Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by Speed Daemon, Jan 16, 2013.
Why does the right to arms have to be guns? You could argue that a police force is providing that protection, if there were fewer guns the need for that use of protection is less! I don't stay in the nicest of Towns, the blue angels bike club (hells angels rival over here) have a club house just up the road, yet I don't feel the need for any more protection than to lock my doors at night, even then it wouldn't be that rare I've forgotten to do so before going to sleep, even then, that's only for protection against theft!
On the other note,I did suggest a system where the first gun is affordable!
There have been constant contradictions though as you seem happy to restrict the rights of certain individuals, someone with mental health issues caused by issues in their life such as sexual abuse etc which then causes them to become suicidal, or someone with disabilities are already having these rights taken away from them...... And rightly so, but non the less, if a right is a right, shouldn't we all have them?
Could say same about criminals but they lose certain rights and freedoms by breaking the law..... Still, a contradiction of your argument!
Because it is our choice, thats why. Because a knife doesn't do a whole lot of good to protect a woman from being raped by a larger, stronger man. Because a sword doesn't do much good to protect a family from two or more armed intruders breaking into their house. I could keep going.
Depending on where you live it can take police 10-30 minutes to respond to a 911 call. That is enough time for the criminal to do what they want and then they can try to catch the criminal after they have raped, beaten, stolen whatever they wanted.
Different guns are used for different things. If I want to own the following guns for the following reasons, why should it be made out of reach?
1. Shotgun - home defense and bird hunting
2. AR15 - home defense (easier for my wife than a shotgun) and small game hunting
3. Pistol - personal defense away from home
4. 10/22 - practice and fun to shoot
5. Rifle (30-06, .308, etc) - larger game hunting (deer, moose, bear, etc)
Those would be just the basics, so again your argument is void even if the first gun was reasonable.
But if there was a ban on guns, criminals just breaking into houses etc, would not be carrying (it'd be the big time guys robbing banks etc!) And as someone already pointed out most robberies will take place during the day when no one is in!
In the situation of a rape, certainly over here, most happen out in public places, from spiking, partners in the home, very few happen in situations where someone is likely to be able to get the gun at hand and use it without being over powered!
Here is a cracking quote
But most of the time, gun owners are frightening themselves irrationally. They have conjured in their own imaginations a much more terrifying environment than genuinely exists -- and they are living a fantasy about the security their guns will bestow. And to the extent that they are right -- to the extent that the American environment is indeed more dangerous than the Australian or Canadian or German or French environment -- the dangers gun owners face are traceable to the prevalence of the very guns from which they so tragically mistakenly expect to gain safety.
Some pretty good points through out the article and to my view seems pretty fair and in the middle rather than pro or against!
Ok, so it is still a right that we have, not a privilege given by the government.
And you say that the criminals wouldn't have guns? How do you figure? Any gun regulations will only apply to law abiding citizens, not criminals. A "gun free zone" sign reads "defenseless victim zone" to a murderer. Taking away guns just reduces the on the job risks to criminals. They won't give up their guns or follow any gun laws, the same way they don't give up their drugs because they are illegal.
We should just make murder and assault illegal and not worry about guns. That will solve all of the issues.
Same thing being said each time......
Not hitting the point! Yes there will always still be some guns available to the criminal minded, but if the majority of guns were off the streets with trade ins etc, then only the big time criminals will have them, probably gangs etc, Joe Bloggs who decides to rob a house or convenience store etc will not have that access! So unless you are a multi millionaire, your not going to be a target to those with access to guns!
Take almost any other civilised country with strict gun laws and it is that very situation, more reports of crimes with fake toy guns than actual working weapons!
And, in those countries there may be less "gun crimes" but violent crimes (assult, robbery, rape, etc) are much, much higher than in the US because there is no risk to the offender. I'll be protecting my rights and my family's safety at all costs and by any means. My oath to protect this country and the constitution doesn't ever expire.
This page would suggest you were correct, but upon reading into the comments you would find that to be wrong!
War News Updates: What Country Has The Most Violent Crime Rate Per 100,000? Hint: The Answer Will Surprise You
The definition of violent crime is the issue, and perhaps due to the leniency of gun laws in the USA, it means stats on assault is completely different.
Lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind!
Is this referring to being armed? I know I am being cynical here, but that 'right' was still technically given to us by the government was it not(?), considering the ones writing the DoI and Constitution were a part of the current government that they were trying to fix. Having access to a firearm is not a basic human right, if I am understanding your wording here...
I get the whole gun debate thing, but are we keeping the 2nd Amendment purposely vague, so it is up to interpretation? Because updating it to be more specific would, in theory, be a good move, so people actually know what their 'right' is. (?)
Sntaylor, I'm just curious. Why are you, someone who doesn't even live in this country, arguing so hard that we should give up our rights? Is it because you don't have the same right to defend yourself?
Also, there is no way to measure how many crimes are prevented because criminals don't know who is armed due to conceal carry laws. We do know several things though:
-The 2 cities in America that have the strictest gun laws, Chicago and Washington DC, are the 2 most violent cities in America.
-The areas with the highest gun ownership per capita have the lowest crime rates.
-25 states in America do not require any type of permit to carry a concealed weapon, 4 out of 5 murders take place in the other 25 states.
-The Supreme court has ruled that it is an individual right to carry a firearm away from a person's home for self defense.
No it was not given to us by the government. The Bill of Rights was a list of basic rights (speech, religion, protection, property, due process) that every person has, and can not be taken away by the government. Since the time it was written the government has slowly taken away many of those through things like the NDAA, NFA, etc. The second amendment is the one thing that stops them from completely removing all of our rights, rounding up anyone that disagrees with them, and getting away with anything they want. The government is going to continually take away as many rights as they can get away with until they have total power and control and no way for anyone to resist oppression.
Sounds like some folks here don't just want to ban guns ... they want to CONFISCATE guns.
If that's the case - it is VERY SIMPLE and can be done. It's called a Constitutional Amendment.
That is why things are being done slowly, in steps. The government needs to try to brainwash people slowly. If they decided to ban and confiscate all guns next month, the day they started would be the first day of the next American Revolution.
That is why we must stand now, before things really get rolling, so that we never reach that point.
For the Bill of Rights to have effect it must be legislated for. I presume it is a piece of Federal legislation, or part of the constitution. Law's can be amended and removed, as can parts of constitutions.
And don't come at me with it being a god given right, Moses or Muhammad said a lot of things but nothing about the right to own RPGs.
I am truly amazed! Since you believe we should only have what people in biblical times had it is incredible that you are able to post on the Internet with no computer, smartphone, or even electricity.
People have the right to self defense. When the bad guys are armed with modern weaponry what good is a rock and club?
So where does the 2nd amendment say that it trumps others right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? That is right, it does not.
And the Bill of Right was a government issued document, introduced by the Founding Fathers, however, they did not forsee the future of weaponry.
A gun has never killed anyone. A gun is nothing but a tool. Guns are neither good nor evil. They can not do anything on their own. Thinking a gun is in and of itself bad or lethal only shows ignorance.
If guns killed people I would be dead right now. Today I was at a rally to protect our rights. Most of us were legally carrying firearms. There was well over 100 guns in that block. Not a single person was hurt.
The problem is you can not ban evil. No matter what laws are passed there will be evil people that will kill. I have a right to protect myself, my family, my property, and my fellow citizens. A law has never stopped an evil person from doing what they wanted, hurting who they wanted, taking what they wanted, or killing who they wanted. A firearm gives an armed citizen the ability to stop anyone from doing harm regardless of any physical advantage the evil person has.
which is why I should repeat myself again
if banning guns and taking them off the streets will prevent crime.......
we should try banning murder, rape, heroine, and meth
NO, it is a stupid quote. Some people get a gun and because they are scared and a few of those people will have accidents. Most responsible gun owners are level headed and they wish to be prepared for a possible problem.
Most responsible gun owners will never brandish a weapon or shoot an intruder.
And over the last few decades, violent crime has actually decreased.
I agree completely ... that's why I tell gun control proponents to just be straight forward and ask for a constitutional amendment (which would NEVER pass).
I think the Republican's lost this last presidential election about 40 years ago ... school teachers, the media, the journalism schools are generally liberal. It was a slow, deliberate and quite successful (from the liberal point of view) trip to where we are today.
So what does Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness actually mean? Do the folks from across the border have a right to blast mariachi music at 3:00 AM because it makes them happy? Do I have a right to have it stopped because sleeping makes me happy?
To answer that question, I suggest you read the writings of the day. Read what our founders said and you might have a better understanding of our founding documents. These men were brilliant and they crafted the most perfect document ever penned by man.
The Founding Fathers had no idea about the weaponry we have today and that does not matter. We have the right to keep and bear arms, period. The problem is, when we discuss this, people ask about bazookas, nukes, and other "arms" and that tends to muddy the discussion.
No reasonable person thinks we should have the right to mount mini-guns on out trucks or keep a spare Bazooka in the trunk. Most gun owners have common sense.
I've never actually said that guns should be banned, I've made it as a suggestion(if someone reads back and counters that, my apologies for not coming across properly, my son is only 4 weeks old and most posts have been made with a lack of sleep! Lol)
I have in general, sided for a ban on guns!
Over here we do have the right to defend ourselves with equal force and as guns are banned, they are very rare, maybe only a handful of cases every year, and of those, certainly using hand guns(which are the guns banned!), then we have no need as decent citizens to own such items! It is usually in gang warfare, or at least use by gang members, not just Joe blogs, that will have a gun, especially hand gun.
There are still rare cases when we have a man who had a complete breakdown after family issues and he went on a driving spree and shot some people with a shotgun!
This is where my point has always tried to center, if the majority of guns are off the street, it will only be the hardened criminals that will get access, especially if appropriate penalties are in place! Your average rapist, thief or whatever, isn't as likely to have a gun to use in their crime!
The argument about being overpowered etc is often(of course not always) going to be irrelevant with a gun available as unless there is going to be enough time to react, digging through a bag probably, then the rapist is likely to already offer powered their victim and up close if the gun has been accessed its still unlikely that it will be of use!
Of course thereare always going to be exceptions to any case!
I personally just don't see what the big deal is about having a gun, when in the majority of situations there should be no need for protection! I've yet to come across a situation where I felt I've had to arm myself with even a stick, and I'm not exactly big and scary myself (smidgen under 5ft7 weighing about 11st when wet, and most of that is in my thighs!)
It's a little different over here in the states. CNN is mostly anti-gun, so I view anything they publish with suspicion.
In my area, there is a major city, Baltimore. In Baltimore, they found that 89% of gun violence incidents were committed by persons with at least 1 prior felony. Which means that they were disqualified for gun ownership at the time they committed the crime with a gun. So they had an illegal firearm. How, exactly, is a stick going to protect me against an assailant with a gun? The criminal has already proven that they do not regard the gun bans. Banning guns will only put the firearms in the hands of the criminal element and the government. Which the government isn't trusted by a vast majority of the citizens, anyhow.
Firearm ownership is very deeply engrained into American culture. Ever since Lexington and Concord, it has been a staple of our freedom. We would probably have lost our independence in 1812 had it not been for the militias in Maryland. Those were farmers and other citizens who maintained personal arms. Granted, we don't have to really fear of another British invasion, but the Chinese and Russians are growing ever restless and distrusting of us. And then, as I said, the US Government isn't always looking out for our best interests, either.
This thread has been pretty dead for a couple weeks since my last post since I explained how a gun is only a tool. I had someone send me this link and I wanted to share it though. This is one of the most well written articles by an educated, informed, open minded person I have ever read on the gun issue and "gun free zones". It is completely fact and evidence based. It is a great read, especially if you live in the delusional fantasy world and think "gun free" zones accomplish anything good.
Opinion on gun control