have the individual right to hold and bear arms which are lawful and were "in common usage at the time". The Supreme Court makes it clear that the government can make laws as to who cannot bear arms (eg. felons, mentally ill), where you can bear arms (eg. government buildings, schools or other sensitive areas), how you bear arms (eg. concealed carry) and what type of arms are prohibited (eg. M16 or similar military, machine guns, sawn off shot guns, dangerous or unusual weapons).

The Supreme court separates out the first part (States ability to form and regulate the people as a militia) and second part of the 2nd Amendment (individual's right to hold and bear arms). The latter part only protects the individual to hold and bear weapons which were "in common usage in the time". The court goes on to say that the fact that weaponery has become advanced does not change the court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The court gives the example of people being asked to serve in the militia and only bringing their home-owned rifles against bombers.

I cannot see how anybody can read the 2nd Amendment as the protected right to arm themselves with advanced military-type assault weapons so they can overthrow the United States government in the name of liberty.
Because that was the intent of the second amendment. If our government were to become tyrannical, which is a very real possibility under Obama, the citizens should have the means to maintain their freedom. There are a lot of issues like mental illness that the founding fathers could not have foreseen, but the intent was still the same.

Also, currently the average person can not buy a military type assault rifle. The AR15 which looks like an M16 is not a military assault rifle. The AR15 can fire 45-60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the user because it requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot. The M16 can fire 960 rounds per minute and is a select fire automatic rifle. The AR15 functions no differently than any other semi automatic rifle. It just looks different and has some features designed to make it easier to use for self defense (light weight, pistol grip, easy to attach accessories (scopes, lights, fore grips, etc).
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 12:13 PM   #183 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 558
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 11
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Because that was the intent of the second amendment. If our government were to become tyrannical,..., the citizens should have the means to maintain their freedom.
I guess if you repeat this enough on the internet, people will think this is the truth. Those words are not in the Second Amendment. If there is a judicial interpretation which reads in that intent, please point it out. It also flies in the face of the specific prohibition against treason, ie levying war against the government, found in the Constitution.
funpig is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to funpig For This Useful Post:
Gmash (March 24th, 2013)
Old February 16th, 2013, 12:27 PM   #184 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 558
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 11
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Also, currently the average person can not buy a military type assault rifle. The AR15 which looks like an M16 is not a military assault rifle. The AR15 can fire 45-60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the user because it requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot. The M16 can fire 960 rounds per minute and is a select fire automatic rifle. The AR15 functions no differently than any other semi automatic rifle. It just looks different and has some features designed to make it easier to use for self defense (light weight, pistol grip, easy to attach accessories (scopes, lights, fore grips, etc).
Was an AR15 "in common usage at the time"? If not, according to the Supreme Court, the right to keep and bear it is not guaranteed under the second amendment according to the Heller case. Then its usage may be regulated. The only question is whether the people will elect a government with the clout to do so. Conversely, people could decide to elect a government to allow private citizens to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
funpig is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 12:30 PM   #185 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
Was an AR15 "in common usage at the time"? If not, according to the Supreme Court, the right to keep and bear it is not guaranteed under the second amendment according to the Heller case. Then its usage may be regulated. The only question is whether the people will elect a government with the clout to do so. Conversely, people could decide to elect a government to allow private citizens to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
Yes, the AR15 is "in common usage at the time". The AR15 is currently one of the most popular guns in America, and has been for several years.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 01:26 PM   #186 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Yes, the AR15 is "in common usage at the time". The AR15 is currently one of the most popular guns in America, and has been for several years.
The original text states that it is weapons that were in use at the time, suggesting to me at least, at the time of writing the second amendment!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 01:26 PM   #187 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 558
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 11
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Yes, the AR15 is "in common usage at the time". The AR15 is currently one of the most popular guns in America, and has been for several years.
You should read the Heller case. "In common usage at the time" refers to the time the constitution was drafted. Semi auto weapons did not exist then. Therefore keeping and bearing an AR15 is not guaranteed under the constitution. Therefore, it may be regulated, but that is up to the government.
funpig is offline  
Last edited by funpig; February 16th, 2013 at 01:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 01:35 PM   #188 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
ALL guns are designed to kill though.
To clarify my view...and it is just that!

All guns were invented with the intention of use for killing, since then they have evolved greatly from the huge cannons etc, use of all guns vary, but in the most part, people going out to hunt would not use a hand gun to shoot deer, possibly to defend against a bear but that's about it..... Likewise a huntsman would be unlikely to go shooting deer using a machine gun! These items are meant for killing, in large, humans!

I know that many go to the shooting range etc and use these guns and that's fine, but its generally those same people who are using the example of self defence as a primary reason, therefor it is for killing (as I said before, you don't get taught to aim for limbs as is highly likely you'll miss!)

I'll all again, has anyone here actually had to shoot someone in self defence in their home or on the streets?

Oh and just curious as this debate seems to jump with reason for having guns between use for self defence in home or streets against a bad man, and protection against the government in the form of a militia, I have seen evidence of the right for the militia, where does it state the right to carry for defence etc?
sntaylor is offline  
Last edited by sntaylor; February 16th, 2013 at 01:39 PM. Reason: last statement :-)
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 01:46 PM   #189 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Bad wording by me,I should have said primarily designed for killing.....which hand guns are, naturally I'm sure you could find someone who will use a machine gun or rocket launcher for target practice, this doesn't take away from their original purpose of design.
Yes you can. You must have never shot a machine gun. It ain't like in the movies. Being accurate takes practice. I believe in China there are places people can go to shoot rockets. Perhaps in this country, Bob does not know.

We are getting off track. the Constitution says we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Period. One can argue it until the cows come home, but the fact still remains, it is fundamental and protected right no matter how one wants to twist it in an effort to support their point.

Or it was.

The "Six Shooter" in the old west was carried for protection, killing dinner, and what have you. Interestingly enough, according to some Utah western historians and writers, when you rode into town you usually had to turn your guns into the sheriff.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 01:54 PM   #190 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
You should read the Heller case. "In common usage at the time" refers to the time the constitution was drafted. Semi auto weapons did not exist then. Therefore keeping and bearing an AR15 is not guaranteed under the constitution. Therefore, it may be regulated, but that is up to the government.
Are AR-15s considered arms? Where does it say we have the right to keep and bear only a certain type of arms? It says "Arms" and that includes almost all of 'em.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old February 16th, 2013, 02:29 PM   #191 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
The "Six Shooter" in the old west was carried for protection, killing dinner, and what have you. Interestingly enough, according to some Utah western historians and writers, when you rode into town you usually had to turn your guns into the sheriff.
I live in KS and there are quite a few cities here that started as cowtown. It was not unusual at all for cowboys to be required to check their guns at the sheriff's office upon arriving in town. You would then retrieve them upon leaving. The ideas was that having drunken cowboys running around with firearms was a bad idea.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 02:34 PM   #192 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
bigdrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 93
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Transformer Pad
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
We are getting off track. the Constitution says we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Period. One can argue it until the cows come home, but the fact still remains, it is fundamental and protected right no matter how one wants to twist it in an effort to support their point.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution was ratified only a few years after the Treaty of Paris. The continental army was disbanded and there was no national military or legion yet, so the protection of the newly formed Union rested on local militias. When Madison wrote the Second Amendment, he chose his words carefully to reflect this:

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.

It wasn't supposed to be a preordained or divine right for an armed citizenry. There was a purpose to it. That was in 1791. Today, the US boasts the world's most technologically capable military force. National, state, and often local law enforcement provide safety within our borders. No one will argue against a rifle or pistol designed for sport. But, there's no need for American citizens to bear arms for defense anymore; in fact it's doing more harm than good.

Back in the 1790's, only property-owning white males were allowed to vote. This was later changed to all males including free blacks, then all adult males regardless of race, and then women. Likewise, Second Amendment is embarrassingly antiquated, and it needs to be reexamined in the modern context.
sntaylor likes this.
bigdrew is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bigdrew For This Useful Post:
Gmash (March 24th, 2013)
Old February 16th, 2013, 03:03 PM   #193 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdrew View Post
No one will argue against a rifle or pistol designed for sport. But, there's no need for American citizens to bear arms for defense anymore; in fact it's doing more harm than good.
You are correct. When someone breaks into your house, tries to mug you, attempts a rape, etc that is when seconds count and can mean the difference between life and death or walking away unharmed or being beaten and hospitalized or losing all of your property and savings. A gun is the great equalizer that can keep 1 person or family safe from a group of armed intruders, or a 110lb woman from being raped by a 250lb 6'6" man.

When seconds count, police are only minutes away. Why would we ever imagine that we would need to protect ourselves??
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 05:11 PM   #194 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
First off... The second amendment is not a law, it is part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of basic human rights that every person is entitled to and can not be taken away by the government.
Well there is an issue with said bill of rights when the right to own tools of killing is legal, yet there is no right to health, shelter etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Israel is an ally though while Iran is openly hostile towards pretty much the entire world.
Iran's external policy certainly hasn't helped its case. That said Israel is quite hostile to Europe, and much of the world themselves. Much more skilled though it must be said, but they have nonetheless ruined their once excellent European rapport (remember the French helped them with their nuclear program - how do they repay us? Help the South Africans).

Anyway, the hypocrisy is that Israel opts out of the MPT, has nukes and is a tiny country. Iran does not have nukes, is party to the MPT, yet is heavily sanctioned. In my opinion, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, within the limits of pragmatism.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2013, 05:34 PM   #195 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 558
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 11
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Are AR-15s considered arms? Where does it say we have the right to keep and bear only a certain type of arms? It says "Arms" and that includes almost all of 'em.
Read the Heller case. The Supreme Court says otherwise. It is a long decision, but I have given you the page numbers.
funpig is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to funpig For This Useful Post:
Gmash (March 24th, 2013)
Old February 16th, 2013, 05:41 PM   #196 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 558
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 11
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdrew View Post
The Second Amendment to the Constitution was ratified only a few years after the Treaty of Paris. The continental army was disbanded and there was no national military or legion yet, so the protection of the newly formed Union rested on local militias. When Madison wrote the Second Amendment, he chose his words carefully to reflect this:

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.

It wasn't supposed to be a preordained or divine right for an armed citizenry. There was a purpose to it. That was in 1791. Today, the US boasts the world's most technologically capable military force. National, state, and often local law enforcement provide safety within our borders. No one will argue against a rifle or pistol designed for sport. But, there's no need for American citizens to bear arms for defense anymore; in fact it's doing more harm than good.

Back in the 1790's, only property-owning white males were allowed to vote. This was later changed to all males including free blacks, then all adult males regardless of race, and then women. Likewise, Second Amendment is embarrassingly antiquated, and it needs to be reexamined in the modern context.
Also, read the Heller case. The Supreme Court makes it clear that the second amendment enshrines the private individual's right to keep and bear arms ("in common usage at the time") for personal self defence. That is clear. So people will always have the right to own hand guns and rifles for self defence. But the Supreme Court does say say that the type of guns can be regulated as I have stated in my first post above.

The Supreme Court says under the second amendment, citizens do not have an unfettered right to "dangerous or unusual weapons". What is "dangerous or unusual"? Well that is up to your elected government to decide and to pass laws. So it depends on who the people put into office.
funpig is offline  
Last edited by funpig; February 16th, 2013 at 07:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2013, 09:58 AM   #197 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funpig View Post
So people will always have the right to own hand guns and rifles for self defence.
The constitution can be changed though.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2013, 12:25 PM   #198 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,066
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Where does it say in the second amendment what type of gun you must have?

As a foreigner in this debate I do find it hard to get behind the passion towards the constitution and truly understand it, there are obviously some human rights that must be protected, but in this day and age, I feel society has outgrown certain amendments/laws...... from what I can gather the second amendment is technically a law? And there are plenty of laws that will have changed over time, newer ones than those! Speed limits for a start!

"It's the American way"

I think this hits the nail on the head(forgot about your hammer thing already :-P ), I'm looking at it from an outsiders point of view, adding a new dimension into the equation as you guys see it from a for or against argument and I'm actually in both camps and see both points!

Going back to your hammer point though.....of course it's not the hammers fault, but you wouldn't hit your thumb if you didn't have the hammer in the first place!

So let's save everyone's thumbs and ban hammers! :-)

You are correct there is nowhere where it says I must have any specific gun, and on the same note, it does not say which guns I cannot have, it just simply says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2013, 12:47 PM   #199 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Iran's external policy certainly hasn't helped its case. That said Israel is quite hostile to Europe, and much of the world themselves. Much more skilled though it must be said, but they have nonetheless ruined their once excellent European rapport (remember the French helped them with their nuclear program - how do they repay us? Help the South Africans).

Anyway, the hypocrisy is that Israel opts out of the MPT, has nukes and is a tiny country. Iran does not have nukes, is party to the MPT, yet is heavily sanctioned. In my opinion, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, within the limits of pragmatism.
I can't speak to Israel's policy toward Europe. All I know is they have presented themselves to the US as allies. Because of the failed middle eastern policy of several US presidents we are desperately in need of allies in the region. The US cracking down on Israel for having nukes would be akin to the US cracking down on the UK for having them.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2013, 01:14 PM   #200 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,545
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

That's the problem with the US, they are supporting the wrong side in the Mid-East. But I guess it's too late.
__________________
Like it is...Yusef Lateef
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags
constitution, guns, laws, politics, second amendment


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.