Currently ex-convicts cannot legally own or concealed/open carry a firearm. Many people view this law as unjust, seeing as how the criminal payed their debt to society, and they should receive their civil rights back upon being released. Others say that criminals don't deserve civil rights, even ones protected by the Constitution. What are your thoughts on this, should an ex-convict be able to own and purchase a firearm? And should that ex-convict be allowed to concealed and/or open carry that firearm? Or should ex-cons not be allowed the same civil rights as law abiding citizens?
I'm a huge supporter of gun rights and civil liberties. Personally I wouldn't necessarily be against allowing non-violent ex-convicts, such as jay walkers and internet pirates, to own and carry. However violent criminals, such as rapists, murders, burglars, and others would of course not be allowed to own and carry, or at least not until around 15 years after they were set out of prison and even then only if they have a perfect record during that time.
Poll: What are your thoughts on ex-convicts owning and carrying guns?
Non-violent ex-cons should be allowed to own and carry guns (149)
37%
Only law abiding citizens (not ex-cons) should be allowed to own and carry (135)
34%
Ex-cons should be allowed to own and carry on a case-by-case basis (67)
17%
All ex-convicts should be allowed to own and carry guns (48)
12%
399 total votes
Your vote: What are your thoughts on ex-convicts owning and carrying guns?
(Vote): All ex-convicts should be allowed to own and carry guns (Vote): Non-violent ex-cons should be allowed to own and carry guns (Vote): Ex-cons should be allowed to own and carry on a case-by-case basis (Vote): Only law abiding citizens (not ex-cons) should be allowed to own and carry
What an obvious answer. Yes, lets just give a gun to the guy who massacared 20 people in Tuscon. No, "Non-violent ex-cons should be allowed to own and carry guns" will be the winning vote. Also I would like to point out that no one should be allowed to carry guns, as I have no criminal background yet I could go out, buy a gun and kill 50 people for no reason.
Is this issue coming up again in the public? I believe it was mentioned during the Republican debates at one point, but most people didn't really care since there are more pressing issues.
Unless psychotic, i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed a gun to protect themselves against their generally armed and "them neighbours be robbers"-paranoid neighbours. Applies only for countries where the general populace is armed, of course. From the question alone i gathered you'd be on the US side of things?
Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
I think a more important question would be - what would preventing (violent) ex-cons weapons do? If they've broken the law and gotten sentenced for it, chances are they're one of two types of people - either, they don't much care about state or federal law, or they're normally law-abiding and the act they were sentenced for was a consequence of an extreme situation. The first group of people wouldn't really care if guns are legal or not and would get firearms anyways, and the second group wouldn't go out of their way to abuse the weapon anyhow. By outlawing guns for ex-cons, you'd basically do nothing to change things.
Actually, what you would do, would be to remove taxation and police / government control over ex-con weapon usage. If an ex-con would buy a weapon and later perform a crime with a weapon, there'd at least be a paper trail to follow. If the gun was illegal, there's nothing to go on. Sure, I imagine there's ex-cons who are smart enough to realise the paper trail a legal gun would give, but I imagine there's also enough stupid people.
In effect, outlawing guns for ex-cons wouldn't really do anything. While I ideologically disagree with the personal ownage and usage of firearms in all forms, pragmatically the US (which I imaigne we're disscussing) is already too far gone to revert any kind of public gun ownership culture. Getting laws such as this, in the US, which would not really be enforcable and wouldn't really do anything, would be silly.
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
My thoughts exactly.
Idealistic but not realistic.
Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
On February 20 2012 01:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others
so what you are saying is, the carceral system doesn't work if ex convicts are forever doomed to a outlaw life, and don't have any rights, why not just directly hang them all?
how about using them as slaves? there's no way an ex convict would try to make a life anyway
In belgium 40 % of the ex cons get back in jail within the 2 years. I don't know if the numbers are the same in the US. But I guess it's even worse (I've been to the US several times).
But if the system declares someone to be ready to join back into normal life they should get the same rights as everyone, unless they are released on conditions for a certain perdiod of time.
Everyone can buy a gun in the US at the age of 16. Do you think everyone at the age of 16 is rational enough to use their gun wisely? Death by gun statistics in the US are way to high, but guns are still for sale to almost everyone.
To change: Don't sell guns so easely. Follow excons true their jail time and even after so they get a real chance at rejoining normal life.
I think you are a bit confused here, or you just mis-worded your OP. There is nothing stopping ex-cons from owning firearms. An ex-con can be anyone who is convicted of speeding, jay-walking, or other minors offenses and just pay the fine. It's felons who cannot own, purchase, posses firearms, or vote for that matter. Felonies are serious crimes whether they are non-violent or not. Hence why these people no longer have some of their rights.
There is nothing wrong with someone whos been convicted of a crime owning a gun. As with all people, as long as they observe the proper precautions and self control there is nothing to worry about. Guns are just tools, its the "craftsmen" you need to worry about.
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
My thoughts exactly.
Idealistic but not realistic.
Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
But isn't grouping all "ex convicts" together too generalizing for things like these(and the ones you mentioned) anyway.
own a gun.. yes.. on a case by case basis.. no one should be allowed to carry a gun, except law enforcement and those brinks money transporters.. I know it's different in the states though.
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
My thoughts exactly.
Idealistic but not realistic.
Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
But isn't grouping all "ex convicts" together too generalizing for things like these(and the ones you mentioned) anyway.
Better to be safe than sorry. Want to own a gun? Don't fucking stab some guy on the subway, or steal $50,000 from your employer.
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
My thoughts exactly.
Idealistic but not realistic.
Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
As far as i can think of, those examples are convicts not being hired for certain jobs, but most of those are private. Is there a LAW that says a convict isn't allowed to have a specific job ? I know there are some that hire ex convicts exactly for security reasons ( since they have "experience", kinda like companies hiring hackers to check security holes ). And even the state payed jobs such ( military. pre school/school/high school teacher ... etc ) that don't allow ex convicts to work there is basically the state saying " We do not want to give money to this person in exchange for services cuz of X" not allowing them to have a gun is saying " We don't offer this RIGHT to this person cuz of X". As far as i know a robber isn't denied entering a store after the served his sentence ( guess the store could "ask" for the sentence to deny him getting near THAT specific store, much like in a person harassment case, but that is a very specific case ). I'm not saying that its a good idea to allow them to have a weapon, but than again its not a good idea to allow a 90 years old to have weapon, or a parent to have a weapon ether ( or anyone beside law enforcements really ) but if your low is shaped the way that those guys ARE allowed to have weapons i don't see why convicts would not.
Edit: Thinking of it, i believe that you can get your right to drive a vehicle suspended for certain crimes ( for an unlimited period of time ) but I'm not sure if there is a "perma ban" on driving in USA.
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
My thoughts exactly.
Idealistic but not realistic.
Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
But isn't grouping all "ex convicts" together too generalizing for things like these(and the ones you mentioned) anyway.
Better to be safe than sorry. Want to own a gun? Don't fucking stab some guy on the subway, or steal $50,000 from your employer.
So being caught for an ounce of pot is equal to stealing $50,000 from your boss to you and should garner similar punishment?
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
My thoughts exactly.
Idealistic but not realistic.
Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
But isn't grouping all "ex convicts" together too generalizing for things like these(and the ones you mentioned) anyway.
Better to be safe than sorry. Want to own a gun? Don't fucking stab some guy on the subway, or steal $50,000 from your employer.
So being caught for an ounce of pot is equal to stealing $50,000 from your boss to you and should garner similar punishment?
Whether you like it or not, holding an ounce of pot is usually illegal. It shows you are willing to disregard rules set forth by society, simply because you disagree with them. That, in my book, should be sufficient to strip a right such as gun ownership.
Also, you must remember: You need to commit a FELONY to lose this right. Not a misdemeanor. And you really f'd up if you can't get the prosecutor to plead you to a misdemeanor.
First of all, I'm assuming that the right to own a weapon is granted by the government so that civilians can protect themselves.
As such, as much as I would love for ex-cons not to be able to own weapons, it would be unjustified to take away ex-cons' ability to protect their natural born rights.
Personally, I believe that nobody should be allowed to own a gun, ex-con or otherwise.
However, I also believe that when someone commits and is convicted of a crime, we have a justice system in place to punish them, and once that punishment is completed, they are then subject to all of the rights that anyone else should receive. If you're not going to give them their rights back, then you're basically contradicting your justice system and tacking on additional punishments which last for a lifetime. I'm similarly very against the whole "registered sex offender" idea. You do your crime, you do your time, nothing more and nothing less.
There' s no reason to tamper with the current system unless there's somehow a higher mortality rate among ex-convicts due to them being killed because they did not own a gun. Why go through all the effort with this issue if you can just leave it be.
Meanwhile, you could focus on more important things.
Its good to see that americans are not that one sided in favor of people owning firearms. Now at least they are willing to make exceptions. What would be the reason for not allowing ex cons to bear arms? I cant find anny good fundamental reason beside a statistical one. Ex cons are more likely to use the weapon for crimes (not sure if this is true but i can imagine this to be or people thinking this) If that is the reason then there are manny other groups wich should be forbidden to own arms Man are far more likely then women to use a firearm to commit a crime, so by using the same argument one could argue that only women should have the right to bear arms, wich is something no american will ever take seriously. Then why forbid it for ex cons, whats the reason?
One could even argue that ex cons have a higher need to own arms as they are probably living a more dangerous live/in a more dangerous social environment.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
Wrong. An armed society is a polite society. An unarmed society is a society of sheep.
I feel it is dependent on the crime, people who have committed vehicular manslaughter as an example, I could see owning guns, as their crime did not have anything to do with guns. Crimes where guns could have been involved, even if there were not in their previous crimes, then their right should be revoked.
Nope. Ex-Cons have proven that they are willing to disregard the rules of society and letting them arm themselves is undoubtedly far riskier than arming the average citizen.
"Ex-con" implies someone who was imprisoned and eventually released. Surely you realize that there are countless things you can go to jail for. For example. The megaupload guy, if he actually lives through his sentence, should be allowed to own a gun. The 20-something year old punk who raped and killed a girl? I'd prefer if he didn't have a gun.
Now, society pretty much devalues rehabilitation (unless you're famous or really good at a major sport, then you're worth money or worshiped), so most of the ex-cons probably won't find good jobs or a good place to live, so they'll need a gun in case they need to rob someone to get by, or if they get really, really, angry, they need an outlet for their rage.
Not that it matters on way or another. It's incredibly easy to get your hands on a gun, legal or not. Do people really still think gun control actually works?
The most common argument by pro-gun activists is that, if you're walking along and someone starts waving a gun around your family, you would hope that you have a gun too to take him down. Let me tell you this:
If someone is waving a gun around you or your family, you're not wishing you had a gun so much that they DIDNT have a gun.
On February 20 2012 01:07 DOUDOU wrote: there's no reason for most people to own a gun
My thoughts exactly. I remember just before Obama became president, our local news had a segment where they interviewed local gunowners and how they were afraid that when Obama became president that they wouldn't be able to buy ammo for their uzis. My first thought was, "If you live somewhere that you need an uzi, move out." My second thought was, "People that 'need' guns should be checked out mentally." The ease of aquiring a gun in this country is frightening. All I think of is the movie, "Bowling for Columbine," and the scene where he opens a bank account and they offer him a gun there.
Provided good conduct during imprisonment, non-violent ex-cons should in general be allowed to carry guns. As for the violent crimes, if the crime can be shown to be a one-time occurence, like if there was provocation involved, it might be considered.
In general, the United States way of making convicts second-class citizens is questionable. As far as I'm concerned, the convict should be considered to have paid their debt to society upon release, and remain locked up until and unless that condition is met.
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I'm proceeding from the premise that people should own guns in the first place, and am unwilling to debate the point in this thread.
On February 20 2012 02:17 ampson wrote: Nope. Ex-Cons have proven that they are willing to disregard the rules of society and letting them arm themselves is undoubtedly far riskier than arming the average citizen.
This is the key part that everyone dismisses.
It is clear SCOTUS jurisprudence that no right is permanent, and the government may strip them for relevant reasons. Someone who disregards the rules of society has no "right" to own a gun, even for self-protection. They have proven they either a) make bad choices, or b) disregard the rules that keep said ownership safe for others.
I agree with the right to keep and maintain guns in the house, but I support this because I assume those who own the guns will follow our rules on not shooting me and will exercise wise discretion when faced with a situation where they might use one.
Ugh. The question is "Should Ex-Cons be allowed to carry guns?" and 90% of posts are people saying nobody should be able to carry guns or saying that US gun laws are stupid. Do people on TL have ADD or are you all really that eager to insult the laws of another country.
To all the people saying that no one should be allowed to carry a gun: Outlawing guns just takes them away from law-abiding citizens, criminals still get them because they don't care about the law.
On February 20 2012 02:23 ampson wrote: Ugh. The question is "Should Ex-Cons be allowed to carry guns?" and 90% of posts are people saying nobody should be able to carry guns or saying that US gun laws are stupid. Do people on TL have ADD or are you all really that eager to insult the laws of another country.
The question is flawed in it of itself because no one should be allowed to go around with an automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds and grenades and shit just because you haven't committed a crime. No one should have that kind of power as a plain old civilians, plain as.
On February 20 2012 02:18 MountainDewJunkie wrote: "Ex-con" implies someone who was imprisoned and eventually released. Surely you realize that there are countless things you can go to jail for. For example. The megaupload guy, if he actually lives through his sentence, should be allowed to own a gun. The 20-something year old punk who raped and killed a girl? I'd prefer if he didn't have a gun.
Now, society pretty much devalues rehabilitation (unless you're famous or really good at a major sport, then you're worth money or worshiped), so most of the ex-cons probably won't find good jobs or a good place to live, so they'll need a gun in case they need to rob someone to get by, or if they get really, really, angry, they need an outlet for their rage.
Not that it matters on way or another. It's incredibly easy to get your hands on a gun, legal or not. Do people really still think gun control actually works?
Giving "really, really, angry" people a gun might be counterproductive to their rehabilitation.
No one should have a gun. But - evemn if you don't live by the gun, you can still be killed by one. I voted for "Case-By-Case" because honestly, that's how our Justice system should work anyway. Its rather aggravating to someone like me - to whom the thought of malice is saddening - when others attempt to judge our/my world in in black and white. On the other hand- we've been cramming the round peg into the square hole so long that the hole is ALMOST round at this point : /
The argument that no one should carry guns as such as owning one increases the chances of going on a killing spree is just wrong. A knife, baseball bat, a woman's stiletto heels for crying out loud can be used for such a purpose. It is not the gun that kills people. It is the other way around, people kill people. A responsible society is one that knows restraint and how to defend itself from foreign, and domestic aggression. Law enforcers are there to protect the society but law makers are elected by the people and as such they are subject to safeguarding and writing policies that increase the well being of the society it serves. Civilians have the right to revolt against an oppressive government that does not obey its constitution and populace. There are checks and balances of power in every country or should be. The people should have the option of taking arms and form a militia when it is deemed necessary. In an ideal world, there should not be violence or weapons but peace and tools but until this is possible (unlikely) then people should not be sheep and hope the lions protect them from wolves.
On February 20 2012 02:24 Ravar wrote: To all the people saying that no one should be allowed to carry a gun: Outlawing guns just takes them away from law-abiding citizens, criminals still get them because they don't care about the law.
Also, ex-con is a phrase that refers to someone who commited a FELONY, not a misdemeanor. Stop using examples of "Billy who spraypainted a bridge deserves to carry a gun". They are not correct representations.
On February 20 2012 01:46 cca1ss1e wrote: own a gun.. yes.. on a case by case basis.. no one should be allowed to carry a gun, except law enforcement and those brinks money transporters.. I know it's different in the states though.
+1
Even though criminals will always find a way to get them
On February 20 2012 02:35 NNTP wrote: The argument that no one should carry guns as such as owning one increases the chances of going on a killing spree is just wrong. A knife, baseball bat, a woman's stiletto heels for crying out loud can be used for such a purpose. It is not the gun that kills people. It is the other way around, people kill people. A responsible society is one that knows restraint and how to defend itself from foreign, and domestic aggression. Law enforcers are there to protect the society but law makers are elected by the people and as such they are subject to safeguarding and writing policies that increase the well being of the society it serves. Civilians have the right to revolt against an oppressive government that does not obey its constitution and populace. There are checks and balances of power in every country or should be. The people should have the option of taking arms and form a militia when it is deemed necessary. In an ideal world, there should not be violence or weapons but peace and tools but until this is possible (unlikely) then people should not be sheep and hope the lions protect them from wolves.
300 years ago a bunch of people could grab some guns and revolt against their government.
In a day of jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, light armor vehicles, rockets, and automatic weapons that's very different. The law was put in place so that people (a militia) could rise up against their government if they needed to. Not so that you could own an automatic weapon with military grade rounds and go faffing about for shits and giggles. I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY"
And yes, you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun with basically nothing stopping you other than proving you are of legal age. It's kind of sad, really.
I think most of the killing spree type shootings could be avoided if more people carried fire arms. I like the idea of the responsible public packing heat.
On February 20 2012 02:35 NNTP wrote: The argument that no one should carry guns as such as owning one increases the chances of going on a killing spree is just wrong. A knife, baseball bat, a woman's stiletto heels for crying out loud can be used for such a purpose. It is not the gun that kills people. It is the other way around, people kill people. A responsible society is one that knows restraint and how to defend itself from foreign, and domestic aggression. Law enforcers are there to protect the society but law makers are elected by the people and as such they are subject to safeguarding and writing policies that increase the well being of the society it serves. Civilians have the right to revolt against an oppressive government that does not obey its constitution and populace. There are checks and balances of power in every country or should be. The people should have the option of taking arms and form a militia when it is deemed necessary. In an ideal world, there should not be violence or weapons but peace and tools but until this is possible (unlikely) then people should not be sheep and hope the lions protect them from wolves.
300 years ago a bunch of people could grab some guns and revolt against their government.
In a day of jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, light armor vehicles, rockets, and automatic weapons that's very different. The law was put in place so that people (a militia) could rise up against their government if they needed to. Not so that you could own an automatic weapon with military grade rounds and go faffing about for shits and giggles. I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY"
And yes, you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun with basically nothing stopping you other than proving you are of legal age. It's kind of sad, really.
And just for you, I'll pick it out:
I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY"
I said it once and I'll say it again. When someone is waving a gun around at you or your family, you're not wishing that you had a gun to shoot them so much as that they did not have a gun in the first place. Also, I'll make it known that violent offenders of any kind should not own guns, if we must have them in society. Misdemeanor or Felony.
Personally, I find it hard to feel bad for former criminals not being allowed to own guns. It makes sense to me, logically, that letting people that have already proven themselves to break laws to not be given easy access to weapons of all things. If it was some other constituional right that heavily impacted their every day life then sure, I can see an argument against it but ... guns? boohoo? Millions of americans are able to live their lives just fine without ever touching a gun, much less owning one.
Also, first time I've ever heard "ex-con" used to refer to someone that got busted for stuff like jay walking. I suppose it's accurate by definition but every time I've ever heard it used in regular conversation it's always in regards to someone that served time in prison.
On February 20 2012 01:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others
so what you are saying is, the carceral system doesn't work if ex convicts are forever doomed to a outlaw life, and don't have any rights, why not just directly hang them all?
how about using them as slaves? there's no way an ex convict would try to make a life anyway
Any convicts that were convicted of violent crimes should be directly hung, why not indeed. When you commit a crime you are saying you do not care about the laws of the land, so why SHOULD you have the same rights? I don't care if Joe Criminal committed a crime 10 years ago, 10 days ago or 10 minutes ago. He is a criminal, he gave up some of his rights the moment he committed the crime.
As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?
On February 20 2012 02:41 Khenra wrote: Civilians should not be allowed to carry guns at all.
and that worked out great in Syria didn't it? unarmed demonstrations to be turned into scenes of massacre by an oppressive government
And you suggest it would have been better if the people carried guns? Somehow I doubt that.
When it comes to that, after all the talking have failed, people have the responsibility to protect their loved ones. Relying on foreign help is irresponsible. Of course it is nice to receive help but you endanger your sovereignty when you allow foreign "liberation troops" set foot on your soil as we all know nothing comes free. Foreigners do not have the same culture nor same reasons for such a war, making a deal with the devil doesn't seem like a good deal for taking care of an internal issue between brothers.
On February 20 2012 02:35 NNTP wrote: The argument that no one should carry guns as such as owning one increases the chances of going on a killing spree is just wrong. A knife, baseball bat, a woman's stiletto heels for crying out loud can be used for such a purpose. It is not the gun that kills people. It is the other way around, people kill people. A responsible society is one that knows restraint and how to defend itself from foreign, and domestic aggression. Law enforcers are there to protect the society but law makers are elected by the people and as such they are subject to safeguarding and writing policies that increase the well being of the society it serves. Civilians have the right to revolt against an oppressive government that does not obey its constitution and populace. There are checks and balances of power in every country or should be. The people should have the option of taking arms and form a militia when it is deemed necessary. In an ideal world, there should not be violence or weapons but peace and tools but until this is possible (unlikely) then people should not be sheep and hope the lions protect them from wolves.
300 years ago a bunch of people could grab some guns and revolt against their government.
In a day of jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, light armor vehicles, rockets, and automatic weapons that's very different. The law was put in place so that people (a militia) could rise up against their government if they needed to. Not so that you could own an automatic weapon with military grade rounds and go faffing about for shits and giggles. I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY"
And yes, you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun with basically nothing stopping you other than proving you are of legal age. It's kind of sad, really.
I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY"
First, maybe you should re-read DC v. Heller. The Supreme Court held that the second amendment protects gun use for "self-defense", not for "revolt". The ability to revolt is just one portion of "self-defense". The 2nd protects against more than the narrow protections you are giving it. And this isn't "the founding fathers". Rather, this was a compromise between the states to ratify the constitution, along with our CURRENT SUPREME COURT.
Second, you can't just walk into WalMart and buy a gun. You need to have a permit. Also, the ATF monitors gun purchases rather rigorously.
On February 20 2012 02:24 Candadar wrote: No one should have that kind of power as a plain old civilians, plain as.
But the government should?
see:
On February 20 2012 02:42 Candadar wrote:
On February 20 2012 02:35 NNTP wrote: The argument that no one should carry guns as such as owning one increases the chances of going on a killing spree is just wrong. A knife, baseball bat, a woman's stiletto heels for crying out loud can be used for such a purpose. It is not the gun that kills people. It is the other way around, people kill people. A responsible society is one that knows restraint and how to defend itself from foreign, and domestic aggression. Law enforcers are there to protect the society but law makers are elected by the people and as such they are subject to safeguarding and writing policies that increase the well being of the society it serves. Civilians have the right to revolt against an oppressive government that does not obey its constitution and populace. There are checks and balances of power in every country or should be. The people should have the option of taking arms and form a militia when it is deemed necessary. In an ideal world, there should not be violence or weapons but peace and tools but until this is possible (unlikely) then people should not be sheep and hope the lions protect them from wolves.
300 years ago a bunch of people could grab some guns and revolt against their government.
In a day of jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, light armor vehicles, rockets, and automatic weapons that's very different. The law was put in place so that people (a militia) could rise up against their government if they needed to. Not so that you could own an automatic weapon with military grade rounds and go faffing about for shits and giggles. I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY"
And yes, you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun with basically nothing stopping you other than proving you are of legal age. It's kind of sad, really.
And just for you, I'll pick it out:
I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY"
First, maybe you should re-read DC v. Heller. The Supreme Court held that the second amendment protects gun use for "self-defense", not for "revolt". The ability to revolt is just one portion of "self-defense". The 2nd protects against more than the narrow protections you are giving it. And this isn't "the founding fathers". Rather, this was a compromise between the states to ratify the constitution, along with our CURRENT SUPREME COURT.
Second, you can't just walk into WalMart and buy a gun. You need to have a permit. Also, the ATF monitors gun purchases rather rigorously.
When I was a kid, my father walked into Wal-Mart, showed his ID, and bought a 22 gauge shotgun to teach me how to shoot. All he had to do was show his ID and he was good. I don't know about the rest of the states, but that's horrifying that someone can do that where I used to live.
On February 20 2012 01:41 Bone.be wrote: In belgium 40 % of the ex cons get back in jail within the 2 years. I don't know if the numbers are the same in the US. But I guess it's even worse (I've been to the US several times).
But if the system declares someone to be ready to join back into normal life they should get the same rights as everyone, unless they are released on conditions for a certain perdiod of time.
Everyone can buy a gun in the US at the age of 16. Do you think everyone at the age of 16 is rational enough to use their gun wisely? Death by gun statistics in the US are way to high, but guns are still for sale to almost everyone.
To change: Don't sell guns so easely. Follow excons true their jail time and even after so they get a real chance at rejoining normal life.
You have no idea what you are typing. You are not the only one, just the one I quoted.
Here, a quick google search from the ATF on the actual federal law. Some states restrict this law further.
Generally you have to be 18 to own a longarm. 21 to own a handgun. I'm talking the 'legal' definition, not the 'mah pappy gav me a gewn wen eye wus three' definition.
When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom.
On February 20 2012 01:41 Bone.be wrote: In belgium 40 % of the ex cons get back in jail within the 2 years. I don't know if the numbers are the same in the US. But I guess it's even worse (I've been to the US several times).
But if the system declares someone to be ready to join back into normal life they should get the same rights as everyone, unless they are released on conditions for a certain perdiod of time.
Everyone can buy a gun in the US at the age of 16. Do you think everyone at the age of 16 is rational enough to use their gun wisely? Death by gun statistics in the US are way to high, but guns are still for sale to almost everyone.
To change: Don't sell guns so easely. Follow excons true their jail time and even after so they get a real chance at rejoining normal life.
You have no idea what you are typing. You are not the only one, just the one I quoted.
Here, a quick google search from the ATF on the actual federal law. Some states restrict this law further.
Generally you have to be 18 to own a longarm. 21 to own a handgun. I'm talking the 'legal' definition, not the 'mah pappy gav me a gewn wen eye wus three' definition.
When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom.
Wow I'm actually a little surprised at how many naive authoritarian lefties there are here. It's really quite sad that some people here hate freedom as much as they do. I'm not calling out any members in particular, just making an observation.
On February 20 2012 02:57 Yongwang wrote: Wow I'm actually a little surprised at how many naive authoritarian lefties there are here. It's really quite sad that some people here hate freedom as much as they do. I'm not calling out any members in particular, just making an observation.
Fucking classic.
Call anyone who disagrees with you an "authoritarian lefty" and that they "hate freedom"
That's about my cue to leave the thread, when this kind of shit is being slung.
On February 20 2012 02:53 Vorgrim wrote: I'm glad nobody is allowed to freely carry an armed weapon in my country. Going hunting? Sure, not for going to the store.
Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either....
Yes, yes you can. If you got a permit, you can walk around with a gun in your waistband or an automatic weapon in your trunk if you so wish, completely legally.
On February 20 2012 02:53 Vorgrim wrote: I'm glad nobody is allowed to freely carry an armed weapon in my country. Going hunting? Sure, not for going to the store.
Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either....
On February 20 2012 02:57 Yongwang wrote: Wow I'm actually a little surprised at how many naive authoritarian lefties there are here. It's really quite sad that some people here hate freedom as much as they do. I'm not calling out any members in particular, just making an observation.
Not surprising as we are on a gaming forum I used to think the world could be forever peaceful without the use of violence as mahatma Gandhi preached but growing up, I found out that in all of civilization and in the animal kingdom this is not realistic. I am not saying we should not try to attain this but however honorable such a quest is, we must look reality into the eye and realize and see it as it is. Even Gandhi preached the use of "JUSTIFIED" violence.
On February 20 2012 02:53 Vorgrim wrote: I'm glad nobody is allowed to freely carry an armed weapon in my country. Going hunting? Sure, not for going to the store.
Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either....
Sure you can, 48 of the states allow concealed carry (if I'm not mistaken, it will be 49 as Michigan just passed a law that will allow concealed carry, but it hasn't taken affect yet). I find it funny how some of the European kids think that allowing concealed carry means that someone is going to walk around with a bazooka and an AK-47.
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?
I'm lost.
Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?
Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
Thank you for bringing that up, this is a valid point, who are we to tell a rehabilitated man that has paid his debt to society, that he cannot defend himself.
Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?
I'm lost.
Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?
Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.
A tank is simply a means to an end like a kitchen knife or a 9mm pistol. It doesn't act on it its own. If someone is too violent and unstable to properly use a tank, keep them locked up and let reasonable people use them. I mean, we shouldn't let the government have that kind of power while we can't, right?
Who are YOU to tell someone that they can't have one?
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?
I'm lost.
Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?
Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.
It's funny, it's like they live in an imaginary world where nothing bad ever happens. If you want to live in a free society, you have to accept the fact that sometimes things are going to happen. Also their logic is circular and inconsistent. If a man walks into a Wal-Mart and tries to kill me and others, I'm going to shoot him. They fail to understand that THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES. And that's just part of the argument for self-defense, they don't seem to understand how hunting would work without guns. Then again these so-called "socialists / progressives" are probably all pot-smoking vegan hippies who think that anyone eats meat is evil and should be burned at a stake.
I chose to allow non violent criminals not every kid who gets caught for shop lifting or gets arrested for selling weed is a murderer.
Also for the people who say guns shouldn't be allowed to anyone what do we always say "criminals is criminals and do illegal stuff like carry guns anyway" and all other forms of killings go up yay for getting stabbed to death! And the US is particular was founded on Guns are needed to protect us from ourselves. The beauty of the 2nd amendment is it isn't needed till someone tries to take it away.
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
Thank you for bringing that up, this is a valid point, who are we to tell a rehabilitated man that has paid his debt to society, that he cannot defend himself.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
Guns are banned in the UK, but knives are used instead. Should we ban all knives as well? Im pretty sure, if someone wants to kill someone else bad enough, they will be able to do it easily with or without guns.
On topic: In my (very right wing) opinion. I think that ex-cons should have no rights whatsoever as they have rejected society and seriously harmed another person. There should be an enclosed ghetto where all of the ex-cons live together. They are not allowed to leave and they all get their own shotgun.
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
Thank you for bringing that up, this is a valid point, who are we to tell a rehabilitated man that has paid his debt to society, that he cannot defend himself.
Why does he require a gun to protect himself?
Cause the murderer who bought his gun from an illegal source is packing heat. What's he gonna do punch him?
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
This Thread is such an instresting read. Owning a gun is maybe in the United States a big deal, but in the most countries unnecessary. So i'm one of the persons, who can't vote (because 'm not US-citizen) but would, given the chance, vote "No one should be allowed to carry guns, rifles and any other kind of firearm besides active law enforcer and military employees". Owning should only be possible, if you store your weapon in a official gun range.
But i don't think, we will ever see something like that.
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?
I'm lost.
Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?
Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.
A tank is simply a means to an end like a kitchen knife or a 9mm pistol. It doesn't act on it its own. If someone is too violent and unstable to properly use a tank, keep them locked up and let reasonable people use them. I mean, we shouldn't let the government have that kind of power while we can't, right?
Who are YOU to tell someone that they can't have one?
It's clear I'm kidding, but I hope you see my point.
Easily refuted:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession **2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing *627 conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause *628 and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-28, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?
I'm lost.
Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?
Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.
It's funny, it's like they live in an imaginary world where nothing bad ever happens. If you want to live in a free society, you have to accept the fact that sometimes things are going to happen. Also their logic is circular and inconsistent. If a man walks into a Wal-Mart and tries to kill me and others, I'm going to shoot him. They fail to understand that THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES. And that's just part of the argument for self-defense, they don't seem to understand how hunting would work without guns.
If someone walks into a Wal-Mart and stops shooting, people are not wishing they had a gun to shoot the man down -- they are wishing that he didn't have a gun in the first place. This isn't the Wild West, everyone and their mom shouldn't have access to firepower. It's that simple. The argument of "criminals will still get guns anyways" is true, albeit a bit flawed and overblown. Countries with no guns have almost no gun death compared to the US -- even when the numbers are multiplied by a factor to compare equal populations. As said earlier in the thread, the difference between the US when populations are equalized is still 30,000 to 4,400 in total gun deaths.
"But guns are a means to an end! Crazy people will still be crazy and kill people!"
Yes, crazy people are crazy and will still find ways to kill people. Giving them access to guns gives them another way to kill people too. A far more destructive way than say a kitchen knife. Where a kitchen knife someone going off the chain will kill 1-2 people before they get taken down, someone with an automatic assault rifle or a pistol with a few magazines can take down dozens before he is taken down.
OH BOY BUT IF SOMEONE HAS A GUN THAT MEANS I CAN SHOOT HIM TOO SO IT'S OKAY
Then again these so-called "socialists / progressives" are probably all pot-smoking vegan hippies who think that anyone eats meat is evil and should be burned at a stake.
What the fuck.
Can you not make a single post without insults and gross generalizations?
On February 20 2012 02:48 Alizee- wrote: As a member of a gun forum that have discussed this issue dozens of times the answer is simple. Yes, they should be able to carry to the greatest extent of the law. It is a natural, God given right that the government PROTECTS rather than GRANTS. You can't grant rights, they are ours from our first breath. When you go to prison you lose that right. When you're out of prison you get that right restored. It boils down to this VERY clear and simple fact:
If the person is still a threat to society be it with a gun, a knife, a hammer, or his fists then he should remain locked up otherwise let him exercise his rights freely.
So someone who is shown to be mentally unstable and stabbed his parents should be granted access to walk into a Wal-Mart and grab a shotgun when he is released, because "God gave him his rights back when he was released from prison and the government shouldn't tell us what to do"?
I'm lost.
Since you intend to troll with such emphatic "progressive" sensationalism, where did you stop reading my post? I clearly stated that if someone was unfit to return to society they should remain locked up. The mentally unstable person who STABBED his parents could return to society, being denied the access to firearms, grab a kitchen knife and still stab someone. A gun is a tool, its a means to an end, it doesn't act on its own. If the person is still violent and unstable and thus not fit to return to society then they should remain locked up. What is so hard to understand? Knives can kill people, they also have utility, should we stop allowing people to buy them?
Frankly if you're looking at history you'd know that 1.) controlling people to such a degree never works in the end and 2.) if you "ban" one type of tool, people will switch to another. For the whole argument of if I'm hunting I'll take a gun, if I'm going shopping I don't need to. In this fairytale vision in your head does no one ever harm anyone? Do people shit out rainbows and daisies? Its pretty simple--if they're truly a threat keep them locked up, if they're not a threat, let them do as they please.
A tank is simply a means to an end like a kitchen knife or a 9mm pistol. It doesn't act on it its own. If someone is too violent and unstable to properly use a tank, keep them locked up and let reasonable people use them. I mean, we shouldn't let the government have that kind of power while we can't, right?
Who are YOU to tell someone that they can't have one?
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession **2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing *627 conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause *628 and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-28, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
You missed the point, entirely.
I was making the point that just because it's "just a means to an end" and "doesn't kill people by itself" doesn't mean that it's okay for everyone to have it.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
Actually the cities that force each household to own a gun have the lowest crime rate in almost every category. Compare cities like Kennesaw, Georgia and Washington D.C its not even close.
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
Cons lost their rights as soon as the intruded on another persons rights. You have to earn your rights back, and serving time in prison doesn't earn all of those rights back.
On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote: I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
What to do when you lose a debate in politics?
Call the other person a troll, tell him to get the fuck out if you don't like how things are run. For a little icing on top of the cake, make sure to call him a socialist hippie who hates freedom too.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote: I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
What to do when you lose a debate in politics?
Call the other person a troll, tell him to get the fuck out if you don't like how things are run. For a little icing on top of the cake, make sure to call him a socialist hippie who hates freedom too.
Classic.
I guess that means I've won a bunch of debates here then, since I was called a troll in quite a few other threads.
On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote: I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
Can the strict interpretation view, it's useless, naive, and foolish.
It's a vague, arbitrary document that if followed exactly would be a joke. No law impeding the free exercise of religion? Really? No law? If NO LAW can be passed regarding exercise of religion, human sacrifice would have to be allowed. After all...no law can be passed impeding the exercise of religion. No exceptions. No. Law.
On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote: I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
Can the strict interpretation view, it's useless, naive, and foolish.
It's a vague, arbitrary document that if followed exactly would be a joke. No law impeding the free exercise of religion? Really? No law? If NO LAW can be passed regarding exercise of religion, human sacrifice would have to be allowed. After all...no law can be passed impeding the exercise of religion. No exceptions. No. Law.
If you're going to try to quote the Constitution, at least quote it correctly instead of misquoting it by re-wording things to fit your agenda.
On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote: I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
What to do when you lose a debate in politics?
Call the other person a troll, tell him to get the fuck out if you don't like how things are run. For a little icing on top of the cake, make sure to call him a socialist hippie who hates freedom too.
Classic.
You're digging your own hole. You don't think I and others should have the right to defend ourselves. You believe that magically enough all evil-doers and would be evil-doers magically appear in the prisons and that for the rest of us everything is perfect. I exercise my rights, my country--more or less--will continue to always protect my rights, and if not Americans are willing to stand up should things change.
I'm not worried. You are afraid of a mechanical tool that goes bang because you treat it as an evil death ray instead of a tool that should be given proper respect. Its a shame. Thing is when I go somewhere I don't have a worry in the world because should things turn ugly, I have a viable means to protect myself.
I feel bad for people who face potential legal prosecution for protecting themselves in their own homes and vehicles, with people who face reprecussions for trying to save their own life. In the end my number one goal is to keep on living and therefore my political philosophy of such a view carries with me.
Its funny, just as you distort reality you also now distort my words. Perhaps you need to wake up to how the world is, the good and the bad, and you'd have a clearer understanding of even your own views.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
On February 20 2012 03:32 Alizee- wrote: I guess in the end if people want to troll:
This is America, don't try to change it, just leave if you don't like it. Many of us appreciate our founding documents, if you want to live in a place that has less respect for your rights, go for it.
By the way hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Not a single damn thing.
What to do when you lose a debate in politics?
Call the other person a troll, tell him to get the fuck out if you don't like how things are run. For a little icing on top of the cake, make sure to call him a socialist hippie who hates freedom too.
Classic.
You're digging your own hole. You don't think I and others should have the right to defend ourselves. You believe that magically enough all evil-doers and would be evil-doers magically appear in the prisons and that for the rest of us everything is perfect. I exercise my rights, my country--more or less--will continue to always protect my rights, and if not Americans are willing to stand up should things change.
I'm not worried. You are afraid of a mechanical tool that goes bang because you treat it as an evil death ray instead of a tool that should be given proper respect. Its a shame. Thing is when I go somewhere I don't have a worry in the world because should things turn ugly, I have a viable means to protect myself.
I feel bad for people who face potential legal prosecution for protecting themselves in their own homes and vehicles, with people who face reprecussions for trying to save their own life. In the end my number one goal is to keep on living and therefore my political philosophy of such a view carries with me.
Its funny, just as you distort reality you also now distort my words. Perhaps you need to wake up to how the world is, the good and the bad, and you'd have a clearer understanding of even your own views.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored...
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters.
Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
so you call us freedom haters for not wanting to let every instable fat ass own assault weapons but you're always on the top when it comes to restrict any rights and privacy to anyone that stole chewing gums 10 years ago, just so that they really don't have even the slightest chance to live a straight life in the future
give guns to everyone, make sure the outlaws keep stealing, raping, killing seems very logical if you want to cause chaos, might happen very quickly in a recessive economy
On February 20 2012 01:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others
so what you are saying is, the carceral system doesn't work if ex convicts are forever doomed to a outlaw life, and don't have any rights, why not just directly hang them all?
how about using them as slaves? there's no way an ex convict would try to make a life anyway
Any convicts that were convicted of violent crimes should be directly hung, why not indeed. When you commit a crime you are saying you do not care about the laws of the land, so why SHOULD you have the same rights? I don't care if Joe Criminal committed a crime 10 years ago, 10 days ago or 10 minutes ago. He is a criminal, he gave up some of his rights the moment he committed the crime.
yeah! we should definitely kill killers, cause it's ok to kill when we decide so
On February 20 2012 02:24 Ravar wrote: To all the people saying that no one should be allowed to carry a gun: Outlawing guns just takes them away from law-abiding citizens, criminals still get them because they don't care about the law.
imagining only criminals could obtain weapons if they really want to
how is that a problem? some americans really should stop dreaming about how owning a gun will magically provide security just because you're watching movies where a single guy makes justice with his gun and a thousand bullets, judge, jury and executioner of the bad guys, doesn't mean you should do it
far west fantasy
On February 20 2012 02:18 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Not that it matters on way or another. It's incredibly easy to get your hands on a gun, legal or not. Do people really still think gun control actually works?
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters.
Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
So far what I'm gathering from your posts is that anyone who disagrees with you is a brainwashed communistic authoritarian lefty hippie who hates freedom, smokes pot all day and does anything big brother wants for them.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored...
I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters.
Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
So we should continue the sale of armor piercing rounds and frag grenades to regular citizens in the name of "Freedom"?
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
So we should continue the sale of armor piercing rounds and frag grenades to regular citizens in the name of "Freedom"?
Sure, why not?
Also, why did you mention armor piercing rounds? What's wrong with armor piercing rounds?
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." "with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths." It would have made this non-existent.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
So we should continue the sale of armor piercing rounds and frag grenades to regular citizens in the name of "Freedom"?
Sure, why not?
Also, why did you mention armor piercing rounds? What's wrong with armor piercing rounds?
Ercster, you're an American, so why are you arguing against American culture, American values, and American politics? Why would you betray America and support the European socialists? What reasoning do you have for your actions?
On February 20 2012 04:01 Yongwang wrote: Ercster, you're an American, so why are you arguing against American culture, American values, and American politics? Why would you betray America and support the European socialists? What reasoning do you have for your actions?
On February 20 2012 03:58 RodrigoX wrote: How about we get an actual system that rehabilities criminals and not just make them worse?
Private companies own prisons...they get money from the state when people are brought into their prison system. Why would they wanna make them better? Its $$$
On February 20 2012 04:01 Yongwang wrote: Ercster, you're an American, so why are you arguing against American culture, American values, and American politics? Why would you betray America and support the European socialists? What reasoning do you have for your actions?
If the point of imprisonment is rehabilitation then ex-cons should have the same rights as everyone else if they're deemed fit for release from prison. Why release them at all if they're still dangerous?
On February 20 2012 04:01 Yongwang wrote: Ercster, you're an American, so why are you arguing against American culture, American values, and American politics? Why would you betray America and support the European socialists? What reasoning do you have for your actions?
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." "with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths." It would have made this non-existent.
Suicide is a bigger killer(it makes the top ten year in and year out)than homocide. Ban suicide? If people wanna kill themselves there are a lot of ways to do it. Guns won't change this.
Also the whole talk about armor piercing is bigger LOL because its a media hyped term that is incredibly vague. Armor piercing implies it defeats armor. What kind of armor? 9mm ball will defeat soft armor and its just regular ball ammo. 5.56x45 and 7.62x49 will defeat IIIA, III, and IV body armor certifications. With just regular FMJ mind you. .50BMG can defeat nearly 1'' thick steel plate. Then you have steel core vs only lead, so on and so forth. There really is no such thing as "armor piercing" as its very vague. If you don't understand what I'm referring to, there's a lot of information out there, but basically lots of regular FMJ ammunition can defeat several types of armor thus making them "armor piercing". BE AFRAID!
On February 20 2012 04:01 Yongwang wrote: Ercster, you're an American, so why are you arguing against American culture, American values, and American politics? Why would you betray America and support the European socialists? What reasoning do you have for your actions?
This has to be a joke? right?
Oh god I hope so...
I actually believe this person is quite serious. If you're not with him, you're a filthy anti-American who doesn't support an apparently UNIVERSALLY recognized right to bear arms.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." "with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths." It would have made this non-existent.
Suicide is a bigger killer(it makes the top ten year in and year out)than homocide. Ban suicide? If people wanna kill themselves there are a lot of ways to do it. Guns won't change this.
Also the whole talk about armor piercing is bigger LOL because its a media hyped term that is incredibly vague. Armor piercing implies it defeats armor. What kind of armor? 9mm ball will defeat soft armor and its just regular ball ammo. 5.56x45 and 7.62x49 will defeat IIIA, III, and IV body armor certifications. With just regular FMJ mind you. .50BMG can defeat nearly 1'' thick steel plate. Then you have steel core vs only lead, so on and so forth. There really is no such thing as "armor piercing" as its very vague. If you don't understand what I'm referring to, there's a lot of information out there, but basically lots of regular FMJ ammunition can defeat several types of armor thus making them "armor piercing". BE AFRAID!
Well actually suicide isn't allowed in the United States. If you attempt suicide and get caught, you will be put into a mental institution, even if you don't want to go. "Firearms are the most commonly used method of suicide for men and women, accounting for 60 percent of all suicides."
Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
Any special reason for indirectly calling people hippies/retarded/socialists/other things you feel are insulting instead of taking responsibility for what you are actually trying to communicate?
On February 20 2012 04:01 Yongwang wrote: Ercster, you're an American, so why are you arguing against American culture, American values, and American politics? Why would you betray America and support the European socialists? What reasoning do you have for your actions?
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." "with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths." It would have made this non-existent.
Suicide is a bigger killer(it makes the top ten year in and year out)than homocide. Ban suicide? If people wanna kill themselves there are a lot of ways to do it. Guns won't change this.
Also the whole talk about armor piercing is bigger LOL because its a media hyped term that is incredibly vague. Armor piercing implies it defeats armor. What kind of armor? 9mm ball will defeat soft armor and its just regular ball ammo. 5.56x45 and 7.62x49 will defeat IIIA, III, and IV body armor certifications. With just regular FMJ mind you. .50BMG can defeat nearly 1'' thick steel plate. Then you have steel core vs only lead, so on and so forth. There really is no such thing as "armor piercing" as its very vague. If you don't understand what I'm referring to, there's a lot of information out there, but basically lots of regular FMJ ammunition can defeat several types of armor thus making them "armor piercing". BE AFRAID!
Well actually suicide isn't allowed in the United States. If you attempt suicide and get caught, you will be put into a mental institution, even if you don't want to go.
My point was a bit facetious, the point being that even if you legislate everything in existence, you still can't stop everything. Passing a law doesn't make the world sunshine and rainbows. Laws supply restriction and consequences, if someone is going to kill themselves..I don't think they're too worried about the consequences and to a lesser extent the same applies to a murderer.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
Any special reason for indirectly calling people hippies/retarded/socialists/other things you feel are insulting instead of taking responsibility for what you are actually trying to communicate?
When did I call anyone retarded? I was merely pointing out that it would be ridiculous to put that as a poll option.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." "with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths." It would have made this non-existent.
Suicide is a bigger killer(it makes the top ten year in and year out)than homocide. Ban suicide? If people wanna kill themselves there are a lot of ways to do it. Guns won't change this.
Also the whole talk about armor piercing is bigger LOL because its a media hyped term that is incredibly vague. Armor piercing implies it defeats armor. What kind of armor? 9mm ball will defeat soft armor and its just regular ball ammo. 5.56x45 and 7.62x49 will defeat IIIA, III, and IV body armor certifications. With just regular FMJ mind you. .50BMG can defeat nearly 1'' thick steel plate. Then you have steel core vs only lead, so on and so forth. There really is no such thing as "armor piercing" as its very vague. If you don't understand what I'm referring to, there's a lot of information out there, but basically lots of regular FMJ ammunition can defeat several types of armor thus making them "armor piercing". BE AFRAID!
Well actually suicide isn't allowed in the United States. If you attempt suicide and get caught, you will be put into a mental institution, even if you don't want to go.
My point was a bit facetious, the point being that even if you legislate everything in existence, you still can't stop everything. Passing a law doesn't make the world sunshine and rainbows. Laws supply restriction and consequences, if someone is going to kill themselves..I don't think they're too worried about the consequences and to a lesser extent the same applies to a murderer.
So let's legalize murder?
In fact why have any laws at all. They obviously don't work since people are killing, raping, stealing, robbing, etc anyway.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
It's only absurd because it's unrealistic.
And because taking away people's freedom isn't going to solve anything.
"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." "with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths." It would have made this non-existent.
Suicide is a bigger killer(it makes the top ten year in and year out)than homocide. Ban suicide? If people wanna kill themselves there are a lot of ways to do it. Guns won't change this.
Also the whole talk about armor piercing is bigger LOL because its a media hyped term that is incredibly vague. Armor piercing implies it defeats armor. What kind of armor? 9mm ball will defeat soft armor and its just regular ball ammo. 5.56x45 and 7.62x49 will defeat IIIA, III, and IV body armor certifications. With just regular FMJ mind you. .50BMG can defeat nearly 1'' thick steel plate. Then you have steel core vs only lead, so on and so forth. There really is no such thing as "armor piercing" as its very vague. If you don't understand what I'm referring to, there's a lot of information out there, but basically lots of regular FMJ ammunition can defeat several types of armor thus making them "armor piercing". BE AFRAID!
Well actually suicide isn't allowed in the United States. If you attempt suicide and get caught, you will be put into a mental institution, even if you don't want to go.
My point was a bit facetious, the point being that even if you legislate everything in existence, you still can't stop everything. Passing a law doesn't make the world sunshine and rainbows. Laws supply restriction and consequences, if someone is going to kill themselves..I don't think they're too worried about the consequences and to a lesser extent the same applies to a murderer.
So let's legalize murder?
In fact why have any laws at all. They obviously don't work since people are killing, raping, stealing, robbing, etc anyway.
Because everyone who owns a gun is automatically a murdering serial rapist and everyone who doesn't own a gun is automatically a peace-loving tax payer who never does anything wrong...
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
On February 20 2012 04:10 Alizee- wrote: Suicide is a bigger killer(it makes the top ten year in and year out)than homocide. Ban suicide? If people wanna kill themselves there are a lot of ways to do it. Guns won't change this.
Actually that's wrong. Lets say your down and you're thinking about killing yourself. Now think, what's easier, kill yourself with a gun or stab yourself with a knife? With the gun you you simple pull the trigger and it's over, with a knife you have to shove it inside yourself with all the pain and possibility for failure that entails. The mental barrier for killing yourself with a knife for example is just a lot bigger than with a gun. As the gun is so easy, it's more likely you would be able to actually kill yourself without getting to think it through properly. Fact is, people usually don't want to kill themselves, but if something really bad happened and their feeling very depressed they see it as an easy solution in the moment. However if they got perhaps on hour more to think it through, that time being given by having to chose to actually stab themselves, they would usually reach a different conclusion.
The same argument can be used to explain high homicide rates, as it is again a much smaller mental barrier to kill with a gun than most other methods, and thus you get a lot more killings done that they wouldn't have done if they had more time to think it through.
It's this close minded thinking that you just presented that keeps the murder/suicide rates in USA much higher than most comparable countries. I don't know if it's just me, but dropping some of the American culture (the gun culture) to save a lot of lives every year sounds like it's worth it. Also no culture is perfect, and when a part of a culture causes so much damage as the American gun culture it should be considered a flaw in the culture and thus be dealt with.
Edit: You can also consider killing a freedom, but we forbid that since it's rather stupid having people going around killing each other without any consequences. You know, one of the big advantages of living in a society is that it gives us certain restrictions which makes us work a lot better together, reducing the amount of guns would as mentioned above make us work better together and thus we should restrict it.
On February 20 2012 03:41 mrRoflpwn wrote: Pretty biased poll imo. But ya i prefer we have no guns in society for anyone.
How is the poll biased? No intelligent person would dare add an anti-gun rights option the poll, it would absurd. Just as no intelligent person would add a poll option like "kill all the Jews," in a poll about "how to make the world a better place."
Any special reason for indirectly calling people hippies/retarded/socialists/other things you feel are insulting instead of taking responsibility for what you are actually trying to communicate?
When did I call anyone retarded? I was merely pointing out that it would be ridiculous to put that as a poll option.
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote: Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
Something also needs to be mentioned...
That is the exact point of guns, they are the ultimate equalizer. I could be a 120 pound nerd, but still be able to defend myself against someone twice my size. This is the point of having a gun for self defense. Whether being able to have firearms is legal or not, the purpose of a gun is to put everyone on an equal playing field.
Saying that it is cowardly is, in my opinion, dumb. I guarantee that if some 250 pound thug who fights people on a regular basis got you in a dark alley and beat the crap out of you, you would not have the same opinion about it being cowardly to shoot him to protect yourself. Pulling a knife on someone like that would not work, whether you had balls or not.
On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote: Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
Thats absurd, we won't try to conquer the world. Because then we would have to take care of your sorry asses. And most of us don't even wanna take care of the sorry ass Americans who think they deserve hand outs. Much less the rest of you...
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote: Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
That is... assuming you are not a 250 pound thug
Heh ^^
Also, in terms of nuclear weapons since we're going there, no one should have them. No one.
On February 20 2012 04:37 dannystarcraft wrote: That is the exact point of guns, they are the ultimate equalizer. I could be a 120 pound nerd, but still be able to defend myself against someone twice my size. This is the point of having a gun for self defense. Whether being able to have firearms is legal or not, the purpose of a gun is to put everyone on an equal playing field.
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote: Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
Something also needs to be mentioned...
That is the exact point of guns, they are the ultimate equalizer. I could be a 120 pound nerd, but still be able to defend myself against someone twice my size. This is the point of having a gun for self defense. Whether being able to have firearms is legal or not, the purpose of a gun is to put everyone on an equal playing field.
Saying that it is cowardly is, in my opinion, dumb. I guarantee that if some 250 pound thug who fights people on a regular basis got you in a dark alley and beat the crap out of you, you would not have the same opinion about it being cowardly to shoot him to protect yourself. Pulling a knife on someone like that would not work, whether you had balls or not.
That is... assuming you are not a 250 pound thug
If you're a 120 pound nerd, why are you outside of your house?
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote: Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
Something also needs to be mentioned...
That is the exact point of guns, they are the ultimate equalizer. I could be a 120 pound nerd, but still be able to defend myself against someone twice my size. This is the point of having a gun for self defense. Whether being able to have firearms is legal or not, the purpose of a gun is to put everyone on an equal playing field.
Saying that it is cowardly is, in my opinion, dumb. I guarantee that if some 250 pound thug who fights people on a regular basis got you in a dark alley and beat the crap out of you, you would not have the same opinion about it being cowardly to shoot him to protect yourself. Pulling a knife on someone like that would not work, whether you had balls or not.
That is... assuming you are not a 250 pound thug
If you're a 120 pound nerd, why are you outside of your house?
On February 20 2012 04:37 dannystarcraft wrote: That is the exact point of guns, they are the ultimate equalizer. I could be a 120 pound nerd, but still be able to defend myself against someone twice my size. This is the point of having a gun for self defense. Whether being able to have firearms is legal or not, the purpose of a gun is to put everyone on an equal playing field.
far west fantasy
I suppose in a way it is. Ever seen an old western film by the name The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence? It is an eerily similar situation...
I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder.
On February 20 2012 04:51 Ercster wrote: If you're a 120 pound nerd, why are you outside of your house?
On the subject of freedom... Think that this restriction would have had a destructive effect on our universities as many of the people studying once were a 120 pound nerd, just to mention one thing. Not that I expect somebody of your mental capability to care.
On February 20 2012 04:51 Ercster wrote: If you're a 120 pound nerd, why are you outside of your house?
On the subject of freedom... Think that this restriction would have had a destructive effect on our universities as many of the people studying once were a 120 pound nerd, just to mention one thing. Not that I expect somebody of your mental capability to care.
On February 20 2012 04:51 Ercster wrote: If you're a 120 pound nerd, why are you outside of your house?
On the subject of freedom... Think that this restriction would have had a destructive effect on our universities as many of the people studying once were a 120 pound nerd, just to mention one thing. Not that I expect somebody of your mental capability to care.
It was a joke. The fact that you couldn't see that is astounding. Also, if I'm not mistaken, guns aren't permitted on school campuses. This completely nullifies your argument. So maybe before you throw out baseless insults, you should probably read up on the subject you're discussing.
On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote: I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder.
And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path.
On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote: I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder.
And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path.
Except were not talking about drinking.
We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill.
Sorry, after reading so many stupid things throughout this article you kind of don't know what's a joke and what isn't. Anyway my opinion is better explained in my other post. Click to scroll.
On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote: I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder.
And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path.
Except were not talking about drinking.
We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill.
OH, and don't forget about causing severe pain, they were also meant to do that.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored...
I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right?
You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts.
On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote: I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder.
And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path.
Except were not talking about drinking.
We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill.
Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles?
Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles?
There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored...
I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right?
You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts.
My point wasn't whether this person won or not, it was to show that the law is not completely defined and open to interpretation.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters.
Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined.
I think if a criminal is convicted of a gun-related offense, he shouldn't be permitted the right to own a gun again, but if a criminal is convicted of an unrelated offense (like illegal drugs), then I don't see how removing his right to own a gun is justified.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party).
Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards.
On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote: I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder.
And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path.
Except were not talking about drinking.
We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill.
Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles?
based on your logic we should ban people, because irresponsible people kill people. there are plenty of campaigns about better car safety and why people shouldnt drink and drive etc. the difference is people 'need' cars, we dont need guns.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living.
No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist."
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored...
I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right?
You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts.
My point wasn't whether this person won or not, it was to show that the law is not completely defined and open to interpretation.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters.
Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined.
Once again, showing me that you did not read it.
First, the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court is BINDING LAW. A dissent is a disagreement with it, but it does not for a second change the fact that the plurality opinion (in this case, it's the majority) IS THE LAW.
Second, that question is answered rather succintly in the Heller opinion at 2817:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living.
No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist."
I'm not at all saying that you should "blindly follow". I'm telling you what the law is, why it is, and that it's an irrelevant discussion when applying those "devil's advocate" arguments to American law. If you want to debate the merits of repealing the 2nd Amendment, then fine, it's relevant. But as it's in effect today, the 2nd Amendment DOES encompass this societal decision.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living.
No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist."
I'm not at all saying that you should "blindly follow". I'm telling you what the law is, why it is, and that it's an irrelevant discussion when applying it to American law. If you want to debate the merits of repealing the 2nd Amendment, then fine, it's relevant. But as it's in effect today, the 2nd Amendment DOES encompass this societal decision.
I'm not talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment.
I'm talking about the fucking stupid mindset of "People 300 years ago who just had a violent revolution said it's okay for me to own a gun, so it's okay!" If you want to say that we should have guns in our society, great! That's your opinion, and I'm perfectly okay with that. However, back it up with something other than "some people wrote it down that it was okay 300 years ago so follow it or you hate freedom" as has been said multiple times in this thread explicitly.
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
ugh... does nobody read the shit I post? It's like it just gets ignored...
I've read your post, and my point is still correct. The right to bear arms is open to interpretation and because of that, it can't be followed strictly. A quote from the first link, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
You quoted the dissent... you do realize that's the losing side, right?
You are wrong. So are most (if not all) poeple in this thread. I understand it's extremely confusing, and I don't fault you for misunderstanding how it works, but PLEASE stop acting like you are all experts.
My point wasn't whether this person won or not, it was to show that the law is not completely defined and open to interpretation.
Edit: I urge you to read this.
On February 20 2012 03:58 Ercster wrote:
On February 20 2012 03:51 Alizee- wrote:
On February 20 2012 03:43 Ercster wrote:
On February 20 2012 03:27 Alizee- wrote:
On February 20 2012 03:17 BluePanther wrote: Because I think a lot of people haven't actually read the statute:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien-- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that-- (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
That's nothing to do with the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution gets treaded is the reason the laws get passed in the first place. Technically in most states for example with concealed carry it is required to have a permit. The Constitution says the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The law has perverted our founding document, I don't think this is a discussion of what laws are in place, but rather on how things should be one way or the other.
It doesn't say under this or that condition or if you pay this amount or pass this test, they're rights, they aren't theirs to be given. The biggest problem with lawmakers is they spend too much time making decisions for people instead of making decisions to best protect the ability for people to make their own decisions.
The right to bear arms isn't completely defined, which is why it is a highly debated topic on whether people should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
It is 100% defined. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sensationalism of "doing it for the children" uses feel-good reasons to legislate our rights away. Fear tactics, feel-good policies, and rhetoric to convince people to give up their rights because otherwise...there'd be murder in the streets! You're deluding reality in an attempt to justify tightening and restricting the free exercise of rights by saying that its not clearly defined. The problem is and people just can't live with it. They'll corrupt, they'll pervert, that's what lawmakers do in an attempt to justify their changes. Sadly the peons follow suit as they throw away their liberties to their all-knowing masters.
Why can people believe continue to believe politicians make terrible decisions and are corrupt, but if they take the right to bear arms away in any fashion that they all of a sudden become wonderful and no longer self-serving?
What kind of arms am I allowed to own? Am I allowed to own missiles and tanks? If I'm not mistaken, those are arms. You see, not completely defined.
Once again, showing me that you did not read it.
First, the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court is BINDING LAW. A dissent is a disagreement with it, but it does not for a second change the fact that the plurality opinion (in this case, it's the majority) IS THE LAW.
Second, that question is answered rather succintly in the Heller opinion at 2817:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
But you see, our modern weapons to the original law makers are dangerous and unusual. They wrote that law with only the knowledge that the guns they had were only going to exist "as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." The things you're quoting are refuting what you're saying.
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual.
Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun? Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living.
No, people 300 years ago, who had no concept of modern weaponry and societal constructs, agreed and vaguely wrote about having guns to be able to rebel since they just had a rebellion and now you're saying "either blindly follow what they said, or you hate freedom and are a communist."
I'm not at all saying that you should "blindly follow". I'm telling you what the law is, why it is, and that it's an irrelevant discussion when applying it to American law. If you want to debate the merits of repealing the 2nd Amendment, then fine, it's relevant. But as it's in effect today, the 2nd Amendment DOES encompass this societal decision.
I'm not talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment.
I'm talking about the fucking stupid mindset of "People 300 years ago who just had a violent revolution said it's okay for me to own a gun, so it's okay!" If you want to say that we should have guns in our society, great! That's your opinion, and I'm perfectly okay with that. However, back it up with something other than "some people wrote it down that it was okay 300 years ago so follow it or you hate freedom" as has been said multiple times in this thread explicitly.
You are attributing comments others have said to me. I didn't say anything about disagreement with the 2nd as equal to "hating freedom".
That said, it's in our constitution. Therefore, you have three options:
1. Follow it. 2. Repeal it. 3. Move.
If you're not advocating one of those three things, then your argument on the topic is 100% pointless.
On February 20 2012 05:16 TerlocSG wrote: They decided to give up their rights when they broke the law. No guns for them.
I would bet you broke the law before too. To be honest, I've downloaded illegal music, took drugs, ignored red street lights (only once or twice in my live), and maybe i broke the law in other ways too. Dont be so easy with words like this. Breaking the law once shouldnt be the reason to lose all rights.
Still, in my opinion you should be able to show a special responsibility to carry guns. Con or not con doesnt matter for me there.
On February 20 2012 04:55 leperphilliac wrote: I own a couple, and still think it's a bad idea. Hell I think we should have stricter gun control laws in some states. I wish in US politics there were other options between "ban them all" and "guns for toddlers." Some people I saw at the range the other day... shudder.
And some people the way they drive...and some people the way they don't hold the door...and some people the way they drink...and some people the way...and..and..and...you're treading down a slippery slope. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, but legislation intelligence and common sense isn't doable. Your thought process is understandable, but when you expand it beyond guns you quickly realize how muddy things can get when you go down that path.
Except were not talking about drinking.
We're talking about lethal weapons. Whose only intention at conception was to kill.
Your reading comprehension seriously blows. He was referring to the fact some people have terrible firearm handling skills. That's responsibility part of the equation. Therefore I tied it into similar scenarios that people DO have responsibility but act poorly..such as driving. Do you not realize a car is a 3000 POUND SOLID CHUNK OF METAL HURLING DOWN THE ROAD AT 88 FEET A SECOND!? There's some sensationalism for ya. Cars are VERY lethal. Auto accidents account for more deaths than fire arms. Ban cars? Lethal, fast moving, chunks of metal being piloted by possibly distracted, mentally inept, or impaired drivers. Where is your crusade against the lethality of automobiles?
based on your logic we should ban people, because irresponsible people kill people. there are plenty of campaigns about better car safety and why people shouldnt drink and drive etc. the difference is people 'need' cars, we dont need guns.
Again need is relative. America is a republic because my needs may vary from someone else's. If someone breaks into my home and is armed, I NEED a way to defend myself beyond prayer. Police can't magically appear there. Even then they'll probably shoot my dog. Its not for you to decide if I can or cannot defend myself and with what. Nothing is more important than life, without it nothing is possible. In fact, I'd say defense of one's life is a FAR, FAR greater need than the ability to transport myself in a way other than using my feet. I can always walk somewhere, I can't always get out of a situation when someone is in my home with a gun. So really, in my opinion, people need means of protection far more than they need ameans of transportation specifically cars.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party).
Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards.
While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us."
On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do.
My thoughts exactly.
Idealistic but not realistic.
Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
i actually think you are right but why carry guns in the first place? what is the reason for a normal citizen ot even own a gun?
i don't understand it and of course people that have been violent previously shouldn't be allowed to carry guns imo
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual.
Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party).
Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards.
While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us."
That's a straw man argument.
Also, I never said that guns are justified on a social level (although I do tend to like the 2nd). I said that it's ignorant to argue that they have no social benefit. Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist. It just means that in the aggregate you find it to be a negative social policy.
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual.
Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well?
if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion...
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual.
Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well?
if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion...
I, and I would assume most Americans, would want to protect myself if I were being robbed, even if that means I have to use deadly force. However, I'm in favor of a gun free society, which unfortunately doesn't/won't exist.
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual.
Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well?
if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion...
You assume I take that position because I don't respect human life.
Rather, I take that position because I have zero respect for human life that is willing to violate me in such a manner.
Also, the proposition isn't that I'm shooting someone after they steal my stuff when I'm away and I chase down the street after them. I don't advocate that. At that point, legal means are best used. It's illegal to shoot someone in that manner anyways. The proposition is that I'm being forcefully threatened for the purpose of taking my personal belongings. If someone is going to point a gun at me and threaten me, then no, I have no moral qualms about shooting them first.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party).
Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards.
While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us."
That's a straw man argument.
Also, I never said that guns are justified on a social level (although I do tend to like the 2nd). I said that it's ignorant to argue that they have no social benefit. Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist. It just means that in the aggregate you find it to be a negative social policy.
Lekebil was pointing out the need to have cars, as opposed to the social benefit vs. burden argument of guns, and so you ignoring the obvious difference seemed like an implicit argument that arguing for or against guns is as legitimate as arguing for or against cars. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you ignored that point of his and just talked about what we "value" as a culture (which isn't always useful in terms of the law... I mean, we have laws against marijuana and gay marriage, and yet pot kills zero people compared to alcohol and cigarettes, and we're supposed to promote civil rights, right? But I digress...).
Yes, some of us value guns. That doesn't mean that the social benefit *automatically* outweighs the social burden (or vice-versa). I'd say we'd need to look at statistics for that.
On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it.
In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party).
Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards.
While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us."
That's a straw man argument.
Also, I never said that guns are justified on a social level (although I do tend to like the 2nd). I said that it's ignorant to argue that they have no social benefit. Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist. It just means that in the aggregate you find it to be a negative social policy.
Lekebil was pointing out the need to have cars, as opposed to the social benefit vs. burden argument of guns, and so you ignoring the obvious difference seemed like an implicit argument that arguing for or against guns is as legitimate as arguing for or against cars. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you ignored that point of his and just talked about what we "value" as a culture (which isn't always useful in terms of the law... I mean, we have laws against marijuana and gay marriage, and yet pot kills zero people compared to alcohol and cigarettes, and we're supposed to promote civil rights, right? But I digress...).
Yes, some of us value guns. That doesn't mean that the social benefit *automatically* outweighs the social burden (or vice-versa). I'd say we'd need to look at statistics for that.
You're not saying anything I wasn't. Lekebil stated "there is nothing to gain on it." I was merely saying that there ARE positives and it's ignorant to not consider them when you discuss the negatives. I stated "Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist."
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual.
Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well?
if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion...
I don't think it's as little as "Give me twenty bucks." What if someone broke into your house and attacked your family? What if your wife or children were going to be raped? I could see myself killing over that, and it's a lot harder to use a knife or bare hands (both psychologically and physically) than using a gun- and I have a duty to protect myself and my family. You don't know what sickos are going to do, and you don't exactly have time to talk it over with them. Money and clothes and objects can be replaced. Loved ones can't. And if someone's going to get hurt in my house because somebody broke in- I'd want it to be the uninvited assailant 100% of the time.
Another vote that would've gone towards a "no guns allowed" option. I really don't understand the reasoning behind people who feel so strongly about being able to carry guns
On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote: You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
I see your points. But lets say you actually shoot first, do you really feel that the proper punishment for a person to break into your house is death? That what it boils down to, I'm not saying removing guns would reduce the amount of burglaries, it may as well increase it. But the outcome of each conflict during a burglary would be so much less dramatic. I'm fine with 5 people losing some of their belongings rather than 1 person losing his life. Also you may say you would shoot first but I sort of doubt it, you would spend more than the reaction time of the burglar to think if it was just your son getting up to drink a glass of water than just shoot and risk it. And that's in the case of you being an expert. I also doubt that burglars actually are afraid that somebody like you would be inside since fact of the matter is that the amount of people trained like you is in such a minority, that the risk of meeting somebody like you is so much smaller than all the other potential problems that could occur while doing a burglary.
In the bigger picture though, imagine the school massacres that could be avoided? If getting a gun would have risked them getting on police radar or getting caught, they would have had a much harder time doing it. The same thing could have been said about Anders Breivik in Norway, the guy who shot 60 kids at a youth camp, the chances for him to be busted if he had to get his machine gun illegally compared to just buying like a normal guy in a store would probably have made the crucial difference. As well as what I wrote in this post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313455¤tpage=8#144. And even if we look past all of those arguments, the fact is that statistics say that the murder rates in USA is much higher than any comparable country. And no matter how much you want to deny it, the open gun laws are a huge factor in this equation. And not wanting to take actions against it is very coldblooded in my opinion at least.
On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote: You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
I see your points. But lets say you actually shoot first, do you really feel that the proper punishment for a person to break into your house is death? That what it boils down to, I'm not saying removing guns would reduce the amount of burglaries, it may as well increase it. But the outcome of each conflict during a burglary would be so much less dramatic. I'm fine with 5 people losing some of their belongings rather than 1 person losing his life. Also you may say you would shoot first but I sort of doubt it, you would spend more than the reaction time of the burglar to think if it was just your son getting up to drink a glass of water than just shoot and risk it. And that's in the case of you being an expert. I also doubt that burglars actually are afraid that somebody like you would be inside since fact of the matter is that the amount of people trained like you is in such a minority, that the risk of meeting somebody like you is so much smaller than all the other potential problems that could occur while doing a burglary.
In the bigger picture though, imagine the school massacres that could be avoided? If getting a gun would have risked them getting on police radar or getting caught, they would have had a much harder time doing it. The same thing could have been said about Anders Breivik in Norway, the guy who shot 60 kids at a youth camp, the chances for him to be busted if he had to get his machine gun illegally compared to just buying like a normal guy in a store would probably have made the crucial difference. As well as what I wrote in this post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313455¤tpage=8#144. And even if we look past all of those arguments, the fact is that statistics say that the murder rates in USA is much higher than any comparable country. And no matter how much you want to deny it, the open gun laws are a huge factor in this equation. And not wanting to take actions against it is very coldblooded in my opinion at least.
Death isn't a "punishment" in a situation like this. A person who threatens another life willingly put themself in a situation where they make the balance of lives matter. It's no different than when a person points a gun at a police officer. It's not a "punishment" when they are shot, it's a matter of self-defense. I'm not going to simply shoot them because they entered... I'd attempt to citizen's arrest or chase them away if I could. Shooting them is a last ditch thing if I feel my life or the life of others is in danger because of their actions.
I may be in an unique spot, but I've had my house burgled. I was not home at the time, but my family was. Luckily the burglars never left the garage and everyone slept through it, but normally I would have been awake and in the area that the burglars were. It's far more nervewracking than you hypothesize. A last minute change in my work schedule is all that prevented me from having to make a decision. I also do not own a gun.... trust me, I wish I had one. You are vulnerable without a gun and proper training.
Burglars, in my experience (I now work in criminal and constitutional law), tend to be cowards. They usually aren't professionals. They tend to be idiot kids and social degenerates (mostly drug users) looking to make a quick buck.
I don't mean to dismiss your argument about illegal guns stopping crime, but I think you overestimate the difficulty in getting a gun illegally. One of the cases I worked this past summer was a crime ring involving smuggling guns into Canada for criminals there (Canada has strict rules on ownership). The numbers were crazy, and these were some REALLY dumb criminals. Guns are no different than pot or crack or anything else that's illegal. If there is demand, a market will arise. Sure, the guns go for 3x the price when they are illegal, but there is no doubt a market for them.
And on the point of school massacres... just imagine if I was in one of those classrooms when a gunman strode in with an auto and opened fire? I'd have popped him and saved dozens of lives. And people like me aren't as rare as you think, nearly 1% of the US population has formal military training.
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"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 first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada)
I think it should be written into the sentence. I think committing some crimes completely forfeits your right to bear arms while others may only suspend it for the time of your incarceration.
On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"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 first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada)
Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban.
There are too many factors, many of which can easily be soon for you just to say "Japan has strict gun control and low crime and the US has loose gun control and high crime, therefore gun control is effective".
Also, on a positive note, we here in Canada have started the process of dismantling our insane gun control with the ending of the long gun registry.
On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"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 first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada)
Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban.
I don't think I was implying that gun laws make the crime rate go down... Gun nuts seem to believe that crime would go up if citizens don't have guns, which is dumb. I can't think of any other reason gun activists think things would be bad as a whole. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom. I can't own a machine gun or anthrax or a ICBM and I don't feel like my freedom is being infringed upon.
On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"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 first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada)
Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban.
I don't think I was implying that gun laws make the crime rate go down... Gun nuts seem to believe that crime would go up if citizens don't have guns, which is dumb.
"There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada) " It sounds like that is exactly what you are saying.
And it is not dumb to suggest that gun control can cause crime to go up. Gun control takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals. That is just a recipe for more crime and it played out in Australia.
As for your edit: The thing about the things you listed is that simply owning them is an initiation of force against those around you (other than machine guns which people should be allowed to own). Firearms on the other hand can easily be directed and controlled for use in recreation and self-defense similar to how a car, despite being able to be used for crimes and murder, can easily be controlled for responsible transportation.
I think the instant you commit a crime with a gun your "gun privilage" should be revoked for life. Guns are way too serious not to be treated with respect. Every gun crime is premeditated in my eyes. If you are being safe there is no reason a gun should have to hurt anyone.
Is a car more dangerous than a gun? Of course it is. It is a multi-ton missle capable of doing insane damage. There are a lot of variables when driving a car though that can lead to an accident. You don't get your car taken away if you're in an accident (usually), your insurance just goes up and maybe you get a couple points on your license.
This shouldn't be the case with guns. There are no variables if safety procedures are followed, and no accidents.
On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"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 first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada)
Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban.
I don't think I was implying that gun laws make the crime rate go down... Gun nuts seem to believe that crime would go up if citizens don't have guns, which is dumb.
"There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada) " It sounds like that is exactly what you are saying.
And it is not dumb to suggest that gun control can cause crime to go up. Gun control takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals. That is just a recipe for more crime and it played out in Australia.
Maybe I should have left out my own 2 cents at the end... but I don't think there's a reasonable argument for putting guns in the hands of people not trained to use them. Someone who think that owning a gun that they don't know how to use will protect them is taking a pretty big chance.
I'm surpised people are even debating this. (Beyond the actual discussion of whether or not anyone should be allowed to carry guns.) Smoking a joint of marijuana doesn't mean you're any more likely to kill someone then if you didn't. Violent offenders on the other hand, have shown they are dangerous people, and thus should not be given items that empower their dangerous actions. If they want to go hunt or something, they should buy a bow and use it It's far more challenging/fun anyways.
On February 20 2012 07:10 BluePanther wrote: And on the point of school massacres... just imagine if I was in one of those classrooms when a gunman strode in with an auto and opened fire? I'd have popped him and saved dozens of lives. And people like me aren't as rare as you think, nearly 1% of the US population has formal military training.
I'm just going to call it here, as you ignore half of my arguments and don't understand the rest to a degree that we can have a reasonable discussion (not implying you're stupid or anything, I'm not clear enough I guess). And I need to do my statistics! Though I'd like to add that it's illegal to bring guns to school, that's one thing, and having guns all over the place in school would probably lead to some horrible incidents between kids. Secondly having 1% military trained is already a too low percentage, but considering how few of them again who are actually in good enough training to react fast enough and correctly (especially acting correctly) in such a situation it just becomes too rare to bother thinking about.
On February 20 2012 07:21 Suikakuju wrote: You US Guys like them guns!
Guns can be great. Have you ever seen Top Shot? That's a good show. Did you know you can be a grandmaster pistol shooter? They have competitive sports just like we do.
On February 20 2012 07:10 BluePanther wrote: And on the point of school massacres... just imagine if I was in one of those classrooms when a gunman strode in with an auto and opened fire? I'd have popped him and saved dozens of lives. And people like me aren't as rare as you think, nearly 1% of the US population has formal military training.
I'm just going to call it here, as you ignore half of my arguments and don't understand the rest to a degree that we can have a reasonable discussion. And I need to do my statistics! Though I'd like to add that it's illegal to bring guns to school, that's one thing, and having guns all over the place in school would probably lead to some horrible incidents between kids. Secondly having 1% military trained is already a too low percentage, but considering how few of them again who are actually in good enough training to react fast enough and correctly (especially acting correctly) in such a situation it just becomes too rare to bother thinking about.
No one is saying kids should be allowed to bring guns to high school. Teachers and security guards with the CCW permits is another thing. In order to receive a CCW permit you need to prove that you are safe and competent with pistols and you don't need military training in order to step up in a terrible situation and save people's lives.
We Canadians own more guns per capita, or so I've read (licensed guns). I feel anybody should be allowed to own guns except violent criminals who've been proven to be likely repeat offenders (case by case). People act like massive waves of crime are caused by legal gun ownership, and then there are a bunch of people who think that only the govt. should be allowed to carry guns (because they're above the rest of us humans somehow? Give me a break. This isn't a monarchy. Thanks, but we don't have that much respect for or trust in our government to let them be the ones with all the weapons). I don't care if some douchebag goes apeshit and kills 50 people every day with a legal firearm. My opinion on the matter won't change, since I've grown up around responsible people who own guns my whole life, and I don't think of them as any more dangerous than a steak knife.
I don't think immediately they should be able to just go out and buy a gun. I think 10 or 15 years probationary period you should be able to apply to get that right back, but only if you have no other crimes and haven't committed multiple felonies.
I think the current laws are fine, but if someone has made a mistake in the past and are living well and actually rehabilitated and proven they can be a trusted citizen after 10 years I'm ok with it.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
110% agree with you.
Sure is working out with Australia and it's 0 crime rate, eh? Or is all of Australia's crime caused by the few bolt-actions and shotguns you guys are still allowed to have?
The example I was thinking of was a black person in some suburb previously convicted of drug dealing, (since I watched The Wire) who can't access guns anymore and is afterwards immediately targeted by hoodlums for robbery and such. If he defends himself by using an illegal gun, he'll find himself back in prison and if not, his life and property are in danger. I mean, if they are too 'trigger-happy'(hah) with taking gun-rights away, you know that eventually some local police department will make it their mission to convict as many people as possible just to have them "in the system" and essentially under guardianship.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
I facepalm when I read things like this, because the number of ways I've thought of killing people other than guns in the time this takes to type this pretty much destroys the theory that a gun-free world is somehow a peaceful world. Did this person forget the harsh reality of conflicts between people being resolved violently ends with a beating or a blade more often than with a bullet? Do you seriously believe this dribble? For the world to be peaceful you have to take all the poverty, and eliminate it, you have to think of non-violent resolutions to conflicts.
Being fucking delusional and removing types of weapons from the plethora of choices we have already will not do shit to make the world a peaceful place. Please, don't believe the world to be such a simple place, and give people with brains a little more credit to think of ways to kill people.
On February 20 2012 01:11 Chanuk wrote: I completely agree with zeru, nobody besides certain government bodys should be allowed to be in the possession of firearms.
I don't know if anyone really knows this but the reason the "right to bear arms" is a part of the constitution of the United States is strictly for the people to have an option to rise up and revolt against any government body which is acting non-democratically(somewhat to what you'd see in 1939 with hitler).
The right to bear arms isn't about running around touting "fuck yeah" and shooting up the place Wild West style, it's about safety and protection. I believe any EX-CON with a violent criminal record (or a case related to violent crime) should have to go on a 5 year probation where (for one have to pay for the entire session length) and have to be evaluated if they can own guns.
I think It is insane to think that only the government should hold/carry guns... I'm all for gun control, but I'm not fine with the concept of allowing any country (United States or other) to no allow citizens to have the ability to rise against suppression...
On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote: Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war
No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ]
No Nuke [ c ] [ d ]
Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case:
a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires.
b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage.
c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d.
d: Same as in b but the other way around.
All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc.
Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
110% agree with you.
Sure is working out with Australia and it's 0 crime rate, eh? Or is all of Australia's crime caused by the few bolt-actions and shotguns you guys are still allowed to have?
When was the last time there was a school shooting or mass murder in Australia and the last time there was one in the States?
On February 20 2012 01:11 Chanuk wrote: I completely agree with zeru, nobody besides certain government bodys should be allowed to be in the possession of firearms.
I don't know if anyone really knows this but the reason the "right to bear arms" is a part of the constitution of the United States is strictly for the people to have an option to rise up and revolt against any government body which is acting non-democratically(somewhat to what you'd see in 1939 with hitler).
The right to bear arms isn't about running around touting "fuck yeah" and shooting up the place Wild West style, it's about safety and protection. I believe any EX-CON with a violent criminal record (or a case related to violent crime) should have to go on a 5 year probation where (for one have to pay for the entire session length) and have to be evaluated if they can own guns.
I think It is insane to think that only the government should hold/carry guns... I'm all for gun control, but I'm not fine with the concept of allowing any country (United States or other) to no allow citizens to have the ability to rise against suppression...
That's my stance.
I hope nobody seriously thinks having guns will let the population put a stop to a fascist authoritarian government. There is already such an incredible power disparity between the two that guns will be nigh useless. What are you going to do against the police's ability to monitor everything you do, to have targeted raids including weaponry and protection more advanced than handguns, to control the media etc? Or just to change the laws to prevent 'criminals' (i.e. rebels or anarchists) from having guns?
On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote: Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war
No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ]
No Nuke [ c ] [ d ]
Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case:
a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires.
b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage.
c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d.
d: Same as in b but the other way around.
All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc.
Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
Game theory is cute, but applying it to the issue of nuclear proliferation is a sad exercise in futility. The sheer number of factors involved in weapons of mass destruction destroys the practical application of the theory and assumes all actions are rational and logical, when even a cursory study of Cold War history shows a remarkable tendency for suicidal behavior on part of both sides. Don't use the Cold War as an example of why nuclear weapons should be spread.
On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote: Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war
No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ]
No Nuke [ c ] [ d ]
Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case:
a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires.
b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage.
c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d.
d: Same as in b but the other way around.
All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc.
Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
Completely unnecessary. The simply answer is, plenty of countries don't have a right to self-defense due to their violation of rights and initiations of force.
Nuclear weapons are still a fairly guarded technology, and rightly so. I don't think every country is "worthy" of possessing nukes. It's actually a lot like this very same question being discussed in this thread. Instead of "should ex-cons be allowed to possess firearms?" lets ask ourselves, "should warmongering shit-hole countries with corrupt governments be allowed to own nukes?". I actually think the answer to the latter is obtained much more easily.
I'd like an option for no guns, but I'd have to say that without that option, you have to allow everyone to own and carry guns. After someone is released from prison, our system says that they are rehabilitated to the point where they can successfully be assimilated back into society, and a point where they would not be any more prone to use a gun that any other regular citizen.
On February 20 2012 08:16 dUTtrOACh wrote: Nuclear weapons are still a fairly guarded technology, and rightly so. I don't think every country is "worthy" of possessing nukes. It's actually a lot like this very same question being discussed in this thread. Instead of "should ex-cons be allowed to possess firearms?" lets ask ourselves, "should warmongering shit-hole countries with corrupt governments be allowed to own nukes?". I actually think the answer to the latter is obtained much more easily.
But it provokes the same answer from a lot of people: No one should be allowed to have nukes.
On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote: Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war
No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ]
No Nuke [ c ] [ d ]
Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case:
a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires.
b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage.
c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d.
d: Same as in b but the other way around.
All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc.
Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
Game theory is cute, but applying it to the issue of nuclear proliferation is a sad exercise in futility. The sheer number of factors involved in weapons of mass destruction destroys the practical application of the theory and assumes all actions are rational and logical, when even a cursory study of Cold War history shows a remarkable tendency for suicidal behavior on part of both sides. Don't use the Cold War as an example of why nuclear weapons should be spread.
He asked a question and I answered. And in writing my reply I did mention that only if both parties are rational which means that they are not suicidal. The fact that the Taliban thinks that they will go to paradise if they go around killing infidels which means you and me and every other non muslims in this world pretty much rules them out of the equation lol. But then again this also means that countries that already own them have more political power than those that don't on that matter. So joining the I have nukes club nowadays is extremely hard to do.
Guns are like tobacco. Even if the government tries to prevent a product to reach a certain part of the market, it's not working very well. Underaged teens will keep getting their hands on cigs while violent gangbangers will be able to get guns.
Only the convicts convicted of crimes related to firearms, or those enabled by firearms, should be disallowed from owning/carrying firearms. If a man is sent to jail for significant fraud, he should not necessarily be disallowed from owning a gun. A person who robs another with a knife should not be disallowed from owning guns.
On February 20 2012 09:54 Mordoc wrote: Only the convicts convicted of crimes related to firearms, or those enabled by firearms, should be disallowed from owning/carrying firearms. If a man is sent to jail for significant fraud, he should not necessarily be disallowed from owning a gun. A person who robs another with a knife should not be disallowed from owning guns.
Maybe he should be disallowed from owning a knife instead?
Once the cat is out of the bag so to speak, it's not possible to outlaw guns completely.
Non-violent offenders can have firearms. HOWEVER, if they get out early, they must wait until the end of the original sentence before they may purchase a firearm. Any firearms they might have had previous to their incarceration would not be returned.
Violent offenders can own a firearm 30 years after the end of their original sentence. Lots of people would like to restrict them forever because they actually assaulted somebody, but assaulting somebody in your 20's gets you a bunch of years, if you have been a good upstanding law abiding citizen for 30 years after.... well, you're 50-60-70 years old. I'd say if somebody wanted to rob you that you would need a gun to defend yourself from somebody half your age.
First off: the US 2nd amendment is outdated and one of the main reasons why there are so many crime-related deaths per year and percentage of population as compared to other first-world countries. However, seeing as your constitution is not likely to change I don't feel you can heap all ex-cons together and even the split between violent and non-violent is too general. It should be checked on a case-by-case basis with the large majority getting permission: it's their constitutional right too.
That said, who really cares? With the prevalence of guns in the society, obtaining a gun illegally should be pretty damned easy for any ex-con who is serious about obtaining one. If a violent ex-con is dead set on getting a gun and shooting someone, he will. He should probably never have been let out of jail in the first place (and that goes for anywhere in the world, not just the US).
Isn't it wanted people to have guns so they can shoot others so they can defend themselves? So those who broke once law, may not defend them selves in this state/nations logic? Is there more to it?
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
Actually the cities that force each household to own a gun have the lowest crime rate in almost every category. Compare cities like Kennesaw, Georgia and Washington D.C its not even close.
!!! I'm actually FROM Kennesaw!! Hahaha. I completely that we had a law requiring every household to own a gun, which is what I assume you are talking about. It's mostly just a middle finger to the D.C. law though, you'll never, ever get arrested for it.
On February 20 2012 02:18 Candadar wrote: The most common argument by pro-gun activists is that, if you're walking along and someone starts waving a gun around your family, you would hope that you have a gun too to take him down. Let me tell you this:
If someone is waving a gun around you or your family, you're not wishing you had a gun so much that they DIDNT have a gun.
It took me a while to think of why this argument didn't make sense, but I finally got it.
1) If you argue it from you're perspective, the same thing could be said about the man waving the gun: he's definitely wishing that you don't have a gun. And more importantly,
2) That's true that your first wish should be that he doesn't have a gun, but you can't change that fact. The only thing you have under your control in this situation is whether you have a gun or not. In this case, most people would want the gun.
On February 20 2012 02:53 Vorgrim wrote: I'm glad nobody is allowed to freely carry an armed weapon in my country. Going hunting? Sure, not for going to the store.
Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either....
Yes, yes you can. If you got a permit, you can walk around with a gun in your waistband or an automatic weapon in your trunk if you so wish, completely legally.
I'm going to assume you mean fully automatic, and that's not really true. You can only own fully automatic weapons after an insanely specific set of rules and regulations have been met, and the guns are just as insanely expensive. Not to mention they have to be made prior to 1986, and you're not really allowed to just tote them around. You can take them to a shooting range though.
On February 20 2012 03:53 DOUDOU wrote: in this thread, americans vs the world
awe america, you're at it again
so you call us freedom haters for not wanting to let every instable fat ass own assault weapons but you're always on the top when it comes to restrict any rights and privacy to anyone that stole chewing gums 10 years ago, just so that they really don't have even the slightest chance to live a straight life in the future
give guns to everyone, make sure the outlaws keep stealing, raping, killing seems very logical if you want to cause chaos, might happen very quickly in a recessive economy
I agree with warning/banning that guy who was just calling everybody lefty communists who didn't agree with him, but isn't this a little silly?
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote: Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
I don't think you or I are qualified to talk about this, since neither of us have attempted to kill someone (I hope). That being said, I would think if anybody would be able to kill someone with a knife, I'd pick the felon over the victim.
On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote: Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war
No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ]
No Nuke [ c ] [ d ]
Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case:
a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires.
b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage.
c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d.
d: Same as in b but the other way around.
All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc.
Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
Game theory is cute, but applying it to the issue of nuclear proliferation is a sad exercise in futility. The sheer number of factors involved in weapons of mass destruction destroys the practical application of the theory and assumes all actions are rational and logical, when even a cursory study of Cold War history shows a remarkable tendency for suicidal behavior on part of both sides. Don't use the Cold War as an example of why nuclear weapons should be spread.
The theory also assumes it is only countries that have nuke not smaller entities such as the Terrorist groups and the Mexican cartel. Not saying either does have them, but in dire need when facing erratication they could use them as leverage.
Giving a gun to a crazy guy, who just came out of prison for shooting 20cops, will of course sound totally insane to almost everyone, but on the other side not allowing someone ,who went to prison for file sharing, a gun to protecting his own home, after he have served his time in jail also sounds wrong, at least to me it does. I believe that once someone has sentenced there time in jail, they should be free and have the same rights as everyone else in the society, it should not matter what the person did, because if they did something horrible they would have to sit a damn long time in jail before being allowed back into the society. Being on parole is not the same as being free, when someone is on parole they should not be allowed any of the goods that a free man has.
I agree with the gentleman above me. And it's mostly because we share certain values that we have in Norway. I think that convicts and ex-cons are a valuable resource to the society, and the government should do everything in their power to balance the distance between reality and prison. I believe the people that have served a long, long time in jail doesn't have the same sense of reality as other citizens outside jail. As ex-convicts can't handle the transition to the real world, and therefore they tend to lean back to their criminal life - which costs the government more money than if they were working and having a "normal" life. I believe everyone should have the same rights, even though in their past they have done something wrong. Is an ex-convict's life less worth than people without a criminal past (I'm stating this because almost every US citizen on this forum is pro allowing guns for cizitens)? No. If carrying a gun is so important for some citizens, then deal with the fact that ex-convicts might see you as much as a threat to him if you two face each other with a gun.
By ex-cons I assume that means felons. Felons can carry firearms in my state, they have to go through a lengthy process to do so. I'd hope that Felons would want their voting rights restored more than the ability to legally carry a firearm. Our prison system just angers and educates people into being better criminals, and upon their release they can't vote to change anything, and probably have a hard time finding a job, and thus fueling the anger more.. Felons are a big disenfranchised class, but no politician wants to be seen as 'soft on crime.' So it is always more guards and more walls for our overcrowded(dangerous) penal system.
[edit] I forgot to mention I agree with the Norwegians above.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
Actually the cities that force each household to own a gun have the lowest crime rate in almost every category. Compare cities like Kennesaw, Georgia and Washington D.C its not even close.
!!! I'm actually FROM Kennesaw!! Hahaha. I completely that we had a law requiring every household to own a gun, which is what I assume you are talking about. It's mostly just a middle finger to the D.C. law though, you'll never, ever get arrested for it.
On February 20 2012 02:18 Candadar wrote: The most common argument by pro-gun activists is that, if you're walking along and someone starts waving a gun around your family, you would hope that you have a gun too to take him down. Let me tell you this:
If someone is waving a gun around you or your family, you're not wishing you had a gun so much that they DIDNT have a gun.
It took me a while to think of why this argument didn't make sense, but I finally got it.
1) If you argue it from you're perspective, the same thing could be said about the man waving the gun: he's definitely wishing that you don't have a gun. And more importantly,
2) That's true that your first wish should be that he doesn't have a gun, but you can't change that fact. The only thing you have under your control in this situation is whether you have a gun or not. In this case, most people would want the gun.
On February 20 2012 02:53 Vorgrim wrote: I'm glad nobody is allowed to freely carry an armed weapon in my country. Going hunting? Sure, not for going to the store.
Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either....
Yes, yes you can. If you got a permit, you can walk around with a gun in your waistband or an automatic weapon in your trunk if you so wish, completely legally.
I'm going to assume you mean fully automatic, and that's not really true. You can only own fully automatic weapons after an insanely specific set of rules and regulations have been met, and the guns are just as insanely expensive. Not to mention they have to be made prior to 1986, and you're not really allowed to just tote them around. You can take them to a shooting range though.
On February 20 2012 03:53 DOUDOU wrote: in this thread, americans vs the world
awe america, you're at it again
so you call us freedom haters for not wanting to let every instable fat ass own assault weapons but you're always on the top when it comes to restrict any rights and privacy to anyone that stole chewing gums 10 years ago, just so that they really don't have even the slightest chance to live a straight life in the future
give guns to everyone, make sure the outlaws keep stealing, raping, killing seems very logical if you want to cause chaos, might happen very quickly in a recessive economy
I agree with warning/banning that guy who was just calling everybody lefty communists who didn't agree with him, but isn't this a little silly?
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote: Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
I don't think you or I are qualified to talk about this, since neither of us have attempted to kill someone (I hope). That being said, I would think if anybody would be able to kill someone with a knife, I'd pick the felon over the victim.
Also, you are very angry. <3
Yes, the argument that removes the factor of guns being waved around in this street walking scenario is the one that makes no sense.
Suppose you have a point, the random with a gun is wishing you don't have a gun, then both sides have a similar understanding, and removing guns would solve that problem.
Also "there's nothing you can do, he has a gun", well not if there are no guns.
On February 20 2012 03:58 RodrigoX wrote: How about we get an actual system that rehabilities criminals and not just make them worse?
This. This more than anything else.
On February 20 2012 03:30 CajunMan wrote:
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
Actually the cities that force each household to own a gun have the lowest crime rate in almost every category. Compare cities like Kennesaw, Georgia and Washington D.C its not even close.
!!! I'm actually FROM Kennesaw!! Hahaha. I completely that we had a law requiring every household to own a gun, which is what I assume you are talking about. It's mostly just a middle finger to the D.C. law though, you'll never, ever get arrested for it.
On February 20 2012 02:18 Candadar wrote: The most common argument by pro-gun activists is that, if you're walking along and someone starts waving a gun around your family, you would hope that you have a gun too to take him down. Let me tell you this:
If someone is waving a gun around you or your family, you're not wishing you had a gun so much that they DIDNT have a gun.
It took me a while to think of why this argument didn't make sense, but I finally got it.
1) If you argue it from you're perspective, the same thing could be said about the man waving the gun: he's definitely wishing that you don't have a gun. And more importantly,
2) That's true that your first wish should be that he doesn't have a gun, but you can't change that fact. The only thing you have under your control in this situation is whether you have a gun or not. In this case, most people would want the gun.
On February 20 2012 02:59 Candadar wrote:
On February 20 2012 03:00 llKenZyll wrote:
On February 20 2012 02:53 Vorgrim wrote: I'm glad nobody is allowed to freely carry an armed weapon in my country. Going hunting? Sure, not for going to the store.
Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either....
Yes, yes you can. If you got a permit, you can walk around with a gun in your waistband or an automatic weapon in your trunk if you so wish, completely legally.
I'm going to assume you mean fully automatic, and that's not really true. You can only own fully automatic weapons after an insanely specific set of rules and regulations have been met, and the guns are just as insanely expensive. Not to mention they have to be made prior to 1986, and you're not really allowed to just tote them around. You can take them to a shooting range though.
On February 20 2012 03:53 DOUDOU wrote: in this thread, americans vs the world
awe america, you're at it again
so you call us freedom haters for not wanting to let every instable fat ass own assault weapons but you're always on the top when it comes to restrict any rights and privacy to anyone that stole chewing gums 10 years ago, just so that they really don't have even the slightest chance to live a straight life in the future
give guns to everyone, make sure the outlaws keep stealing, raping, killing seems very logical if you want to cause chaos, might happen very quickly in a recessive economy
I agree with warning/banning that guy who was just calling everybody lefty communists who didn't agree with him, but isn't this a little silly?
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote: Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
I don't think you or I are qualified to talk about this, since neither of us have attempted to kill someone (I hope). That being said, I would think if anybody would be able to kill someone with a knife, I'd pick the felon over the victim.
Also, you are very angry. <3
Yes, the argument that removes the factor of guns being waved around in this street walking scenario is the one that makes no sense.
Suppose you have a point, the random with a gun is wishing you don't have a gun, then both sides have a similar understanding, and removing guns would solve that problem.
Also "there's nothing you can do, he has a gun", well not if there are no guns.
edit: decided the lmgtfy link lacked enough humor
I was talking about the scenario presented in his argument; assuming there are no guns, there isn't a scenario haha. THEN AGAIN....
Guns have been invented. Obviously. Given that fact, there are always guns in the world. Double Obviously. Make it illegal to have guns, then you go to the old argument "only criminals have guns." Which means in this world there is always an opportunity for the gun scenario to exist (albeit a very, very small one lol). Which I hate saying because I feel it's one of the less important reasons, but it's where my reasoning would go in the scenario you describe =/
would LOVE to hear more arguments, this was a great thought exercise for my morning, and I am always open to change my mind :D currently stuck on the whole abortion debate >_< I'd much rather think about this.