Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So do you think the amendment as written in 1791 is still relevant as is without changing? It's a different world after 2 centuries.
I think this gun craziness is going to get us all killed. I dont see anything fruitful coming out of any discussion.
The murder rate is lower than it was from the 1970s until the 1990s. I somehow doubt the veracity of your assertion that "this gun craziness is going to get us all killed".
I should also add that most historians believe that the murder rate in Europe during the Middle Ages was more than twenty times higher than in the modern United States in most places. The least violent places in Europe (mostly in England) still had the murder rate of Philadelphia. Bogota, Colombia in the 1980s and current day Ciudad Juarez is safer than most of Medieval Europe.
They didn't even had single-shot muskets back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
There is no right secured by the Second Amendment for a citizen to take up arms against his lawfully constituted government. That's just simple nonsense.
No. It was put into place in case if the government became unlawful or tyrannical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73-79 ford fan
For many of us guns and reloading is a hobby and a necessary tool used to kill varmints. My parents got me my first centerfire rifle and shotgun by my early teens. Many of the kids around here get 22s at a young age. Heck my little nieces already have bb guns. The anti gun nuts should spend some time around firearms instead of being so over the top terrified of them cause guns are here to stay.
In my experience, most liberals know nothing about guns and have never been around them and think no further into the issue than "A mass shooting would be harder to pull off if guns were harder to get and if we ban or heavily restrict them than this type of thing wouldn't happen". They never think that guns aren't really that hard to manufacture and with plenty of gunsmiths out of work that some of them would make fully functioning firearms. Would they be high-quality? No, but they would certainly be more than capable for use in a drive-by or mugging or gas station robbery or movie theater shooting. They don't know that the rounds used in hunting rifles are often more powerful than many military rounds and can cause worse wounds (look up what a .350 Remington Magnum can do to a human head or better yet, just take my word for it). They don't know what the difference is between automatic and semi-automatic fire is. They don't know what hollow-point bullets actually do (other than it is "really bad") nor that most police forces actually issue those to all their officers. They are completely ignorant of the fact that much of the Assault Weapons Ban is actually focused on the appearance of the firearm and not on its functionality (but maybe that's the point).
I disagree with gun control, but I can understand supporting it if you actually know what you are talking about, but in my experience most gun control advocates have no clue what they are talking about. This is one issue where I believe conservatives are actually far more educated and rational than liberals (on most issues that aren't related to economics; I usually side with liberals). The complete ignorance they have in relation to the issue of guns (and tendency to associate the belief in gun ownership with homoeroticism and racism) suggest that it is based on a knee-jerk reaction and subconscious fear* of guns.
The murder rate is lower than it was from the 1970s until the 1990s. I somehow doubt the veracity of your assertion that "this gun craziness is going to get us all killed".
I should also add that most historians believe that the murder rate in Europe during the Middle Ages was more than twenty times higher than in the modern United States in most places. The least violent places in Europe (mostly in England) still had the murder rate of Philadelphia. Bogota, Colombia in the 1980s and current day Ciudad Juarez is safer than most of Medieval Europe.
They didn't even had single-shot muskets back then.
No. It was put into place in case if the government became unlawful or tyrannical.
In my experience, most liberals know nothing about guns and have never been around them and think no further into the issue than "A mass shooting would be harder to pull off if guns were harder to get and if we ban or heavily restrict them than this type of thing wouldn't happen". They never think that guns aren't really that hard to manufacture and with plenty of gunsmiths out of work that some of them would make fully functioning firearms. Would they be high-quality? No, but they would certainly be more than capable for use in a drive-by or mugging or gas station robbery or movie theater shooting. They don't know that the rounds used in hunting rifles are often more powerful than many military rounds and can cause worse wounds (look up what a .350 Remington Magnum can do to a human head or better yet, just take my word for it). They don't know what the difference is between automatic and semi-automatic fire is. They don't know what hollow-point bullets actually do (other than it is "really bad") nor that most police forces actually issue those to all their officers. They are completely ignorant of the fact that much of the Assault Weapons Ban is actually focused on the appearance of the firearm and not on its functionality (but maybe that's the point).
I disagree with gun control, but I can understand supporting it if you actually know what you are talking about, but in my experience most gun control advocates have no clue what they are talking about. This is one issue where I believe conservatives are actually far more educated and rational than liberals (on most issues that aren't related to economics; I usually side with liberals). The complete ignorance they have in relation to the issue of guns (and tendency to associate the belief in gun ownership with homoeroticism and racism) suggest that it is based on a knee-jerk reaction and subconscious fear* of guns.
To state that people are against "gun ownership" is painting with a broad brush. It's making the laws and gun sales too easy for people that should not be in posession of a weapon and the type of weapons that are available to these people is what is most disturbing. I personally have no problem with gun ownership and I know people that own guns. If one of these people that I know seemed unstable, irresponsible or irrational, I would be very concerned and rightly so. One never knows what triggers another (no pun intended) to go off the deep end, but chances are if you asked this Colorado shooter's mother or other family member if he should have been in posession of such weaponry, they most likely would have said "no".
Free speech is regulated. You may be charged and found guilty of murder by using your "free speech" to talk someone into murdering for you. So to should guns be regulated when they can be used for murder. See the similarities?
Using the logic of your case....you can be tried for murder if you use a gun to murder some one. So (again, by your logic) they are already regulated.
To state that people are against "gun ownership" is painting with a broad brush. It's making the laws and gun sales too easy for people that should not be in posession of a weapon and the type of weapons that are available to these people is what is most disturbing. I personally have no problem with gun ownership and I know people that own guns. If one of these people that I know seemed unstable, irresponsible or irrational, I would be very concerned and rightly so. One never knows what triggers another (no pun intended) to go off the deep end, but chances are if you asked this Colorado shooter's mother or other family member if he should have been in posession of such weaponry, they most likely would have said "no".
I am not saying that you are opposed to gun ownership. I had no idea what your stance is until you just clarified in the above post.
I was more referring to the OP. Plus, I am currently debating a friend of mine on Facebook who said, "I'd make personal possession of fire arms illegal. All of them." She knows nothing about guns and uses the logic of that since she wants them illegal, why should she have to learn anything about them?
You can't do much with guns in the USA. They're not going anywhere. But I will say this about the Second Amendment:
The part about the "well regulated militia" is dead in the water. There is such technology asymmetry between the government and private citizens that a group of people with a bunch of basic guns would be insufficient to mount a really viable resistance.
You can't do much with guns in the USA. They're not going anywhere. But I will say this about the Second Amendment:
The part about the "well regulated militia" is dead in the water. There is such technology asymmetry between the government and private citizens that a group of people with a bunch of basic guns would be insufficient to mount a really viable resistance.
Oh, I don't know about that. The Afghanis have been doing a heck of a job with just a handful of AKs against the best army in the world.
By now, those of you who know my posts and political stance know that i'm best described as slightly left of center. I'm usually going toe to toe with the conservative element. In this case though, I have to defer to the right. they get it. Some republican gun owner once said to me, "If a republican doesn't like a gun he doesn't buy it. If a democrat doesn't like a gun they ban it."
Well, I'm starting to think that's true. For the life of me I can't comprehend why otherwise sane democrats deny themselves the freedom of gun ownership. If that is the case, then only right wing conservatives will own all the guns and the democrats will be powerless. I for one would like to keep the balance between the two parties on an equal footing, on all levels.
I can see and accept the fact that high powered weapons in big cities may be a candidate for reasonable restriction. you have a problem, you call the cops. They're everywhere in the big city. Out here in the Desert, police reaction time is 30-40 minutes. You better be able to defend yourself.
a well reasoned and thought out post, i had to rep you for this one even though we tend to disagree on many subjects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
There is a definte need for more regulations as to who can acquire what type of weapon. How about the right for an individual to bear nuclear arms? That would be included within the 2nd amendment too, right? The Founders must have forseen those... If there is a govt takeover, you'd better have some on hand.
this is a typical liberal response, and is pure rubbish. no i dont think people should have their own nuclear weapons. in fact i dont think people should have a lot of military grade weapons on hand. and i do believe that there are weapons that should be licensed, for instance a law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a .50cal machine gun as long as he gets an FFL.
and to mr phillips, you are so wrong on your stance regarding the second amendment and what the founding fathers reasoning was for putting it in the constitution. it was in fact put in to allow the citizenry to protect itself, and eliminate, and out of control overbearing government. that is not sedition, that is protecting the citizens and the constitution. it also helps prevent other countries from invading this country. imagine being china, and wanting to invade the US, but you realize that the biggest thing stopping you, other than the ability to actually put troops on the ground here, is the fact that not only would you be facing the US military, but an armed citizenry as well.
You can't do much with guns in the USA. They're not going anywhere. But I will say this about the Second Amendment:
The part about the "well regulated militia" is dead in the water. There is such technology asymmetry between the government and private citizens that a group of people with a bunch of basic guns would be insufficient to mount a really viable resistance.
In and of itself it wouldn't. However, it would buy time for possible revolts in the military and law enforcement which can join the armed faction. Which is how a lot of revolutions and revolts go. Including the American Revolution.
Besides, it also provides a deterrent to the government as well. Governments tend to be a little more cautious when the people they oppress can fight back. Many Ancient Chinese Emperors went so far as to outlaw Kung Fu and attempt to restrict it to only the army and palace guards. Think about that for a minute. Emperors with tens of thousands (in many cases, hundreds of thousands) of armed and trained soldiers, plus a heavily guarded and fortified palace, felt threatened by monks and peasants learning hand-to-hand combat.
There was certainly a technological asymmetry between the British Empire and the Colonies, but who ending up winning? Besides most of the hardware the US has at its disposal is best for fighting another standing army and not a guerrilla war. Don't get me wrong, the US military is far better at fighting a guerrilla war than its detractors would have you believe, but not all its tools are used for the job and many of the times when they are used it has more to do with the different service branches making sure they get a piece of the action just so they can justify their budget. A B-52 isn't that effective in a guerrilla war (especially if there was one fought on US soil) and most of the Navy's ships would play no role in the fight either. The Abrams tank is possibly the best tank in the world, but it was built for fighting other tanks and wouldn't be particularly effective fighting an uprising in streets of Des Moines, Iowa.
I am talking about a hypothetical situation. Something like a President who is about be removed from office due to a scandal or loses an election or in an overblown response to an emergency declares a permanent state of martial law or himself as "President-for-Life" or dissolves Congress. Or the government tries to start rounding up people into camps. Something like that. Something truly oppressive that actually turns a large minority or even majority of the people (and secretly, many government officials) against the government. I am talking about the type of thing that has happened before and has happened in what were once relatively stable countries and the type of thing that can happen again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Oh, I don't know about that. The Afghanis have been doing a heck of a job with just a handful of AKs against the best army in the world.
Not quite true for several reasons.
1) NATO forces kill a lot more of them than they kill of NATO.
2) The Taliban isn't particular popular and as long as NATO forces stay, they have no shot at regaining power. The US and its allies are not facing anywhere near the resistance that the Afghans threw at the Soviets.
3) The main thing that lead to the victory of the Afghan resistance over the Soviets was the Stinger missile. The Mi-24 was the biggest threat to anyone fighting the Soviets and without anti-air capability the Afghans were being slaughtered. Once the CIA started providing them with 40mm AAA and especially the Stinger missile the Afghans were able to truly fight the Soviets without being death being virtually guaranteed. Granted, the Soviets were still killing more of them, but as Clausewitz and Sun Tzu stated long ago: War is an extension of politics. It is not necessarily about how many people you kill nor how many of your people die, but whether or not you get your way in the end.
The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document; and it is not authority for what you adbocate, which is sedition.
Bah humbug statist. You really should read up some more on what the founders said. The Constitution is the product of the philosophy of the founders, based on Enlightenment ideals about liberty, etc. They absolutely believed in a right to overthrow an oppressive government no matter the time or place. They wouldn't consider a tax on whiskey cause for it, but they would consider an assault on freedom to be so. Statism has no place in a free society.
"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."
- Timothy James McVeigh (1993)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there is a govt takeover, you'd better have some on hand.
