Right to bear arms

[Tomahawk]

I have to do a huge research paper for my english class on a controversial issue. I chose The Right to Bear Arms, the second amenment of the constitution. This is the second amenment:

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.

There is a lot of controversy over whether civilians should be able to own guns. I need some good arguments for my paper going either way. Don't worry, I'll quote you if I use your words :)

[BluntRM]

Check out the Black Panthers.

[dudewithasock]

Guns don't kill people, death kills people.

[habbywall]

I give this thread less than a page before it gets threadjacked to a guns vs. no guns debate for the next three months.

[dudewithasock]

I give this thread less than a page before it gets threadjacked to a guns vs. no guns debate for the next three months.

And that's being conservative.

[Tomahawk]

Stop talking about the thread dying, talk about the right to bear arms!!!

[spazdude222]

I have the right to bear arms. Two of them. A left and right. But I mostly use the right. I only keep the left around for a) balancing while uniing and b) to look symmetrical.

[habbywall]

Stop talking about the thread dying, talk about the right to bear arms!!!

The fact that this thread is about the right to bear arms is what will kill it. So obviously the right to bare arms kills things.

[monkeyman]

So obviously the right to bare arms kills things.

Moral of the story: don't wear t-shirts.

[spazdude222]

Moral of the story: don't wear t-shirts.
Unless you are a seriously hott chick and the t-shirt is wet.

[Hazmat]

Unless you are a seriously hott chick and the t-shirt is wet.
:D Me like that :D

[captainkrunk61]

Like, these bear arms?
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6677/beararmspq9.jpg
ROAR!

[habbywall]

Unless you are a seriously hott chick and the t-shirt is wet.

How is that better than not wearing a shirt if you are a seriously hott chick?

[dudewithasock]

How is that better than not wearing a shirt if you are a seriously hott chick?

That's what I'm wondering. I think Sam's gay or something.

[monkeyman]

I meant "don't wear t-shirts in favor of long sleeved shirts". Not "Don't wear anything on your torso".

[dudewithasock]

I meant "don't wear t-shirts in favor of long sleeved shirts". Not "Don't wear anything on your torso".

I still like Nick's idea better.

[Tomahawk]

For the love of god! How did a discussion about the 2nd amenment become T-shirt debate?!

[dudewithasock]

For the love of god! How did a discussion about the 2nd amenment become T-shirt debate?!

It didn't become a t-shirt debate...it started that way. There was never any discussion of the 2nd amendment. :p

[monkeyman]

Because Nick can't spell. :D

Sorry.


Supreme Court Cases (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/supreme_cases.html)

Pro/Anti gun control arguments (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/guncontrol/guncontrol.html).

Just a fair warning, I haven't read either of those, so I dunno how good they are...I just googled some stuff to try and help.

Good luck.

[James_Potter]

http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/1038P.jpg

[johnfoss]

There is a lot of controversy over whether civilians should be able to own guns.
I think you're being the victim of some NRA propaganda there. I don't think I've met any Americans that don't think civilians should be able to own guns. The controversy is on how to regulate gun ownership, education and/or training. What makes it sticky is how loosely worded the 2nd Ammendment is. Everybody has their own interpretation. Some insist everyone should have unlimited access to assault weapons, while others think things should be more limited, and perhaps people should show some level of competence before owning some guns, just as we have to do the same to drive cars.

[Gilby]

There is a lot of controversy over whether civilians should be able to own guns. I need some good arguments for my paper going either way.

Understanding the 2nd amendment requires understanding the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the events that caused them to be made.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution starts out with the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This sets the basis of the constitution. "We the People" created it, and as the higher power, we are the ones granting privileges to the government. The rest of the constitution puts restrictions on what the government can and cannot do.

The Bill of Rights also has a preamble:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

This tells us some of the foundations of the bill of rights, but there is more to it than this. At the time the constitution was made, there was a lot of fear about having a centralized government. They recently declared independence from King George III and they knew that a centralized government tends to turn in to a tyrannical government. So there were two sides of the issue, the Federalists who wanted to form the constitution, and the Antifederalists who did not. Many changes were made to the constitution to get the Antifederalists to agree to it and it was the Antifederalists who pushed for the Bill of Rights and stressing individual rights when the constitution was being ratified. Many states would not ratify the constitution without the bill of rights.

So, with all that in mind, let's look at the 2nd amendment:
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 intent of this amendment is that the People have the right to bear Arms so that they can protect themselves, their family, their property, and so that they can overthrow a tyrannical government if the need arises. The right to the use of arms to protect your rights, but you do not have the right to violate the rights of others. In other words, my right to swing my fist ends just before it reaches your nose.

[musketman]

I dont think I could live without my guns. Seriously after having them be a big part of my life(hunting and shooting since I was 8) I would be angry, and feel like I have no rights anymore if they were taken away.

We have the right to bear arms, and as long as im in the U.S. we will continue to have that right. (although these Democrats are trying hard to ban guns in many places, but I wont get into that)

[musketman]

This says it.....

[Mikefule]

The right to bear arms was written into the US constitution when the world was a very different place.

When the constitution was written, no one knew whether it would work. They just hoped it would. The right to bear arms was the right to protect yourself, your family, and your possessions rather than relying on the state to do this for you. No one knew then whether the state would evolve and be able to protect people.

"Arms" meant a knife, a pistol, a musket, a rifle. All of these were personal weapons capable of killing or injuring, but quite limited in scope.

Over 200 years later:

The state has evolved in such a way that (at least theoretically) it is able to protect the citizen. The police forces and other enforcement agencies are well established.
The population has increased hugely, and people live closer together in a more stressful environment. Violence is more likely.
Drugs have become a scourge. Violence is more likely.
Personal mobility (cars, motorbikes, aircraft, trains) have all increased.
Weapons have evolved beyond the wildest imaginings of the writers of the constitution.


So here is a law written to allow the frontiersman to carry a handgun to protect himself in a lawless wilderness. This law is now being applied to a person who lives in a city of millions, protected by a police force. That person might have access to a weapon capable of firing several hundred rounds per minute, capable of killing from a mile away, or killing everyone in a room in seconds. That person can commit a crime and be 200 miles away in 4 hours.

Whatever the arguments for or against a limited right to bear arms, it seems obvious to me that the spirit of the law is being broken by some of the people who campaign most loudly to maintain the law. "Because my great great great grandpaw needed a rifle and a pistol on the frontier, I have a God given right to have an AK47 and a bazooka in my New York appartment." (I paraphrase!)

In the UK, we have a very limited right to bear arms. Farmers are entitled to own shotguns, subject to basic licencing and security measures. A farmer may use a shotgun to shoot birds or rabbits for the pot, but the gun must be kept in a secure cabinet when not in use.

However, we recognise no right to carry a deadly weapon for personal protection. Gun enthusiasts may keep sporting weapons, subject to licencing and security measures, but may only use them in very closely regulated circumstances.

The mainstream population is unarmed. By mainstream, I mean most people, from all ethnic backgrounds, age groups, social groups and so on. And shootings are very rare indeed. I have known people who have been stabbed, or held up at knife point. I have never known anyone who has been shot, or seen a shooting, or shot anyone. (Outside of a military situation.)

A few small communities are armed - mainly young poor black males from inner city areas. I live in Nottingham, where there is a shooting about once a week, give or take. These shootings are what the police sometimes call "bad on bad" - usually young males from street gangs who carry guns because their enemies do. Now and again, a disagreement bubbles over into a feud, and someone gets hurt. Occasionally, an innocent person is caught in the crossfire. A young girl was shot dead in a "mistaken identity" hit a couple of years ago.

The message I draw from this is that if you have enemies, and you carry a gun, then they will carry a gun too, and vice versa. Sooner or later, the gun will be used.

If neither of you has a gun, then no one gets shot.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

This whole "need" to have a gun in our modern society stems from the irrational fear of "bad" people.

I don't think we need to give people the right to support their irrational fears with potentially violent means.

[saskatchewanian]

Here is an exert from an article that was published in the NFA newsletter a while back. I think it is a good example of why guns may be beneficial for society, especially women.

The United States went through their empirical tests of stringent gun control laws between the years 1964 and 1990. The methods of evaluating whether or not laws work as intended are uncertain, especially in the beginning because changes can have surprising effects that are difficult to predict. Analyzing the effects of such trial-and-error efforts could and (and obviously did) take quite a few years. But by the beginning of 1990, when their crime rates continued to skyrocket out of control, many American states had begun to believe that severe gun control laws were not the answer they were seeking.

One of the first states to realize that was influenced by the result of something that happened long before 1990. In Orlando, Florida, in 1966, the rape rate was very high. The police there realized that something more had to be done in the way of protecting women from criminal violence.

It wasn't an intentional test. The frequent rape stories in the media had resulted in private purchases of 200 to 300 guns per week. Editors of the Orlando Sentinel Star went to the chief of police, asking him to stop gun sales to women before the women hurt someone.

The chief replied this what they were doing was legal, but he also was concerned. He asked the paper to tell the women about a free police-taught firearm safety course to be held on the police range the next Sunday. The paper printed the story, and over 2500 women applied by showing up at the police range, carrying every type of firearm--loaded and unloaded--imaginable. No one expected that!

So the police regrouped and scheduled the women into reasonable-sized classes. It worked! The rape rates immediately crashed to near zero, and all violent crime rates fell quickly and steadily, and continued to stay down permanently! No one expected such immediate and positive effects!

Why did it work?

It was not because the women shot anyone. They didn't, and they didn't commit any crimes, either. It worked for the same reason that possession of a handgun works for the police. The women served notice that they could protect themselves, and that scared the criminals off. Handguns are by far the easiest, safest, and most effective tool to use when protecting life from criminal violence.

It worked because normal people, whether police or private law-abiding citizens, have the same set of values, principles, and reasons for actions--they do not shoot others simply because a firearm is available. Also, everyone knows that protecting life from criminal violence has to be provably justifiable in a court of law. That makes good citizens with handgun permits very cautious and careful.

Violent criminals think they are beyond all the rules. Laws mean little to violent criminals. Some criminals are psychopaths, people without a conscience, who don't respect anyone's the right to live in peace. Many of those-- and other criminals--do not fear the police or the justice system. They are dangerous, particularly to women.

you can read the full article at http://www.nfa.ca/women-only/the-story-of-margo.html

[howdigetsogood]

i support the right to own guns. i have a few, but never use them for sensible reasons. mostly to scare people or steal something. i think america would be much better without guns. but were so far gone it doesnt matter.

[johnfoss]

... these Democrats are trying hard to ban guns in many places, but I wont get into that
All guns? I think not. Which guns, and how?

Handguns are by far the easiest, safest, and most effective tool to use when protecting life from criminal violence.
Safest? SAFEST??? Well, it's the National Firearms Association. They must know what they're talking about. Still, I think if you miss with a slingshot, or some other non-lethal weapon, you're less likely to kill the woman in the background with the stroller...

It worked because normal people, whether police or private law-abiding citizens, have the same set of values, principles, and reasons for actions--they do not shoot others simply because a firearm is available.
...Unless they get into a rage, or unless they make a mistake, or unless the firearm is poorly stored and ends up in the wrong hands, or... But the NFA must be the experts on such things, and I wouldn't expect them to be anything less than objective. Right? :mad:

[musketman]

All guns? I think not. Which guns, and how?




I had a feeling you where gonna quote me.

It's a known fact that democrats want to get rid of most guns, if not all guns in the future. Right now California and other states have restrictions on alot of guns, and overall length of guns, and barrel length and rate of fire.And I think even ammunition. However I dont mind there being a restriction on states known with alot of violence, But they abuse this power and want more restrictions on other states, and other guns. Semi automatic guns are of the worst right now, and probably on the top for being banned.I saw Hilary Clinton(sp?) on TV once saying how bad an AK-47 was because it had a high rate of fire, and was short and easy to hide. She knows nothing about guns. All an AK-47 is is a semi-automatic gun. But because it's known as a "Terrorist gun", so its ripped on untill it's banned and other semi-autos are banned aswell. You already have lots of paperwork to own a gun, but they want you to do more than that. So mostly the "and how" part you said is by so many restrictions it's rediculous.


And then another thing is If we (the public) dont have guns anymore, the terrorists or "bad people" always will. So our guns are gone, and we're left defenceless. So yeah, I think we should still have guns even after 200 years when this country was made.

[musketman]

Safest? SAFEST??? Well, it's the National Firearms Association. They must know what they're talking about. Still, I think if you miss with a slingshot, or some other non-lethal weapon, you're less likely to kill the woman in the background with the stroller...




C'mon! A slingshot! That's crazy talk. I could wear a U.P. winter sweater and not even feel a slingshot. You may be less likely to hit the woman in "the backround", but the robber with his gun will probably shoot you and your kid in the stroller. You need guns, you have to fight fire with fire in these situations...it's the only way.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

It's a known fact that democrats want to get rid of most guns, if not all guns in the future.


If it's a "known" fact I think you could find a source. But since it's not a fact in any way shape or form you won't be able to find one. Good luck.

[Gilby]

If it's a "known" fact I think you could find a source. But since it's not a fact in any way shape or form you won't be able to find one. Good luck. Democrats want many limits and gun control:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/democratic_law_1.php

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Democrats want many limits and gun control:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/democratic_law_1.php

Yeah they want to ban assault rifles and limit the number of guns you can buy at one time. That's hardly "most guns" and it says nothing about eliminating "all guns in the future"

[GILD]

It's a known fact that democrats want to get rid of most guns, if not all guns in the future.
Sources my friend, quote sources.
And in the interest of credibillity...

C'mon! A slingshot! That's crazy talk. I could wear a U.P. winter sweater and not even feel a slingshot.
What are you talking about?
It's a known fact that there are slingshots capable of shooting projectiles at the same fps you can get out of a 7.65. And that's the caliber James Bond carries, so you know that's as deadly as anything.
You can even buy armor piercing pellets for slingshots all over the place now.

You need guns, you have to fight fire with fire in these situations...it's the only way.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Mahatma Gandhi

Something you want for xmas?
http://www.canesgalore.com/images/14829.jpg

[musketman]

Sources my friend, quote sources.
And in the interest of credibillity...


What are you talking about?
It's a known fact that there are slingshots capable of shooting projectiles at the same fps you can get out of a 7.65. And that's the caliber James Bond carries, so you know that's as deadly as anything.
You can even buy armor piercing pellets for slingshots all over the place now.





Something you want for xmas?
http://www.canesgalore.com/images/14829.jpg


that's so stupid. I started to lauph. A slingshot with armor piercing pellets...lol. You can use your slingshot, but if your serious about protecting you and your family get a gun.

[Gilby]

The state has evolved in such a way that (at least theoretically) it is able to protect the citizen. The police forces and other enforcement agencies are well established.
You're not seeing the purpose of the right to bear arms. It's because of this very institution, the government with it's police forces and enforcement agencies, that the right to bear arms becomes so important. It's the last resort to defending oneself. It's as important today as it was back in the time of the revolutionary war. Reading the United States Declaration of Independence should be enough to show the importance of the people to be able to overthrow their government:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Today, in the US, our federal government is a failure. It's not operating as the constitution set forth for it to operate as. The constitution imposed limits on the federal government, but over the last century, the federal government has changed the meaning of many parts of the constitution to take control of the American people. "General Welfare" has been changed from meaning the welfare of the nation as a whole, to the government imposing restrictions on the people to ensure what is perceived to be this person welfare. The interstate commerce clause, originally intended to ensure unhampered trade and prevent conflicts and war between the states, has now been changed to be commonly refered to as the everything clause, as it's what's been used by the federal government to regulate all commerce. Most things the federal government has done was intended to be left to the states or to the people, as clearly stated in the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
We now have to ask our government for permission to do just about anything, including owning a gun. Needing permission from your government to do anything is the very definition of a police state.

Like Great Britain was back during the revolutionary war, the United States is now a nation building empire and is reaching in to foreign lands to take control of them.

The right to bear arms is the last resort for overthrowing such a government. It allows the people to come together and form a militia to overthrow the government and institute a new one. I don't think we are at that point yet. I think we are able to change our government from within still, unless the majority of the voting machines have been tampered with.

I'm hoping that the Republican party is not rigged too much and will allow Ron Paul a shot at getting coverage and possibly elected in the primaries. He's the only guy in congress that appears to know the constitution and the limitations imposed by it on the federal government.

[Mikefule]

You're not seeing the purpose of the right to bear arms. It's because of this very institution, the government with it's police forces and enforcement agencies, that the right to bear arms becomes so important. It's the last resort to defending oneself. It's as important today as it was back in the time of the revolutionary war. Reading the United States Declaration of Independence should be enough to show the importance of the people to be able to overthrow their government...

An interesting point, and not without merit.

You have a government capable of using million Dollar missiles to destroy 10 Dollar tents in Afghanistan from 25 miles away over the horizon. You have a government capable of mouning the disgustingly-named "Shock and Awe" attack on Iraq and killing tens of thousands of people. You have a government capable of dropping blast bombs down chimneys from 5 miles up. You hang onto that Saturday night special because a lucky shot might bring down that helicopter gunship when the government comes after you.

Meanwhile if a few kids use their Saturday night specials to kill each other over petty disputes about women, Nike trainers and drugs, that's a price worth paying for freedom.

[johnfoss]

Meanwhile if a few kids use their Saturday night specials to kill each other over petty disputes about women, Nike trainers and drugs, that's a price worth paying for freedom.
That pretty much sums it up. Could you take over for Musketman? He doesn't seem to have the skills to debate this issue. :)

A slingshot with armor piercing pellets...lol.
Do you know what a metaphor is? A slingshot is an example of a less-lethal weapon. A handgun (or rifle) isn't all there is. That's why I offered Mikefule your spot. Unless you'd like to argue the argument rather than just giving us NRA 101. Repeat: nobody wants to ban all guns. If they do, they're such a tiny minority they'll never get their way so why worry? The idea of gun control is to make the country a safer place, not to go against the 2nd Ammendment.

If the American people were to turn against its own armed forces, it would be pretty ugly. But if such a popular revolution were to occur, some of those armed forces might also participate, creating further chaos within the armed forces. Smart bombs can't kill entire populations, and have limited success against guerilla warfare. If not anything else, we're learning this in Iraq.

[Mikefule]

[QUOTE=johnfoss]
If the American people were to turn against its own armed forces, it would be pretty ugly. But if such a popular revolution were to occur,...QUOTE]

If America is to be saved from the excesses of its leaders, it will be by people like Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson%2C_Jr.

Not by people like Charles Bronson.

[musketman]

That pretty much sums it up. Could you take over for Musketman? He doesn't seem to have the skills to debate this issue. :)


Do you know what a metaphor is? A slingshot is an example of a less-lethal weapon. A handgun (or rifle) isn't all there is. That's why I offered Mikefule your spot. Unless you'd like to argue the argument rather than just giving us NRA 101. Repeat: nobody wants to ban all guns. If they do, they're such a tiny minority they'll never get their way so why worry? The idea of gun control is to make the country a safer place, not to go against the 2nd Ammendment.

.

So you think we (the Public) should be allowed to have less lethal weapons than guns? Your right about not having to worry about our guns being banned completely, but Im sure the democrats wouldn't be kicken up to much of a fuss if they where all banned. They(gun takin- away democrats) work there way up from small. First it's semi-auto guns and "assault rifles" then its all guns. You cant let them even ban some guns, because then that leads to more gun being banned and then we have none.

And I know the Idea of gun control is to make the country a safer place, and it all sounds good on paper, but so does communism. The Terrorists or "bad guys" will always have guns to shoot and kill us citizens. If we have our guns taken away then we have no protection, and the terrorists still have there guns. Studies show there Is less crime with more guns John. You want sources for that?

[ThisGuyIKnow]

So you think we (the Public) should be allowed to have less lethal weapons than guns? Your right about not having to worry about our guns being banned completely, but Im sure the democrats wouldn't be kicken up to much of a fuss if they where all banned. They(gun takin- away democrats) work there way up from small. First it's semi-auto guns and "assault rifles" then its all guns. You cant let them even ban some guns, because then that leads to more gun being banned and then we have none.

And I know the Idea of gun control is to make the country a safer place, and it all sounds good on paper, but so does communism. The Terrorists or "bad guys" will always have guns to shoot and kill us citizens. If we have our guns taken away then we have no protection, and the terrorists still have there guns. Studies show there Is less crime with more guns John. You want sources for that?

As John already stated you're vastly misinformed on all of this and really not worth trying to have any sort of debate with.

[Borgschulze]

The Right To Bear Arms.

[musketman]

As John already stated you're vastly misinformed on all of this and really not worth trying to have any sort of debate with.

There's nothing to debate. And what am I misinformed about? guns control doesn't make the world better, it actually makes the crime rate higher. that's that, and it's done. If you want sources Just ask. That's what this thread is about.

[monkeyman]

There's nothing to debate. And what am I misinformed about? guns control doesn't make the world better, it actually makes the crime rate higher. that's that, and it's done. If you want sources Just ask. That's what this thread is about.

You're not actually putting out ideas. You're just spouting anti-democrat babble, and listing off NRA stats. Hint: the NRA won't publish anything that doesn't support it.

[skianduniaddict]

hah id hate to see what would happen if thay tried to take maine's guns away

[ThisGuyIKnow]

That's what this thread is about.

No it's not. The thread is about the debate itself.

Monkeyman already explained how/why you are misinformed.

[skianduniaddict]

An interesting point, and not without merit.

You have a government capable of using million Dollar missiles to destroy 10 Dollar tents in Afghanistan from 25 miles away over the horizon. You have a government capable of mouning the disgustingly-named "Shock and Awe" attack on Iraq and killing tens of thousands of people. You have a government capable of dropping blast bombs down chimneys from 5 miles up. You hang onto that Saturday night special because a lucky shot might bring down that helicopter gunship when the government comes after you.

Meanwhile if a few kids use their Saturday night specials to kill each other over petty disputes about women, Nike trainers and drugs, that's a price worth paying for freedom.
you clearly havent seen wha guns can do
i could easily take down a helicopter with my .22 automatic handgun

[musketman]

No it's not. The thread is about the debate itself.

Monkeyman already explained how/why you are misinformed.

Well, I dont see what you are doing to help this thread. I got to talkin about the "democrat babble" because they are the ones who are more for gun control, wich kinda is the debate, the right to bear arms. I guess Ill just say I am against gun control, and we should always keep our guns. OK?

[johnfoss]

If you want sources Just ask.
Usually people just post them. But while I'm asking, please leave out one-sided organizations like NFA and NRA. Try for any mainstream media source that's not famous for leaning toward the NRA.

[spazdude222]

http://www.daisy.com/graphics/history_rights_sm.jpg

[musketman]

Usually people just post them. But while I'm asking, please leave out one-sided organizations like NFA and NRA. Try for any mainstream media source that's not famous for leaning toward the NRA.


http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm43.html

http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3628

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp

[spazdude222]

http://image.listen.com/img/170x170/1/8/1/6/696181_170x170.jpg
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/51500/51605WcEB_w.jpg
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005QCQM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpghttp://www.therevgroup.com/Cartoon2004/march2004.gifhttp://www.cincypost.com/opinion/images/jeff072100.gifhttp://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1011l.jpgHopefully some of these might lighten the mood. Sorry about the repart jokes.

[spazdude222]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.choiceshirts.com/images/A6/11/A6118D-md.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.choiceshirts.com/dept/c1/rebel%2Band%2Bredneck_t-shirts/op/1/sort/pop/n/12/&h=159&w=159&sz=12&hl=en&start=30&tbnid=OgpWrwNOiT7l1M:&tbnh=97&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGun%2Bcontrol%26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D 10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/no_gun_control.JPG
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/146909/2/istockphoto_146909_gun_control.jpg
http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/wp-content/uploads/gun-control.jpg

[ThisGuyIKnow]

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm43.html

http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3628

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp

John asked for articles from "sources not famous for leaning toward the NRA"

I love when such articles say, "studies claim..." without citing any actual studies. Or when they just speak around an issue.

[musketman]

John asked for articles from "sources not famous for leaning toward the NRA"

I love when such articles say, "studies claim..." without citing any actual studies. Or when they just speak around an issue.

yeah, ok, you can choose to not believe it. It's all fake. They totaly made it up.;) That good? How is it so hard to believe? Would you rob someone if you knew they had a gun and are ready to use it? More guns = less crime.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

yeah, ok, you can choose to not believe it. It's all fake. They totaly made it up.;) That good? How is it so hard to believe? Would you rob someone if you knew they had a gun and are ready to use it? More guns = less crime.

I wouldn't rob someone anyway so it makes no difference.

The point isn't whether you are right or wrong but that you're trying to use biased propaganda in something that is supposed to be a debate. Since you are unable to view the issue objectively you're unable to actively participate in a debate like this.

[musketman]

The facts are here. Say what you think. I want to know, really. Im not just trying to be "right" on this topic. Im showing you this seriously. Here's another one.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The facts are here. Say what you think. I want to know, really. Im not just trying to be "right" on this topic. Im showing you this seriously. Here's another one.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

Do you have a link that's not a conservative think tank with an official/academic sounding name?

[musketman]

Still dont want to believe it? Ok, just go under google, I bet you'll find 9 out of ten sites saying the same thing, More guns = less crime. That's alot of biased sites isn't it? It shows many examples in those sites I gave you. There not making it up ya know. It's just facts from what history has shown us.

[howdigetsogood]

the amendmant was created (to the best of my knowledge) during the time of the construction of america when americans were worried about being attacked by great britain and france and all those countries that were conTROLLing them before they left, causing the departure. the guns were nescessary in the protecion of the construction of america. now we have a substantually stable army,navy,police and all that other junk for protection. no longer needing the use of civilian fire arms for home or self protection.

[musketman]

Here's one more for you. Democrats and Republicans talkin about gun control.

http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/040803/view3.cfm

[howdigetsogood]

was that for me to read? im far to lazy or uneducated to read all that. i strive to be a true american.

[howdigetsogood]

and id like to inquire about the parachute for sale.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Here's one more for you. Democrats and Republicans talkin about gun control.

http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/040803/view3.cfm

Do you even read the articles you post?

"Murphy Gallagher is a freshman in the College. He is Director of Communications for the Georgetown University College Republicans."

[musketman]

I guess its for anyone to read.

I got the parachute thing online somewhere, it wasn't my idea, but still funny. :D

[wickedbob]

was that for me to read? im far to lazy or uneducated to read all that. i strive to be a true american. Thats not american thats being a lazy asshole.......Just so you know a real american takes advantage of what we have in our country to make something out of themselves so they go places and do things far beyond anything you will ever do with your way of thinking of corse.

[musketman]

Do you even read the articles you post?

"Murphy Gallagher is a freshman in the College. He is Director of Communications for the Georgetown University College Republicans."


well, did you read it? Olong with the other 6 or so articles I gave you? All you are doing if finding something...anything to bash what I give you. Your not saying anything about it.

[howdigetsogood]

why do you keep hating on me? i bet it makes you feel superior. in which case, you are!

[saskatchewanian]

Just for clarification:

I do not agree with all the ideas stated in the article I quoted but I thought it might help tomahawk with his research paper, as it is an American example. John you are absolutely right that handguns are not the safest form of protection and of course the NFA is has a bias towards owning guns. I would like to point out that a responsible person with a gun is safer than the same person behind the wheel of a car as it is much easier to loose control of a vehicle. Yes guns can be dangerous but the idea that the potential victim may be armed will deter many criminals form acting, which probably wouldn’t happen if people were carrying slingshots. The reason that firearms are effective as a deterrent is that they ARE dangerous. A very good example of this is crime rates in Sweden where it is the law that every adult male have a firearm and their crime rate is incredibly low with practically zero gun crime. This works because all Swiss males go through military training at the age of 20 and continues to have periodic training until the age of 42 and are actively in the military until the age of 50. Mandatory training would be very unlikely to go over well in the USofA so I by no means suggest that you guys do the same.

Tomahawk: please let us know when you are done your assignment. I would love to debate gun control with you all but since I am Canadian and know a fair amount about Canadian gun laws and regulations (I took a couple law classes) I know practically nothing about American laws (and we have difrent issues). When you are done your assignment I think this forum would be a great base for a general debate but until then I will refrain from posting again.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Just for clarification:
A very good example of this is crime rates in Sweden where it is the law that every adult male have a firearm and their crime rate is incredibly low with practically zero gun crime. This works because all Swiss males go through military training at the age of 20 and continues to have periodic training until the age of 42 and are actively in the military until the age of 50.
.

Since when do the Swiss live in Sweden?

Also Switzerland is a rich nation. A lack of poorer people should also be taken into account when looking at crime rates.

[howdigetsogood]

and i by no means need to speak or spell correctly to make somthing of myself. how many rappers have shoe collections worth more than your home by saying lyrics such as "Yo, why ya'll got beef with police?
Ain't that a bitch them motherfuckers gotta beef with me
They make it hard for me to sleep
I wake up at the slightest peep and my sheets are 3 feet deep
I guess it's hard for you to see
But now I'm pointin the finger at police instead of motherfuckers blamin' me
I got the right to bear a pistol
And when them punk motherfuckers get to trippin' I got shit too
And maybe then you'll see the truth
But until then I gotta do what I do and stay a crooked nigga too
(oh so famouse 2pac.)
yea i guess i have to be educated and literate to make something of myself.hahaha yea....right..

[wickedbob]

why do you keep hating on me? i bet it makes you feel superior. in which case, you are!

No one man is better than another.

As for the rapper thing just what are the chances of any person let alone a bigot like yourself becoming one and one more thing all rappers are not like that......

[saskatchewanian]

Since when do the Swiss live in Sweden?

Sorry I meant Switzerland, thanks for pointing that out.

Also Switzerland is a rich nation. A lack of poorer people should also be taken into account when looking at crime rates.

Also a valid point but I think that until tomahawk is done his assignment we should keep this thread as much about the second amendment as possible.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Also a valid point but I think that until tomahawk is done his assignment we should keep this thread as much about the second amendment as possible.

Exactly and that's why I think NRA propaganda doesn't have much place in this discussion.

If someone wants to present the the arguments that the NRA tries to make that's fine, but to act like they indisputable facts really has no place in this sort of discussion.

[howdigetsogood]

youre right not all, jsut the ones with unlimited airtime on radio and television.

[Gilby]

I mentioned this a while back in another thread, but pools are more dangerous for children than guns are: http://www.google.com/search?q=pools+more+dangerous+than+guns

Another important fact on the gun issue is that even if guns are restricted or controlled, there will always be a black market where criminals can get them. Because of this fact, having less restrictions on the general population to be able to carry guns makes it riskier to the criminals to use their guns or other violent means against me. Even if I don't carry a gun, a criminal would have to assume that possibility and would be less likely to do anything towards me. Either way, just as many criminals will have the guns, but the increased possibility of the general population having guns acts as a deterrent to these criminals.

[Gilby]

I wouldn't rob someone anyway so it makes no difference. Well then, I would hope you don't support a government that robs your neighbors to then give that money to you and others. :D

[howdigetsogood]

so do you think school uniforms should start to include bullet proof vests? i for one have worn one to school with terrible results. for some reason all the administration seemed to think I was the one that planned to do some shooting.whats up with that?

[Gilby]

Do you have a link that's not a conservative think tank with an official/academic sounding name?
The Cato Institute is a good resource.

Usually the articles have better data than the one pointed out. Here is one discussing what I mentioned where criminals will get the guns whether they are controlled or not: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6314

And many more articles from Cato about the 2nd ammendment: http://www.cato.org/ccs/2nd-amendment.html

Conservative is a bad name. Conservative is typically associated with maintaining the status quo, which is definitley not what Cato is about today. Though conservative can also mean any past form of government, so it could be classed as that.

Cato is more about the traditional American government as the constitution set out where there is "individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace." It's both conservative and liberal. Conservative as they favor what the original US government was, and liberal because liberalism is about individual rights. In the US, liberal means something other than liberal, but in the US, the Republican party is not republican, and the Democrat party is not democratic.

[skrobo]

if guns were banned, and taken away, i would make one, noone is depriving me of that right. even mass.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The Cato Institute is a good resource.


Of course you like the Cato Institute they are the Libraterian think tank.

[Hazmat]

If i had the right to bear arms. Could i have a tank??? :D :D :D

[GILD]

if guns were banned, and taken away, i would make one, noone is depriving me of that right. even mass.
What happened to the 'other cheek'?

[epistolize]

and i by no means need to speak or spell correctly to make somthing of myself. how many rappers have shoe collections worth more than your home by saying lyrics such as "Yo, why ya'll got beef with police?
Ain't that a bitch them motherfuckers gotta beef with me
They make it hard for me to sleep
I wake up at the slightest peep and my sheets are 3 feet deep
I guess it's hard for you to see
But now I'm pointin the finger at police instead of motherfuckers blamin' me
I got the right to bear a pistol
And when them punk motherfuckers get to trippin' I got shit too
And maybe then you'll see the truth
But until then I gotta do what I do and stay a crooked nigga too
(oh so famouse 2pac.)
yea i guess i have to be educated and literate to make something of myself.hahaha yea....right..

the most popular rap stars have been supported by young white middle-class males listening to their music.

if you believe that the model of success that all young black youths aspire to is to become a rap superstar then i am sorry that you have such a limited view of the world.

i'm sorry because although i didn't ask you to change your views in a thread you started earlier (you have a right to speak your mind of course) i feel i cannot demand that you drop your ignorance and predjudice and become a little more well read and simply more chilled out, accepting and understanding the diversity that constitutes your neighbours on this earth.

i'm not asking you to listen to rap music or stroll around with people who "bop" in imitation of shackled inmates, or to dance around fires with the kkk and engage in a campfire singsong with them or whatever it is that they do.

i just find that sometimes it's a lot more fun to live humbly. i try to do that because i've found that i am able to learn more about the world around me and in doing that, i'm able to find out a little more about me too.

i'm also sorry for having posted such a personal, off topic post, but if it's fair for you to speak your mind about being annoyed with cultural trends and attitudes, i felt a need to air my thoughts about my annoyance with narrow mindsets.

please forgive me.

i find it quite difficult to comment on the thread, living in the uk, because guns and gun talk just aren't something i come across on a regular basis. i've handled a rifle before whilst training in the RAF cadets (it was a compulsory part of my schooling to spend some time in the CombinedCadetForces) but since then the only gun talk as regards acquiring or using that i've really heard personally has been mostly from angry white youths.

since guns exist it won't do to be unaware of their existence and lethality, however reasons for usage must be taken into account.

mistakes can be made even by those who are assigned to protect british citizens eg. the shooting of the terrorist suspect in the uk by police who was found to be a regular citizen and nothing to do with terrorist activities.

i figure that having a gun culture promotes fear. if everyone had fears that everyone else was armed, i figure more mistakes could happen.

this is all speculation. it's also my 2 cents worth.

[GILD]

Fascinating post.
Apart from the kewl content.
Perfect punctuation but no capitalisation.
That looks so kewl.

[epistolize]

:)this might have some more relevant info for you Tomahawk:) (http://boards.live.com/UKNewsboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=198122)

oh and thank you GILD, :p being complimented makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[musketman]

I mentioned this a while back in another thread, but pools are more dangerous for children than guns are: http://www.google.com/search?q=pools+more+dangerous+than+guns

Another important fact on the gun issue is that even if guns are restricted or controlled, there will always be a black market where criminals can get them. Because of this fact, having less restrictions on the general population to be able to carry guns makes it riskier to the criminals to use their guns or other violent means against me. Even if I don't carry a gun, a criminal would have to assume that possibility and would be less likely to do anything towards me. Either way, just as many criminals will have the guns, but the increased possibility of the general population having guns acts as a deterrent to these criminals.

Exactly! And that's what those sites are saying.

[Borges]

Another important fact on the gun issue is that even if guns are restricted or controlled, there will always be a black market where criminals can get them. Because of this fact, having less restrictions on the general population to be able to carry guns makes it riskier to the criminals to use their guns or other violent means against me. Even if I don't carry a gun, a criminal would have to assume that possibility and would be less likely to do anything towards me. Either way, just as many criminals will have the guns, but the increased possibility of the general population having guns acts as a deterrent to these criminals.
For the record, I'm still not buying that one. I've argued about this in other threads, so if someone is really interested they can look it up.
Now that that's on record, I'll go back to sleep.

[Mikefule]

So we have two strands to the pro side of the right to bear arms debate?


It allows the citizen to defend himself against abuses of power by the state.
It allows the citizen to defend himself against armed criminals.


Is there a third "pro" strand?

Let's look at the first:

It allows the citizen to defend himself against abuses of power by the state.
The state has jet fighters, helicopter gunships, cruise missiles, tanks, warships...
The citizen has the right to fight them off with a hunting rifle or a pistol?
Good luck.

Let's look at the second:

It allows the citizen to defend himself against armed criminals.
I now make the leap of imagination to place myself in the mind of an armed criminal, speaking to his partner in crime:
"Whoah, steady on, Bugsy. What are you thinking about? If we burst into that house with guns drawn, that guy sitting there in front of the TV, half asleep and drinking a beer might leap up, run to a drawer and fetch that gun he knows he keeps somewhere, load it and, even in a panic, might let off a lucky shot that hits one of us."
"Yeah, Mike, you're right. Let's go mug some broad instead."
"But Bugsy, my main man, what if we step up in front of some woman and point a gun at her and suddenly without warning she roots around in her handbag and finds her pistol underneath her purse, next to that packet of mints, her lipstick and her mobile phone?"
Hmmm.

Not convinced.

[epistolize]

well put

as always :)

[cathwood]

I think that this issue is the biggest difference between the US and the UK. I can't imagine being in the position that the pro gun lobby are arguing from. I can't even join the debate because I don't feel like I'm on the same planet, never mind the same playing field in regards to this issue.

[Gilby]

Is there a third "pro" strand?
Defend against unarmed criminals.
"But Bugsy, my main man, what if we step up in front of some woman and point a gun at her and suddenly without warning she roots around in her handbag and finds her pistol underneath her purse, next to that packet of mints, her lipstick and her mobile phone?"

What if that woman is well trained with a gun and has it properly and strategically place to defend herself when needed?

What if someone else nearby is well trained, carries a gun, and is able to use it effectively to defend this woman? If we had enough police around to protect us for all incidents like this, we would be a police state and have little, if any, rights. But if ordinary citizens can carry guns and be trained to use them properly, then it's not a police state, but it's a safer place for everyone.

[Mikefule]

I can't even join the debate because I don't feel like I'm on the same planet, never mind the same playing field in regards to this issue.

Definitely a different social construct...

Let's put some UK experience into the debate then. Three teenagers shot in a week in South London in separate incidents. They were all from communities where guns are common. In fact, all within a few miles of each other.

I don't know anyone in my community who has a gun to defend himself (or herself) and I don't know anyone who has been shot, or shot anyone.

Coincidence?

More people get killed by tigers in India than in Wales. There are more tigers in India than in Wales.

Coincidence?

[GILD]

So we have two strands to the pro side of the right to bear arms debate?


It allows the citizen to defend himself against abuses of power by the state.
It allows the citizen to defend himself against armed criminals.


Is there a third "pro" strand?

Yup, trying to compensate for having a small penis.
There are times when a Hummer alone just doesn't quite cut it.

[musketman]

Let's look at the first:



Let's look at the second:
[LIST]
It allows the citizen to defend himself against armed criminals.
I now make the leap of imagination to place myself in the mind of an armed criminal, speaking to his partner in crime:
"Whoah, steady on, Bugsy. What are you thinking about? If we burst into that house with guns drawn, that guy sitting there in front of the TV, half asleep and drinking a beer might leap up, run to a drawer and fetch that gun he knows he keeps somewhere, load it and, even in a panic, might let off a lucky shot that hits one of us."
"Yeah, Mike, you're right. Let's go mug some broad instead."
"But Bugsy, my main man, what if we step up in front of some woman and point a gun at her and suddenly without warning she roots around in her handbag and finds her pistol underneath her purse, next to that packet of mints, her lipstick and her mobile phone?"
Hmmm.

Not convinced.

Havn't you ever looked at camera's in gas stations and stores on TV? Many robbers have fled from the store because owners have pulled guns on them. Some are even held there untill police get there. Guns help lots in these situations. And even at home, if your not "half asleep" you do have a chance to get your gun out and defend yourself. Even if you were slow to getting the gun, most robbers aren't going to just pull the gun out and shoot you if they see you digging around. They will most likely be as scared as you are.

And if all else fails, wouldn't you want a gun to protect youself anyway? It's alot better than just sitting there and getting killed, or raped by someone who has a gun.


You dont want to be in this position.

[GILD]

I invoke Godwin's Law!

[ThisGuyIKnow]

What position, you mean having our own military attacking our citizens. Had that man had a gun and tried to pull it out he would have been shot dead on the spot. That picture really has the opposite effect of your intentions.

I'd be willing to wager you $1,000,000 that in my lifetime I will never be the victim of this sort of crime and I even live in a lower income neighborhood in Los Angeles. The reality of the situation is that this type of crime is not common enough to warrant the NEED for owning a gun for "protection".

[Gilby]

Let's put some UK experience into the debate then. Three teenagers shot in a week in South London in separate incidents. They were all from communities where guns are common. In fact, all within a few miles of each other.

I don't know anyone in my community who has a gun to defend himself (or herself) and I don't know anyone who has been shot, or shot anyone.

I assume that your community is completely different from South London, and you can not accurately compare the two situations. What you need to look at is a large sample of communities of similar size and socioeconomic class and compare those communities with gun restrictions to those without.

[MuniAddict]

Americans overwhelmingly (not a surprise) support the 2nd amendment:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll020514.html

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BEARARMS.HTML

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms

[saskatchewanian]

musketman: i dont think your pictures in this fourm are having the efect you intend. the picture you just posted is prime amunition for the anti gun people (if there wasnt guns it wouldent hapen) I come from a very difrent gun culture than you so i am staying out of this discusion about the second amendment, if this thread is even about that anymore.

by the way i have a restricted and non restricted firearms licence and own several guns none of which i have ever considered as protection. i dont know much about the second amendment but ask me about Bill C68 and you are sure to get a rant.

[musketman]

What position, you mean having our own military attacking our citizens. Had that man had a gun and tried to pull it out he would have been shot dead on the spot. That picture really has the opposite effect of your intentions.

I'd be willing to wager you $1,000,000 that in my lifetime I will never be the victim of this sort of crime and I even live in a lower income neighborhood in Los Angeles. The reality of the situation is that this type of crime is not common enough to warrant the NEED for owning a gun for "protection".


well yeah, maybe I shouldn't have put up a Jew and a German because that was a slaughter. But this is what's happening when you dont have a way of protecting yourself. Why would you not want to protect yourself? Would you rather be shot, than at least try to save yourself? You probably wont be involved in a situation like this in your life, but that's what the others who have been robbed, and raped, and shot were probably thinking aswell. It only takes one time, and it's enouph to ruin your life.

[musketman]

musketman: i dont think your pictures in this fourm are having the efect you intend. the picture you just posted is prime amunition for the anti gun people (if there wasnt guns it wouldent hapen) I come from a very difrent gun culture than you so i am staying out of this discusion about the second amendment, if this thread is even about that anymore.

by the way i have a restricted and non restricted firearms licence and own several guns none of which i have ever considered as protection. i dont know much about the second amendment but ask me about Bill C68 and you are sure to get a rant.

The Germans are an Army, so obviously they will have guns, but say if the Jews had guns, they might have put up somewhat of a fight, and had a much better chance to live. It's unlikely they still would have had a chance against the German Army, but it would sure have slowed the process of killing down if the Jews did fight, wich would have saved thousands or even millions of lives.

[Gilby]

I'd be willing to wager you $1,000,000 that in my lifetime I will never be the victim of this sort of crime and I even live in a lower income neighborhood in Los Angeles. The reality of the situation is that this type of crime is not common enough to warrant the NEED for owning a gun for "protection".

But it sure would be nice to be able to if need were to ever arise.

How much do you really know about your government?

In the spirit of what Gild said, what would you do if you had to face the bad side of Hitler? Do you think it's not possible here? Did you know that our President's grandfather funded Hitler? Did you know that California's governor is the son of a Nazi?

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Americans overwhelmingly (not a surprise) support the 2nd amendment:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll020514.html

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BEARARMS.HTML

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms

While the Wiki's neutrality is debatable it appears to give some valid argument for both sides.

The homemade webpage in the second link (the one that looks like it was made by a 12 year old) is 100% ridiculous. His smug self-assuredness proves the inaccuracy of his arguments. On top of that he completely missed the point of the bible verse he quotes in trying to prove that Jesus supports the right to bear arms.

As for the ABC news poll (which is unscientific by the way) I don't think this is really new information, but probably a good source for his report. It's only the pro-gun side that tries to argue that people their opposition says, "there should be no guns what-so-ever" clearly that is not the case. And like the survey also proves the majority of people favor some restrictions.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

well yeah, maybe I shouldn't have put up a Jew and a German because that was a slaughter. But this is what's happening when you dont have a way of protecting yourself. Why would you not want to protect yourself? Would you rather be shot, than at least try to save yourself? You probably wont be involved in a situation like this in your life, but that's what the others who have been robbed, and raped, and shot were probably thinking aswell. It only takes one time, and it's enouph to ruin your life.

The fact that you believe the Jews would have been better off fighting back with guns just shows how little you know about the whole situation.

Being the victim of a crime is an extremely minimal risk and one I'm willing to take. It's really not worth losing any sleep over or changing the way I live my live in any way.

This NEED to own guns that you espouse comes from this irrational fear of "bad" people that seems to be more prevalent post 9-11 even though the actual risks have not changed significantly.

[johnfoss]

Americans overwhelmingly (not a surprise) support the 2nd amendment
No, not a surprise. I thought we were talking about disagreements on how to interpret it. I support the 2nd Amendment. I do not support unrestricted gun ownership. I think most people also don't, including a good percentage of pro-gun folks. The question is how much restriction?

Musketman: Why do you think 1930s German Jews didn't have any guns? Anyway, I agree the holocaust in general is not a good example for gun ownership. Even with a gun in every home they probably wouldn't have stood a chance in those political times.

Again your assumption is that there is no protection without guns, and what seems to be an automatic association of "arms" with guns. Arms can be anything, and lethal force can come in many forms as well. And non-lethal, person-stopping force, if it works, can be as effective and many times safer than a traditional gun. Also, yet again, the argument is not about people not having guns so please stop explaining to us why it would be bad to have none. Who keeps suggesting we (Americans) should have none? The situation is different for other countries.

[Mikefule]

One of the biggest killers in America, and in the west generally, is heart disease caused by a poor diet and poor exercise regime.

Another one of the biggest killers is bad driving. (The number of UK citizens killed by terrorism on and since 9/11 is equal to about two average weeks on UK roads.)

One of the smallest killers in America, and in the western world generally, is armed representatives of the government attacking decent citizens.

Another one of the smallest killers in America, and the western world generally, is armed crime.

So if the pro gun lobby was interested in the safety of the citizen, surely they would direct their attention to issues like diet, health and road safety. A 10% reduction in heart disease deaths or road deaths would be an objective worth campaigning for.

However, instead, they choose to campaign to keep the right to have the means to kill potential enemies - to defend the right to keep a gun, just in case the government suddenly turns nasty, or just in case they become one of the relatively small number of people who are the victim of armed crime.

Trouble is, if I have the right to carry a gun, and so do my responsible, intelligent, sober, drug free middle class professional friends, then so do the drunks, crack addicts, and thugs from the bad inner city estates. A right is a right, after all.

Unfortunately, because they are drunks, crack addicts, and thugs, they tend to use the guns to resolve minor disputes, rather than to protect their constitutional rights and the lives of their wives and children. Then people die - including a small number of innocent people caught in the cross fire.

But if there were no guns at all, then I wouldn't need one to protect myself from other people with guns, and the drunks, crack addicts and thugs wouldn't have guns to shoot each other or to catch innocent people in the cross fire.

And as for using a gun to defend myself against the government, that is simply ridiculous on so many levels.

I think the real reason people want the right to bear arms is because it makes them feel like cowboys. No more, no less than that. Just get a horse, don't wash, and eat lots of beans. You get the same effect and no one gets shot.

[cathwood]

And if all else fails, wouldn't you want a gun to protect youself anyway? It's alot better than just sitting there and getting killed, or raped by someone who has a gun.


You dont want to be in this position.

Are you claiming then that because people have guns in America no body gets killed or raped by someone with a gun?

[dan de man]

im on cathwood's side

[harper]

So if the pro gun lobby was interested in the safety of the citizen, surely they would direct their attention to issues like diet, health and road safety. A 10% reduction in heart disease deaths or road deaths would be an objective worth campaigning for.


That's a real stretch. This is like navigating through purely emotional space. Oh, there's a conclusion over there. I think I'll jump to it. Replace "pro-gun lobby" with "the armed forces of all countries" and see if the paragraph is just as rational. Or how about "left-handed stenographers' union" instead.


And as for using a gun to defend myself against the government, that is simply ridiculous on so many levels.


I know. With the advancement in weapons, submarines with full nuclear strike capability should be available to any citizen that can afford one. Being a subject you wouldn't have to worry about making that decision. The idea that governments stack the arms deck in their favor as rapidly as possible is a real shock to me. Historically, why would they want to do that?


I think the real reason people want the right to bear arms is because it makes them feel like cowboys. No more, no less than that. Just get a horse, don't wash, and eat lots of beans. You get the same effect and no one gets shot.

My urge to herd cattle remains unchecked. These are instincts I just can't fight. You caught me embarrassingly red-handed on this one. Oh, there's a conclusion over there. I think I'll jump to it.

[Mikefule]

Oh, there's a conclusion over there. I think I'll jump to it.

Experience has shown that a carefully constructd logical argument is seldom heeded by lobby groups whose position is based on crusading zeal. So I thought I'd just have a bit of fun at their expense. If you'd prefer the 10 000 word carefully crafted essay...

[Gilby]

But if there were no guns at all...

That's the most implausible thing in this entire thread. If someone wants a gun, they will find one. It'll be the druggies that will get them. So outlawing guns would only make it where the good people that can use them wisely will be the ones without them. Oh wait, we outlawed drugs, so it must be impossible for anyone to get drugs, so why are we worried about bad guys getting guns in the first place?

[Mikefule]

That's the most implausible thing in this entire thread.

I agree, but just because something is unachievable, it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get as close to it as possible. Rape will never be completely eliminated, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying to eliminate it or - worse - encourage it.

Those who have a genuine carefully considered philosophical commitment to the right to bear arms (and I am sure there are some) are the people least likely to use them without considerable provocation.

Unfortunately, that provocation is likely to come from people who don't have many morals or inhibitions at all. So who pulls the trigger first the drug-crazed amoral thug, or the responsible philosophically inclined armed citizen?

Those who want to carry arms because they demand their right to shoot a bad guy (and there are some of those as well) are only going to increase the number of good and bad people who get shot.

There can never be an enforceable law that allows the good responsible people to have guns, but also stops the bad irresponsible ones from having guns. Any law that allows the good responsible people to have guns makes it easier for the bad irresponsible people to have guns as well.

We don't have widespread legitimate holding of firearms in the UK, and we don't have a widespread armed crime problem either. In certain parts of the country, firearms are widely held, and there are lots of shootings. In the US, there is widespread legitimate holding of firearms, and quite a lot of people get shot. In parts of Africa, there is no regulation of firearms at all, and it's a bloodbath.

"Handgun's made for killing, ain't no good for nuthin' else."
And that was written by an American from the South.

[harper]

"Handgun's made for killing, ain't no good for nuthin' else."
And that was written by an American from the South.

Arguably, all weapons were invented with the intent of not only killing, but killing people.

Are we drifting off the topic first posed by the thread starter? I think he was looking for arguments in favor of and against the second ammendment of the US constitution. We may just be bantering here and not addressing his request. We're not far off but topics like this tend to encourage straying to defend one's position. At least they tend to make me nudge off course.

[Gilby]

I agree, but just because something is unachievable, it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get as close to it as possible.

What's trying to be achieved? It appears that no guns is what you are trying to achieve. Right? But what we really want to achieve is lower crime and more freedom.

We don't have widespread legitimate holding of firearms in the UK, and we don't have a widespread armed crime problem either. In certain parts of the country, firearms are widely held, and there are lots of shootings. In the US, there is widespread legitimate holding of firearms, and quite a lot of people get shot. In parts of Africa, there is no regulation of firearms at all, and it's a bloodbath.

And that has more to do with the socioeconomic class in these places than the gun control laws.

In parts of the world, there are gun regulations, and it's a bloodbath.
In parts of the world, there are no gun regulations and it's a bloodbath.

[musketman]

Are you claiming then that because people have guns in America no body gets killed or raped by someone with a gun?


What im saying is yeah, you could get killed or raped with someone with a gun. But If you dont want a gun, and dont have one because we cant, your absolutely defenceless. You will for sure get killed or raped, or robbed. With a gun there's a much less chance of that happening to you.

[musketman]

That's the most implausible thing in this entire thread. If someone wants a gun, they will find one. It'll be the druggies that will get them. So outlawing guns would only make it where the good people that can use them wisely will be the ones without them. Oh wait, we outlawed drugs, so it must be impossible for anyone to get drugs, so why are we worried about bad guys getting guns in the first place?

yeah, Mikefule and many others just dont get that for some reason. If guns where gone for citizens we would have no way of deffending ourselves, but the CRIMINALS and "BAD GUYS" would always be able to get guns! We would be unarmed and just as good as dead, while the gun Law/restriction has NO EFFECT on these "bad people"

[musketman]

The fact that you believe the Jews would have been better off fighting back with guns just shows how little you know about the whole situation.

Being the victim of a crime is an extremely minimal risk and one I'm willing to take. It's really not worth losing any sleep over or changing the way I live my live in any way.

This NEED to own guns that you espouse comes from this irrational fear of "bad" people that seems to be more prevalent post 9-11 even though the actual risks have not changed significantly.


The Jews probably would have been better off fighting, then to just sit there and die.They would have slowed the process down by fighting back, and many many jews would have lived. But enouph off that, because that's not a very good example as I said earlier.

John Foss, Im sure they did have guns, but nothing widespread that would have made a difference.

ThisGuyIKnow, I dont have any fear of "bad People", Im just saying it's better to be prepared than to have no deffence at all if someone tried anything.

Oh, and MikeFule, you cant compare the U.S. to Africa. In Africa it's pretty much a free-for-all.

[Borges]

If I may rejack the thread back to the 2. ammendment.
How do you know the intention was to allow people to defend themselves against criminals?
At first sight it looks like the intention is to enable people to be prepared for a second revolution, if it's needed.
Is there any extra stuff I should read, beside the ammendment itself. Other laws expanding on the subject, court decisions etc?

[cathwood]

What im saying is yeah, you could get killed or raped with someone with a gun. But If you dont want a gun, and dont have one because we cant, your absolutely defenceless. You will for sure get killed or raped, or robbed. With a gun there's a much less chance of that happening to you.

But I've never been killed or raped or robbed (except for the time someone boke into my car and nicked my handbag whe I was off unicycling) and I don't carry a gun.

There are also many ways to defend yourself without using a gun. For instance just walking with confidence insead of fear will put off many an opportunist rapist or robber because (whether they have a gun or not) they do not want someone who will kick up a fuss or fight back. If it's true that having guns increases peoples' paranoia and fear of strangers (although women for instance are statistically much more likely to get killed or raped by someone they know than by some stranger with a gun) then this may increase the likelyhood of them being attacked by an opportunist rapists.

[Gilby]

If I may rejack the thread back to the 2. ammendment.
How do you know the intention was to allow people to defend themselves against criminals?
At first sight it looks like the intention is to enable people to be prepared for a second revolution, if it's needed.
Is there any extra stuff I should read, beside the ammendment itself. Other laws expanding on the subject, court decisions etc?

You're right. The amendment is primarily for protecting ones liberty, with a tyranical government being the biggest danger.

There is mention of the right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers. These are some the papers written by the founding fathers when they were trying to convince the states to ratify the constitution and mentioned how it all would work.

[Mikefule]

Is a unicycle forum the best place to research this?

Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms

as a start

[BillyTheMountain]

It definitely includes nuclear arms.

[Borgschulze]

It definitely includes nuclear arms.
Don't they pronounce it "Nuculer" down south of the border?

[BillyTheMountain]

Don't they pronounce it "Nuculer" down south of the border?

Pres Bush ain't the only one...