What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Making the constitution useless

  • Thread starter Casper
  • Start date
  • #21
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ July 19 2004,12:42)]and you don't need a gun to defend yourself.
Sorry but I don't get three wishes.

I live in Texas which is like the wild west of gun control. We even have a gated community in which ONLY regestered gun owners can live (serously it's in the deed restrictions). Guess how many houses get broken into. Here, it is within you're rights to use maximum force at night on you're own property.

Besides JLAP most people who own a regestered firearm don't use it to commit crimes. This bill does nothing to stop the black market access most criminals have.
 
  • #22
I should point out here that there are a lot of thriving democracies that don't allow, or severely restrict, private gun ownership. They aren't all Nazi Germany just because they don't want guns all over the place. It is this overblown rhetoric that hurts the cause of gun ownership.

I support the RTKABA. I don't own a gun, and don't feel the need to, but I like the option. However, on the scale of importance in the Bill of Rights, it's towards the bottom for me; totally essential 200 years ago, and not necessarily so now. Nevertheless, it's still there and should be taken seriously until it's repealed.

Capslock
 
  • #23
i agree, capslock.

i never said that owning guns isn't an option, i said we would be better without them.

and you don't need a gun to defend yourself. ever heard of tasers, stun guns, and mace?

i guess i'm just too liberal for my own good lol.
 
  • #24
I think there's an inherent right to defend oneself. And overthrowing a corrupt government is ONE of the legitimate reasons for having gun ownership.

However, like I said, I think there's quite a bit of fantasy going on when people pretend they really need a gun for everyday safety in the US today. One really doesn't. I am more concerned with a breakdown in society when considering gun ownership, and if I decided to get one, I'd lock it up very securely until such a situation called for it. Having an easily accessible gun in the home seems more dangerous than helpful, imo. For home protection from petty criminals, I think my Luiseville Slugger is more than adequate.
blues.gif


Capslock
 
  • #25
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]and you don't need a gun to defend yourself. ever heard of tasers, stun guns, and mace?

JLAP, Interesting point. I think the crux of the matter is two fold. I understand that some people don't like guns and think they should go the way of the dodo.

However, many people are ruthless and selfserving and will not think twice about robbing your house or worse. I, with TWO blackbelts will NOT go up against a person with a gun. I don't care if I have mace, a tazer or whatever. My chances are slim to none of coming out of it alive. I like the fact that I have the right to buy a gun if I so choose.

I think it's a tad alarmist to say that the Gov't will seize control of everyone's life if we don't have guns. England is a pretty good example of a country without (many) guns, and I don't see any gov't enslavement. I don't really like this argument.

But I still think that I have the right to defend myself and my familty by whatever means nescessary. If the bad guys have guns because the don't give hoot about the law, then I am at a severe disadvantage on that front. Now that I have a 6 week old daughter, this is readily apparent.
 
  • #26
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] totally essential 200 years ago, and not necessarily so now

what was relevent 200 years ago isnt nececarily relevent to the present day.



personaly i dont see what the big deal is. the vast majority of guns are desinged to kill, and im assuming u dont want the non lethal type (dart guns, crowd control guns)

now the pistle can do the job just fine. what could there possibly  be that you would need a semi-automatic to kill. Semi-automatics exell at mowing down many people in a short time.. Why would you possibly need a wepon like that?
 
  • #27
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ July 19 2004,1:42)]your right, i did say that. they had no right.

those other issues are much different, and also, guns kill people, gay marriage, freedom of religion, free speach, etc, doesn't.

and you don't need a gun to defend yourself.
No offense, but this really bothers me. How can you toat the constitution in one arguement, but in the next say that its not that important.

The point I keep trying to drill home is simple.

If we keep allowing them to slowly erode our constitutional rights, when does it end? When will people finally wake up and see the wool being pulled over their eyes?

You throw a fit when the gov't trys to tell you who can marry and who can not, but your complacent when they tell you how you can defend yourself OR how you can hunt?
 
  • #28
there is a difference. gay marriage doesn't kill people.

i support your right to bear arms, but i still think we would be better without guns. it IS your right and if you want a gun, get one, but i still think we don't need them.
 
  • #29
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ July 19 2004,2:10)]i agree, capslock.

i never said that owning guns isn't an option, i said we would be better without them.

and you don't need a gun to defend yourself. ever heard of tasers, stun guns, and mace?

i guess i'm just too liberal for my own good lol.
Rifles, including assult rifles, account for VERY little of the gun crimes in the US. So its not like this law will actually hinder an idiot from commiting a gun crime.

Once again, I don't understand how you can use the constitution in one arguement, then the next breath say that its not that important.

Regardless of how you feel about guns, it is a constitutional right for us to own them.
 
  • #30
Won't be a popular view but anything that limits the availability of guns, I'm all for. The vast majority of people do not NEED a gun. If you hunt for food, fine. Otherwise, forget it. They are too dangerous and cause much pain, injury, grief and death. (And don't sling out that "guns don't kill, people do" crap. Guns are instruments made purely for destruction). They do far more harm than good.

I know a ton of gun owners and my entire life I've never known ONE person who has needed to draw a weapon to defend their home or family. Yet that's what everyone says..."I need to defend myself." And everyone says "My guns are safe...no child can get to them.", yet every day there reports in the news of children killed playing with guns. If all you gun-totin' folk out there have your guns safely locked away, how are all these kids getting killed?? Its all too common. For the "right to bear arms," many families out there will cry a river of tears for loss of their child. What ordinary citizen NEEDS an assault rifle?? That's not a DEfense weapon...its an OFfense weapon.

I hate guns. Take them away. Dead children, murder, domestic violence murders, robberies, hunting accidents... There are many countries who don't allow them and their crime statistics are no higher than ours.

Guns. UGH.
smile_h_32.gif


I guess I'd better get a gun to defend myself against the onslaught of gun-lovin' members jumping on me.
biggrin.gif
 
  • #31
you guys should watch bowling for columbine, they have a really relevent cartoon about how americans freak out and buy guns to defend themselves when they don't need it.

amen PAK!
 
  • #32
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If we keep allowing them to slowly erode our constitutional rights, when does it end? When will people finally wake up and see the wool being pulled over their eyes?
Casper, classic debate fallisy alert!! BWEEP BWEEP BWEEP! The "slippery slope" argument is a fallisy because it does not directly adress the issue, but rather uses the fear of a possibility that is NOT directly related to the issue. It's an emotional argument, not a logical one.

I'm on your side on this one, but I understand PAK's reservations. I am all in favor of strick control, but we should nevertheless be allowed to own a gun.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]now the pistle can do the job just fine. what could there possibly be that you would need a semi-automatic to kill. Semi-automatics exell at mowing down many people in a short time.. Why would you possibly need a wepon like that?

I don't know much about guns, but I think that more guns qualify as "semi-automatic" than you think, Finch. I beleive (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) that a semi-automatic weapon is a gun that fires one round per depression of the trigger until the clip is empty. Most guns these days, (except revolvers and shotguns?) are semi-automatic.
 
  • #33
Taken straight out of the amendments to the constitution.

"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."

Enough said.
 
  • #34
I think that when that was amended to the constitution, the idea was rights for a "militia" to have arms for defense. I don't think that translates today into meaning its ok for individuals to be able to own AK47s and Tech 9s so they can shoot each other on the streets. That's not a militia.
confused.gif


So I interpret that as "the people" meaning a group of people formed together as a unit (militia) bearing arms for the defense of the country or state. I think people have taken that too far into meaning everybody should have as many guns as and types of guns as they want.

UGH.
 
  • #35
to the comment that Britain is getting ine w/o guns...it isnt look at the violent crime rates, they have gone up. also did you know it is against the law to defend yourself in England? if you are are attacked and you fight back YOU will go to jail. ok you dont like the argument about Hitler, ive got an example that goes 180 from that one. Switzerland requires that able bodied law abiding males to keep a rifle with X amount of ammunition in there homes. they are required to practice with them and most towns have a 300 meter target range in which to do so. they have an EXTREALY low violent crime rate. also here in the states, Florida made it quite easy for law abiding residents to get a concealed weapons permit. there was an increase of about .5% of the population getting the permit BUT violent crime and robbery against Florida residents dropped DRAMATICLY, the criminals started preying on tourists cause they knew they didnt have the permits.

PAK if your going to translate that arms didnt mean AK47's does that mean freedom of the press doesnt include TV radio and internet?

Rattler
 
  • #36
I'm actually with the gun folk on the interpretation of the Ammendment.

The "militia" part is mentioned as a justification for, but not a condition for gun ownership. In other words, the second part, "he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not dependent on the first, and stands on its own.

However, I also agree that one can oppose this ammendment, and still support the Constitution. One can cherish the right to assembly and free speech, and feel that the same inherent rights don't extend to gun ownership. However, in my opinion, the way to address that is to repeal the 2nd ammendment rather than just ignore it.

On the other hand (lol!) gun-supporters don't go running around arguing for the right to own nuclear weapons, so there IS a limit to the armaments an individual should be able to own. It's just where to draw the line that is the question.

Capslock
 
  • #37
that law of switzerland is sexist and forces you do do something unnessicary.

i hate sexism.
 
  • #38
JLAP, i wasnt commenting on that, i was saying their form of "gun control" has worked to their advantage during war and peace time.

Rattler
 
  • #39
I think the gov is targeting the non-gun owners on this. Many people who are not familiar with guns think that a fully auto-matic is something like an AK and a semi-automatic is something like an UZI or MAC-10or 11 whatever. They will say that you don't need to mow people down to defend your home or hunt. That is true, and i don't know anybody who hunts with anything I've named, also an assault rifle would be a bit cumbersome to get ready if someone broke in to your home. The truth is any handgun besides a revolver is semi-automatic, semi-automatic means that you don't have to nice guy the hammer for each pull of the trigger but you do have to pull the trigger every time, holding the trigger down to "mow people down" is fully-automatic.
I think the problem is that this is trying to scare non gun owners into further false beliefs about guns and control along with their use.
I must admit I am very biased, my family does not own guns but my wifes family are collectors of many, many, many guns as well as my uncle-in-law (
confused.gif
) owns the largest gun store in NE. I personally have a Taurus Raging Bull 48 long nose on payment plan. I reserve my right to shoot you for entering my home without my permission and intending to do me or my family harm. If you do none of these things you will NEVER see the wrong end of my barrel and you will not know it is in my home unless I want you to know. This bill does not target black market (where gums involved in crime come from) and will not stop any criminals from buying, using, and disposing of anything. It would only take away my last chance to give you #### for trying to bring harm upon me or my family.

Joe
 
  • #40
Well said Super,

Take a look at the Brady bill. Has it done a good job of cutting down on gun crimes? No. Now, on the other hand, it may have slightly cut down on gun use in "crimes of passion" situations, so instead its a knife etc..

Criminals do not buy guns leagally. Therefore, making it illiegal for an honest law abiding citizen to own a certain type of gun is simply taking ones rights away. Now, I am not talking about uzi's and 60mm canons, I am talking about semi-auto shotguns. A gun that is used darn near every day for squirl hunting.

Oh wait, there is more. Included in the bill is a ban on all armor piercing bullets. Now, while that may sound like a darn good idea, you must first know what the classify as an armor piercing bullet. Any bullet that will penatrate a kevlar vest is what they are calling it. Well, just about ANY bullet used in deer hunting will penetrate a kevlar vest. Lets not even get into moose and elk hunting.

You know, I live in New Orleans, and the murder rate is quite high here. Not once have I heard of a murder, much less a murdered cop (assuming the bullet proof vest here) with a hunting rifle. Or ANY large calliber rifle for that matter.

96% of gun crimes are with ILLIEGAL HAND GUNS. So please, someone tell me what good this bill will do for the public?
 
Back
Top