Victim Disarment

[ISuck]

So, who agrees with victim disarment, and who doesn't? Assume the arguement is about victim disarment in America where the 2nd amendment does hold sway.

[Franswurst]

Um, what exactly do you mean by victim disarment? The subtitle said Gun Control, so are you aslking if we think gun control is good or not?

[ISuck]

Sorry, I meant "Victim Disarmament". Gun control is more of a misnomer.

 

So yes, I was talking about "Gun Control"

[Franswurst]

Alright and I'm guessing by gun control you mean, we should pay better attention to it?

 

I know this really interesting and also somewhat shocking video about conceiling guns in baggy pants, you can watch it HERE

 

I think gun control should be paid careful attention to, I mean isn't it an amendment in america that you are allowed to bare firearms? I think thast just stupid, so every american can have all sorts of guns at home, it's no wonder kids then get their hands on them and then those shocking accidents happen.

 

Like the two brothers that palyed around, they found a gun in their dads desk and played with it and then one accidentally shot and killed the other...

Ban the right to own guns!

[ISuck]

Yes, it is the 2nd amendment and it is quintessential to freedom.

 

The idea of allowing civilians to own weapons unregulated is for protection. "Gun Control" laws that limit the ability of the public to weaponry is a crucial step in a government's road to tyranny. The public should be allowed to have whatever weapons the government can have so in due time, if a government becomes destructive to such ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. How is this possible if the public is absent of arms? Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and other countries used gun control to make sure revolution never happened, ensuring a longer period of power for them.

 

 

[water boy]

 

You know, I''ve never agreed with gun control. It's good that it's there for protecting yourself, but what percentage of the good ol' citizens actually use the guns for protecting himself? Mostly thugs and gangs are going to take advantage of that and buy guns to kill, not protect. Heck, you can buy rifles in wal-mart with a driving license.Z

 

[StewMitch]

Without Gun Control: Thugs have guns, average joes have guns, government has guns.

With Gun Control: Thugs have guns, average joes don't have guns, government has guns.

 

So please tell me why should I go along with this? All "gun control" does is oppress common citizens by their own government and criminals at the same time.

[Eviscero]

Do you suppose we should make nuclear weapons and missiles readily available to any citizen who wants it based on the assumption that citizens and governments should be equal in arms? Maybe we should train every civilian in combat before age 16. Yeah, we'll send them to millitary boot camp so they can defend themselves incase the government that is trying to protect them and keep them alive decides to up and turn fascist. I mean, it's not like we have the most efficient form of government ever created. There's always a chance that we'll just have a king come into power right?

 

Claiming that we should give guns to anyone who wants them because they need to defend themselves against a fascist takeover is about as credible as saying we should all build space ships that launch out of our backyards incase aliens invade earth.

 

Except in that case tens of thousands of people aren't killed a year by the space pods.

 

If no one had guns, nobody would need guns to protect themselves from the people with guns. sh*t, just look at Canada.

[ISuck]

You know, I''ve never agreed with gun control. It's good that it's there for protecting yourself, but what percentage of the good ol' citizens actually use the guns for protecting himself? Mostly thugs and gangs are going to take advantage of that and buy guns to kill, not protect. Heck, you can buy rifles in wal-mart with a driving license.Z

Gangs and thugs are going to get guns anyways, obviously, they are gangs and thugs because they don't respect the law.

[ISuck]

 

Do you suppose we should make nuclear weapons and missiles readily available to any citizen who wants it based on the assumption that citizens and governments should be equal in arms?

 

The founding fathers did.

 

 

Maybe we should train every civilian in combat before age 16.  Yeah, we'll send them to millitary boot camp so they can defend themselves incase the government that is trying to protect them and keep them alive decides to up and turn fascist.  I mean, it's not like we have the most efficient form of government ever created.  There's always a chance that we'll just have a king come into power right?

 

We've already had kings come to power, I don't ever remember saying kids should be sent to boot camp.

 

 

Claiming that we should give guns to anyone who wants them because they need to defend themselves against a fascist takeover is about as credible as saying we should all build space ships that launch out of our backyards incase aliens invade earth.

 

Because, God knows, fascism and totalitarianism has never existed on earth.

 

 

If no one had guns, nobody would need guns to protect themselves from the people with guns.  sh*t, just look at Canada.

 

Of course, because the all powerful government has the power to do so! Look at the success of the war on drugs, there are zero drugs in America because of it!

 

</sarcasm>

 

In case you haven't noticed, people that do the shooting, don't go by these stupid regulations you set upon the now defenseless civilians.

[just another thug]

The second amendment is outdated. We live in a much different world than our forefathers, but we still follow the same rule? Doesn't make much sense to me. Gun control needs to adapt to the changing country.

[water boy]

Because, God knows, fascism and totalitarianism has never existed on earth.

 

BUt how do you know God even exists?

 

Look at a country like Japan(now I'm only saying this because This is the only country I know about gun control beside the U.S.), mostly, All murder, attacks, bank robberies are done with knifes, because gun control is so tough there. It'd be hard to see a gun there. Police officers there put it in there case, then protects it in a different case. you never see the gun externally. In the U.S, someone could just walk beside an officer and pull the gun and go on a shooting rampage.

 

I agree with Just another thug. when the country is changing, the rules should be changed to make safe the citizens of their country.

 

Eviscero also has a point. Should we have mouse traps in every single home just in case mouses invade houses? Should our house be made out of a bulletproof material, just in case the house gets a drive by?

 

Unfortunately though, guns must exist. There are many numerous weapons in this planet.. knives, bats, golf clubs, tasers, swords, etc, etc. Guns are the only weapon that can overrule(?) those weapons. but when it is abused, that's when problems occur.

Z

[ISuck]

The second amendment is outdated. We live in a much different world than our forefathers, but we still follow the same rule? Doesn't make much sense to me. Gun control needs to adapt to the changing country.

What is different? Guns in our forefathers' age were just as powerful as many guns you would consider dangerously powerful today.

[ISuck]

 

BUt how do you know God even exists?

 

That came from left field.

 

 

 

 

Look at a country like Japan(now I'm only saying this because This is the only country I know about gun control beside the U.S.), mostly, All murder, attacks, bank robberies are done with knifes, because gun control is so tough there. It'd be hard to see a gun there. Police officers there put it in there case, then protects it in a different case. you never see the gun externally. In the U.S, someone could just walk beside an officer and pull the gun and go on a shooting rampage.

 

I agree with Just another thug. when the country is changing, the rules should be changed to make safe the citizens of their country.

 

Amazing you find the right to self defense flexible, but I am willing to bet you wouldn't say the same about other rights protected under the bill of rights such as freedom of speech. Rights are eternal, they are not priviledges, they are unwavering regardless of the society.

 

 

Eviscero also has a point. Should we have mouse traps in every single home just in case mouses invade houses? Should our house be made out of a bulletproof material, just in case the house gets a drive by?

 

Where did I suggest we should? You are making absolutely no sense

 

 

Unfortunately though, guns must exist. There are many numerous weapons in this planet.. knives, bats, golf clubs, tasers, swords, etc, etc. Guns are the only weapon that can overrule(?) those weapons. but when it is abused, that's when problems occur. [/color]Z

 

That's when the public's right to self defense is most precious and cannot be hampered by such anti-liberal laws as gun control.

[just another thug]

 

The second amendment is outdated. We live in a much different world than our forefathers, but we still follow the same rule? Doesn't make much sense to me. Gun control needs to adapt to the changing country.

What is different? Guns in our forefathers' age were just as powerful as many guns you would consider dangerously powerful today.

They didn't have such a high murder rate.

Edited August 1, 2005 by just another thug

[Fade13]

I know this really interesting and also somewhat shocking video about conceiling guns in baggy pants, you can watch it HERE

 

 

that video is crazy. But it would be impossible to walk around normally with all that heat on your waist. Especially the shotty, he wouldnt even be able to bend his leg at the knee.

 

As for gun control, i think it is important. However, although it is unlikely, disarmamnet would be the golden option, no guns, no shootings, simple as. However, i think the issue with guns shouldnt be tackled by trying to scare people, as the above video does. Awareness should be raised about gun crime and people should start asking the right questions. Not should we put restrictions on arms, but where are they coming from in the first place? People on the streets dont manufacture handguns and weapons of destruction. Where i live i have a few friends that own pistols, and one of them bought one off of a 'crooked' police officer. I think that is a pretty big issue.

[Swarz]

The second amendment is outdated. We live in a much different world than our forefathers, but we still follow the same rule? Doesn't make much sense to me. Gun control needs to adapt to the changing country.

What is different? Guns in our forefathers' age were just as powerful as many guns you would consider dangerously powerful today.

JAT's post pretty much says it all. We are in a different world.

 

Whilst my American history is sketchy at best, one needs to remember that the constitution was signed in the aftermath of a civil war... I think... Anyway, fact of the matter is, the Government did not have the trust of the people (not saying that it does nowadays), and the average farmer carrying a rifle was just as useful (or worthless) as the average soldier carrying a rifle.

 

------------------------------------

 

Logistical Comparison

 

Think about it logically nowadays. You get your average American military. Automatic weapons, body armour and helmets, highly trained to kill people (and do little else). You pitch your average civilian, little revolver, no armour, little or no training and send them into battle. Whilst I'd rather not speculate... I will - civilian ain't got a fecking hope in hell.

 

Now let's look at the air force. You got F16s, F18s and whatever else you guys use that can go on bombing runs. If the people started uprising and rioting etc etc, the air force could kill them all in about... oh, 60 seconds. Civilians don't have a chance.

 

Oh, and naval power is no contest... cos we know civilians are gonna win that one... Same goes for missiles, cos every civilian should have a mobile missile launcher in their backyard... just in case.

 

So in conclusion, civilians are gonna get owned.

 

 

------------------------------------

 

Uprising and Revolt

 

You said that fascist regimes armed themselves to prevent uprisings against them. Well... you get anarchists who go on their 'May-Day riots' against the Government. Should we arm this minority and have them go on rampages to fight the Government? Are they representative of the entire peoples wishes? If these were armed, stormed into the White House and ousted the President, would they create a new constitution or install a Government with the best interests of the nation at heart?

 

Better yet, what if some Communists, armed, stormed the White House and ousted the President?

 

------------------------------------

 

The necessity of Government

 

I'm far from being a supporter of corrupt Govts, and I believe that the people should be able to exercise certain control over their Government. Hence why we have elections.

 

But this gun stuff... it's just stupid. The people of developed nations install Governments so that we can have a national military in order to defend our rights and freedoms, not take them away. We install a Government to protect the people from one another, and have a police force to do just this. We install a Government to make decisions in our best interests, cos it's not viable to consult several million people on every damned decision.

 

------------------------------------

 

Isuck - Your beliefs

 

I study politics at Uni, and I'm familiar with the school of thought where you're coming from, but the extreme right-wing of anti-Governance that you support just is not viable in modern society, and I fail to understand how and why you continue to back it.

 

Government is necessary and it is important. With zero Government control, I could go next door, kill all it's occupants and yet their will be no judicial system to hold me to account for my actions.

 

Don't get me wrong - most developed Govts are miles from perfect, but they are needed, and when something goes wrong we require dialogue and discussion to rectify it, not 9mm weapons being pointed in the faces of Senators and Congressmen. Any problems in modern day America are not going to be solved by arming the populace. How they're to be solved... well, that's a whole discussion in itself.

[ISuck]

The second amendment is outdated. We live in a much different world than our forefathers, but we still follow the same rule? Doesn't make much sense to me. Gun control needs to adapt to the changing country.

What is different? Guns in our forefathers' age were just as powerful as many guns you would consider dangerously powerful today.

They didn't have such a high murder rate.

Probably because they respected the right to bear arms

[ISuck]

 

The second amendment is outdated. We live in a much different world than our forefathers, but we still follow the same rule? Doesn't make much sense to me. Gun control needs to adapt to the changing country.

What is different? Guns in our forefathers' age were just as powerful as many guns you would consider dangerously powerful today.

JAT's post pretty much says it all. We are in a different world.

 

Whilst my American history is sketchy at best, one needs to remember that the constitution was signed in the aftermath of a civil war... I think... Anyway, fact of the matter is, the Government did not have the trust of the people (not saying that it does nowadays), and the average farmer carrying a rifle was just as useful (or worthless) as the average soldier carrying a rifle.

 

As said before, rights are permanent and not time period according. The founding fathers intended for us to have guns for any reason, like many things, they were right.

 

Logistical Comparison

 

Think about it logically nowadays. You get your average American military. Automatic weapons, body armour and helmets, highly trained to kill people (and do little else). You pitch your average civilian, little revolver, no armour, little or no training and send them into battle. Whilst I'd rather not speculate... I will - civilian ain't got a fecking hope in hell.

 

Now let's look at the air force. You got F16s, F18s and whatever else you guys use that can go on bombing runs. If the people started uprising and rioting etc etc, the air force could kill them all in about... oh, 60 seconds. Civilians don't have a chance.

 

Oh, and naval power is no contest... cos we know civilians are gonna win that one...  Same goes for missiles, cos every civilian should have a mobile missile launcher in their backyard... just in case.

 

So in conclusion, civilians are gonna get owned.

 

 

So we might as well make it a mass f*cking murder by taking away their only chance at survival.

 

Uprising and Revolt

 

You said that fascist regimes armed themselves to prevent uprisings against them. Well... you get anarchists who go on their 'May-Day riots' against the Government. Should we arm this minority and have them go on rampages to fight the Government? Are they representative of the entire peoples wishes? If these were armed, stormed into the White House and ousted the President, would they create a new constitution or install a Government with the best interests of the nation at heart?

 

Better yet, what if some Communists, armed, stormed the White House and ousted the President?

 

 

If an unfavorable faction arises to fight the government, the people will have the ability to fight this faction if the government fails to do so. Which is stupid because you just explained to us how such a civilian uprising would get "owned". Give me liberty or give me death.

 

The necessity of Government

 

I'm far from being a supporter of corrupt Govts, and I believe that the people should be able to exercise certain control over their Government. Hence why we have elections.

 

But this gun stuff... it's just stupid. The people of developed nations install Governments so that we can have a national military in order to defend our rights and freedoms, not take them away. We install a Government to protect the people from one another, and have a police force to do just this. We install a Government to make decisions in our best interests, cos it's not viable to consult several million people on every damned decision.

 

 

I am not an anarchist, I'm not even an anarcho-capitalist. I believe governments were instated among us to ensure our rights. Gun control is not ensuring any right, it is taking the right to self defense, one of the most core and needful rights, away from the people and giving it solely to the government.

 

Isuck - Your beliefs

 

I study politics at Uni, and I'm familiar with the school of thought where you're coming from, but the extreme right-wing of anti-Governance that you support just is not viable in modern society, and I fail to understand how and why you continue to back it.

 

I'm not anti-governance, I'm pro-liberty.

 

Government is necessary and it is important. With zero Government control, I could go next door, kill all it's occupants and yet their will be no judicial system to hold me to account for my actions.

 

 

That's the only need for government, to ensure and protect our rights. Not to regulate our rights, not to take them away, not to give us wealth, not to take our wealth away, ect.

 

Don't get me wrong - most developed Govts are miles from perfect, but they are needed, and when something goes wrong we require dialogue and discussion to rectify it, not 9mm weapons being pointed in the faces of Senators and Congressmen. Any problems in modern day America are not going to be solved by arming the populace. How they're to be solved... well, that's a whole discussion in itself.[/color]

 

This has all been answered previously, you have mislabelled me as an anarchist which I am not. I never suggested we arm the populace, I said the populace has the right to be armed.

Edited August 2, 2005 by ISuck

[Swarz]

So we might as well make it a mass f*cking murder by taking away their only chance at survival.

 

Survival? Who's to say that Government is suddenly going to turn on it's people, send out the military and butcher anyone who opposes their rule? It's just not gonna happen. Whilst the US military does appear to be rather cold-blooded, I just can't imagine them turning their guns on unarmed civilians in protest... but an armed civilian... that's a different matter.

 

 

If an unfavorable faction arises to fight the government, the people will have the ability to fight this faction if the government fails to do so. Which is stupid because you just explained to us how such a civilian uprising would get "owned". Give me liberty or give me death.

 

Of course I was speaking hypothetically - we're talking theory here.

 

You constantly talk about 'the people'... but who the heck are 'the people'? There are so many political ideologies to take into account (these debates are a fine example) and opinions. What if 50% declares the current Goverment to be performing brilliantly, whilst 50% declare them to be acting unconstitutionally. Who get to decide? Whoever brings out the guns and kills the other side first?

 

 

I am not an anarchist, I'm not even an anarcho-capitalist. I believe governments were instated among us to ensure our rights. Gun control is not ensuring any right, it is taking the right to self defense, one of the most core and needful rights, away from the people and giving it solely to the government.

 

In a sense I agree - the Tony Martin case here in the UK is a good example where I would agree with you... at the same time, I can't help but feel that in many cases the state is better equipped to defend a person than they are themselves.

 

Don't get me wrong, if someone randomly throws a punch at me on the street, I will fight back. Similarly if they drew a knife on me. But it's a whole new ball park when you bring firearms into the equation. Freedom from gun control may well increase an individuals ability to defend themselves, but it also makes it more likely for any individual to exert power over another.

 

Whilst I prefer note to quote pretty biased sources, bowling for Columbine nicely highlights some of the problems here in terms of quantity of shootings. What do they say, that you're more likely to have a gun used against yourself than for yourself to use it on someone...?

 

 

I'm not anti-governance, I'm pro-liberty.

 

My mistake.

 

 

That's the only need for government, to ensure and protect our rights. Not to regulate our rights, not to take them away, not to give us wealth, not to take our wealth away, ect.

 

The state is ill-equipped to ensure and protect our rights if they cannot exert a certain measure of control and power over our lives. That's like one soldier saying to another "Cover me, I'm going in", when the covering soldier doesn't have a weapon. In order to do so, the state needs to use taxes to raise funds to provide a police, a military and a judicial system - how on earth can you disagree with that?

 

 

This has all been answered previously, you have mislabelled me as an anarchist which I am not. I never suggested we arm the populace, I said the populace has the right to be armed.

 

Lemme ask you - have you ever been to Britain? Lets compare our rights.

 

Do we have a right to live, own property and raise wealth - sure, just like the US.

 

Do we have a right to raise a family - sure, just like the US.

 

Do we have a right to practice religions/beliefs freely - sure, just like the US.

 

etc etc etc...

 

Can we physically exercise these rights? Absolutely.

 

And we do it all without needing to own firearms. Whether we have a right to or not is largely irrelevant - we don't need them and we can't use them effectively, so what the hell is the point? Because a piece of paper signed centuries ago in a vastly different time declares we're permitted to?

 

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense....

 

 

 

Personal note: Just like to add that I'm starting to understand your views a bit more Isuck, and whilst I may still disagree with you, they're certainly more clear than when you first arrived - which I feel will make for some fine debating.

[jersiq]

 

Amazing you find the right to self defense flexible, but I am willing to bet you wouldn't say the same about other rights protected under the bill of rights such as freedom of speech. Rights are eternal, they are not priviledges, they are unwavering regardless of the society.

What is interesting here is the belief that all rights granted by the Constitution are held eternal. Let's use a classic example from any High School goverment textbook for the First Amendment. Although we are granted the freedom of speech, it does not make it ok for someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, without there being fire. Clearly, it is in the best interest of public safety to restrict the rights of free speech to the people attending the theatre.(SCHENK vs. United States) Similarly, the S.C upheld the notion of a New York statute that did not allow children under 17 to purchase pornographic material, for the safety of the children. Further, to look at a technological advancement, there was initial difficulty in performing searches and seizures on private citizens property in the form of a vehicle during the prohibition era. This was later ruled on by the Supreme Court to state that a motor vehicle was not protected from a seach without a warrant if a "probable cause" was found. Just from these inferences alone we can see that the definition and scope of the liberties have become less eternal as we have started to question whether our ulterior motives hinder the safety of the United States, and our civil liberties become more defined. In comparison, the technological advancements of rifles alone begs the question: "should we legislate against unnecessary firearms?"

I think that due to the globalization and need for the United States to remain a non-isolationist country, you can go ahead and throw out the coup d'etat theories and the fear of a national dictatorship. The Global outcry would be far too strong to prevent such an instance. I find this to be a non-issue as I think it would never happen.

 

Now admittedly I will digress off topic to adress this:

 

Think about it logically nowadays. You get your average American military. Automatic weapons, body armour and helmets, highly trained to kill people (and do little else).

This has to be the most ridiculous parenthetical "dig" I have read in a while. So what you are telling me, in your thorough mis-understanding of the military, is that there are no "jobs" in the military that don't involve "pulling the trigger" There are airmen (that's someone in the airforce) who's sole responsibility is similar to that of a sysadmin in a regular corporate world. Do you think that person just magically knew how to do TCP/IP routing? No he was trained. I was trained on how to provide high reliable communications relay systems with emphasis on RF propogation. Your concept that the only thing people in the military know is how to kill people is quite daft

[Swarz]

 

Now admittedly I will digress off topic to adress this:

 

Think about it logically nowadays. You get your average American military. Automatic weapons, body armour and helmets, highly trained to kill people (and do little else).

This has to be the most ridiculous parenthetical "dig" I have read in a while. So what you are telling me, in your thorough mis-understanding of the military, is that there are no "jobs" in the military that don't involve "pulling the trigger" There are airmen (that's someone in the airforce) who's sole responsibility is similar to that of a sysadmin in a regular corporate world. Do you think that person just magically knew how to do TCP/IP routing? No he was trained. I was trained on how to provide high reliable communications relay systems with emphasis on RF propogation. Your concept that the only thing people in the military know is how to kill people is quite daft

In retrospect, it should've been rephrased 'average American soldier'... and this was implied by the 'automatic weapons, body armour and helmets'. I'm of course referring to those placed in the field.

 

I acknowledge there are a huge number of other roles in the military. I regret the misunderstanding, but I did imply which type of people I was referring to pretty clearly, even if I didn't state it in the best way. This topic is on gun control, and I thought it was pretty obvious which military role I was talking about...

[BrassKnuckles]

Victim disarmament? And you talk about misnomers. Because I was always under the impression that taking guns out of the hands of those who would wield them also (and much more commonly) fell into the categories Criminal Disarmament, Rapist Disarmament, Burglar Disarmament, Murderer Disarmament, and Kidnapper Disarmament. Calling gun control "victim disarmament" is like calling abortion "babykilling." It's partisanese.

 

Anyway. I'm sure others have touched on this topic, but in case they haven't, I'd like to point out a crucial shortcoming in your logic. You said, and I paraphrase, that citizens need guns to facilitate government change--say, if President Bush got really plastered and decided he wanted to go Stalin-style, then 'the people' would require high-powered explosives and miniguns to maintain democracy. But you're forgetting the very engine of democracy, which, I might add, has successfully driven American Democracy for 230 years: the vote. Not once in American history have 'the people' been forced to lock n' load to keep their rights or to elect a new government. We went from Washington to Bush (regrettably) on more than 57 very smooth transitions. So don't try to pull that wool over our eyes. Nobody needs an assault rifle to vote.

 

What your argument is based upon, I guess, is the assumption that the government is out to get us one safety procedure at a time. Chicken Little politik, we'll call it. Tell me if I'm getting something out of place here.

[BenMillard]

Aside from the hilarious statements coming from Isuck, such as the founding fathers wanting every citizen to have nuclear weapons (ROFL) and the government wanting to murder it's population, there is a serious issue to be thought about here. Do you want a nation of peace or of perpetual civil war?

 

When the Second Amendment was written, as Eviscero illustrated, it was in the aftermath of a civil war. Since the nation was awash with demobbed soldiers who retained their weapons, it was a necessary precaution to retain armed mobs to ensure the safety of ordinary towns and villages. Also, bear in mind this was in a time when the speediest method of data transfer was a pigeon.

 

Now things are very different. There is an armed, trained, national police force which fulfill the role of the ancient militias far better than they ever did. The police go through rigourous training and are the subject of extreme scrutiny through internal audits and external attention via the national media. Any law officer you talk to has a genuine interest in serving the community. The state police, FBI and so on are far more effective at combatting crime than leaving it to Joe Smith to try and fit in between working 9 to 5 at the office, raising a family, keeping up with the news and watching the NASCAR. Especially since modern crime is organised and international, which is another thing which simply didn't exist when the constitution was written

 

By having a disciplined police force to combat modern, organised crime, ordinary civilians can go about their everyday economic activities without having to take time of work to sit outside suspected crack dens taking pictures of potential drug dealers. Production can continue without interruptions due to groups of workers getting a new lead on a people-smuggling operation on the border To expect the population to sort crime out by themselves is utterly ridiculous in this era when crime is so organised, so well funded and so well armed.

 

Controlling the ownership of guns so that only responsible persons can buy them would cut out the unbeleivably easy way ordinary gangs get guns - they can just walk into a store and buy them. This reduction in the basic rate of gun crime would allow law enforcement agencies to concentrate their efforts on the organised cells which remained, strangling the criminal use of firearms whilst keeping responsible gun ownership for normal citizens intact. As well as radically reducing the number of gun crime victims.

 

This is pretty much what all modern nations do apart from America. All the other nations far fewer victims of gun crime because they only allow responsible ownership. They put the burden of tackling crime on the law enforcement agencies, whose officers have the skills and equipment the modern role requires. Letting the population take the law into their own hands with vigilante justice is clearly not going to work, it would be civil war with a very fine line between the criminals and the vigilantes.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Cerbera

[ISuck]

 

 

 

 

So we might as well make it a mass f*cking murder by taking away their only chance at survival.

 

Survival? Who's to say that Government is suddenly going to turn on it's people, send out the military and butcher anyone who opposes their rule? It's just not gonna happen. Whilst the US military does appear to be rather cold-blooded, I just can't imagine them turning their guns on unarmed civilians in protest... but an armed civilian... that's a different matter.

 

It's happened before, a government that wants complete power over it's citizens starts by taking away any chance of the country's self defense. Sure they might not shoot you if you don't have a gun, but they can deprive you of your rights, and what will you do about it?

 

 

If an unfavorable faction arises to fight the government, the people will have the ability to fight this faction if the government fails to do so. Which is stupid because you just explained to us how such a civilian uprising would get "owned". Give me liberty or give me death.

 

Of course I was speaking hypothetically - we're talking theory here.

 

You constantly talk about 'the people'... but who the heck are 'the people'? There are so many political ideologies to take into account (these debates are a fine example) and opinions. What if 50% declares the current Goverment to be performing brilliantly, whilst 50% declare them to be acting unconstitutionally. Who get to decide? Whoever brings out the guns and kills the other side first?

 

There is only one constitution and only one literal interpretation, it just so happens that the literal interpretation of the constitution gives us the complete freedom to bear arms.

 

 

I am not an anarchist, I'm not even an anarcho-capitalist. I believe governments were instated among us to ensure our rights. Gun control is not ensuring any right, it is taking the right to self defense, one of the most core and needful rights, away from the people and giving it solely to the government.

 

In a sense I agree - the Tony Martin case here in the UK is a good example where I would agree with you... at the same time, I can't help but feel that in many cases the state is better equipped to defend a person than they are themselves.

 

Don't get me wrong, if someone randomly throws a punch at me on the street, I will fight back. Similarly if they drew a knife on me. But it's a whole new ball park when you bring firearms into the equation. Freedom from gun control may well increase an individuals ability to defend themselves, but it also makes it more likely for any individual to exert power over another.

 

You would fight back, unless it was a government officer, no? And do you mean exerting power over another individual as a government exerts said powre over all individuals?

 

 

Whilst I prefer note to quote pretty biased sources, bowling for Columbine nicely highlights some of the problems here in terms of quantity of shootings. What do they say, that you're more likely to have a gun used against yourself than for yourself to use it on someone...?

 

Man I hated that movie Michael Moore outdid himself in terms of demagoguery in that one. And as to that fact, how is confiscating guns going to help said situation?

 

 

That's the only need for government, to ensure and protect our rights. Not to regulate our rights, not to take them away, not to give us wealth, not to take our wealth away, ect.

 

The state is ill-equipped to ensure and protect our rights if they cannot exert a certain measure of control and power over our lives. That's like one soldier saying to another "Cover me, I'm going in", when the covering soldier doesn't have a weapon. In order to do so, the state needs to use taxes to raise funds to provide a police, a military and a judicial system - how on earth can you disagree with that?

 

It is possible to protect the public without taking away their rights, of course, this protection might not be as good as a complete police state, but Im sure we all trump liberty a bit higher than security. I think police should be allowed to have guns just as citizens do, but seeing as the police failed to stop 18,000 murders, nearly 500,000 robberies and almost 100,000 rapes in a year, I think citizens should have the ability to protect themselves when the government can't.

 

 

This has all been answered previously, you have mislabelled me as an anarchist which I am not. I never suggested we arm the populace, I said the populace has the right to be armed.

 

Lemme ask you - have you ever been to Britain? Lets compare our rights.

 

Do we have a right to live, own property and raise wealth - sure, just like the US.

 

Do we have a right to raise a family - sure, just like the US.

 

Do we have a right to practice religions/beliefs freely - sure, just like the US.

 

etc etc etc...

 

Can we physically exercise these rights?  Absolutely.

 

And we do it all without needing to own firearms. Whether we have a right to or not is largely irrelevant - we don't need them and we can't use them effectively, so what the hell is the point? Because a piece of paper signed centuries ago in a vastly different time declares we're permitted to?

 

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense....

 

 

Tell that to the thousands of victims killed in defenseless Britain. Since harsh gun control laws have been placed, Street robberies are up, along with violent crimes, murders, and rapes. Homicide rates are higher, and handgun homicides are at all time highs(yea, those handguns that were banned years prior)

 

 

Personal note: Just like to add that I'm starting to understand your views a bit more Isuck, and whilst I may still disagree with you, they're certainly more clear than when you first arrived - which I feel will make for some fine debating.

 

Why thank you.

[ISuck]

 

Amazing you find the right to self defense flexible, but I am willing to bet you wouldn't say the same about other rights protected under the bill of rights such as freedom of speech. Rights are eternal, they are not priviledges, they are unwavering regardless of the society.

What is interesting here is the belief that all rights granted by the Constitution are held eternal. Let's use a classic example from any High School goverment textbook for the First Amendment. Although we are granted the freedom of speech, it does not make it ok for someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, without there being fire.

 

Ah, the classic "fire" analogy. Flawed logic, my friend, deeply flawed if you are trying to connect it to rights. I have a tough time teaching rights to other people, but here's an article that refutes the "fire" analogy:

 

 

*First, you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater . . . if it is part of the play, or if there is an actual fire, or if doing so is part of audience participation, or if you lease the theater for private purposes and warn everyone about what you intend to do.

*Given the above, what the "fire principle" actually details is the prohibition of "endangering behavior". When one exercises a reserved right in a manor that deprives others of their rights (such as the right to life being squashed by a stampeding audience), then the conflict of rights must be resolved.

*The comparison breaks down further when it is noted that the "yelling fire" prohibition requires the act to be committed first, whereas most gun control legislation creates prohibitions or bureaucratic hoop-jumping exercises in advance of an endangering act . . . that might never happen (for those who like the legal terms, we are talking about "prior restraint").

 

Let's reverse the process by taking common gun control legislation (proposed and current) and applying the same principles to producing a play:

 

1.Before a playhouse can be rented, the producer would have to document their ability to put on a play without any member of the audience yelling "fire". This would included formal training in selected speech controls and mob management techniques. (training requirements before getting a firearm permit)

2.The producer would have to be finger printed, photographed, and a criminal background check made to prove (s)he has never allowed an audience member to yell "fire" before. (registration and background of permit holder)

3.The producer would have to apply for and purchase a license for each showing of their play (licensing for each firearm) and be allowed only to perform the play once a month to reduce the likelihood of someone yelling "fire". (one gun a month laws)

4.Certain plays would be forbidden because they might be more likely to encourage audience members to yell "fire". (assault weapons bans)

5.Audience members would be issued gags as they entered the theater, and the producer would be required to assure the gags were worn by each member of the audience. (gun lock laws)

6.Each audience member would be locked into a soundproof box during the performance so if they did yell "fire", nobody would be frightened by it. (safe storage laws)

7. If someone in the audience did yell fire, the government could sue the playwright for negligence. (fast fading spate of city suits against gun manufactures)

 

The notion of "reasonable regulation" fails several tests, but one in particular -- a reserved right can not be regulated in advance ("prior restraint"). Substantial preemption or delay of a right is as good as denying the right. If the equivalent of gun control laws were inflicted on the First Amendment, the ACLU would no doubt raise a mighty stink -- which makes their silence on 2nd Amendment abuses so gravely sad.

 

 

 

 

Clearly, it is in the best interest of public safety to restrict the rights of free speech to the people attending the theatre.(SCHENK vs. United States) Similarly, the S.C upheld the notion of a New York statute that did not allow children under 17 to purchase pornographic material, for the safety of the children. Further, to look at a technological advancement, there was initial difficulty in performing searches and seizures on private citizens property in the form of a vehicle during the prohibition era. This was later ruled on by the Supreme Court to state that a motor vehicle was not protected from a seach without a warrant if a "probable cause" was found. Just from these inferences alone we can see that the definition and scope of the liberties have become less eternal as we have started to question whether our ulterior motives hinder the safety of the United States, and our civil liberties become more defined. In comparison, the technological advancements of rifles alone begs the question: "should we legislate against unnecessary firearms?"

 

The right to bear arms is an individual right, not collective. It's been ruled on by the Supreme Court as such also.

 

 

I think that due to the globalization and need for the United States to remain a non-isolationist country, you can go ahead and throw out the coup d'etat theories and the fear of a national dictatorship. The Global outcry would be far too strong to prevent such an instance. I find this to be a non-issue as I think it would never happen.

 

It's happened before, and it's happened under the eye of modern day egalitarian/humanitarian superpower eyes such as the United States and Britain and others.

[ISuck]

 

Anyway. I'm sure others have touched on this topic, but in case they haven't, I'd like to point out a crucial shortcoming in your logic. You said, and I paraphrase, that citizens need guns to facilitate government change--say, if President Bush got really plastered and decided he wanted to go Stalin-style, then 'the people' would require high-powered explosives and miniguns to maintain democracy. But you're forgetting the very engine of democracy, which, I might add, has successfully driven American Democracy for 230 years: the vote. Not once in American history have 'the people' been forced to lock n' load to keep their rights or to elect a new government. We went from Washington to Bush (regrettably) on more than 57 very smooth transitions. So don't try to pull that wool over our eyes. Nobody needs an assault rifle to vote.

 

Very smooth transitions Good one. Forceful rule has happened with democratically elected leaders also, like say, Hitler. By the way, all of your attributions to how well America has been, please give credit where credit is due, to the Constitution, and explain to others who find it merely as an outdated piece of paper.

 

 

What your argument is based upon, I guess, is the assumption that the government is out to get us one safety procedure at a time. Chicken Little politik, we'll call it. Tell me if I'm getting something out of place here.

 

My arguement is that people have a right to self defense, unregulated by a government. Whether it be defense from a common criminal or be it defense from the government, or even from other powerful enemies(I believe it was General Tojo who, discussing the invasion of mainland America said it was impossible because "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass").

 

 

Victim disarmament? And you talk about misnomers. Because I was always under the impression that taking guns out of the hands of those who would wield them also (and much more commonly) fell into the categories Criminal Disarmament, Rapist Disarmament, Burglar Disarmament, Murderer Disarmament, and Kidnapper Disarmament. Calling gun control "victim disarmament" is like calling abortion "babykilling." It's partisanese.

 

It's a proven fact that "gun control" usually takes away the arms from law abiding citizens, while criminals recieve their guns illegally. A study showed that almost 40% of criminals get their arms through illegal street sellers, and less than 1% got them through "gun shows".

[ISuck]

 

Aside from the hilarious statements coming from Isuck, such as the founding fathers wanting every citizen to have nuclear weapons (ROFL) and the government wanting to murder it's population, there is a serious issue to be thought about here.  Do you want a nation of peace or of perpetual civil war?

 

Because no government in history has murdered it's own people. Except Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China, and Lincolnite America, and Hitler Germany, ok this isn't holding up very well.

 

That last statement was incredibly confusing. Do I want a nation of peace?, peaceful submission to the government's every will?, do I want to be left in peace as others' rights are being trampled on?, what peace do you speak of. And then there's the perpetual civil war, what are you talking about?

 

 

When the Second Amendment was written, as Eviscero illustrated, it was in the aftermath of a civil war.  Since the nation was awash with demobbed soldiers who retained their weapons, it was a necessary precaution to retain armed mobs to ensure the safety of ordinary towns and villages.  Also, bear in mind this was in a time when the speediest method of data transfer was a pigeon.

 

So is that why they placed a time restriction on the right to bear arms? Wait, they didn't.

 

And actually, the militia was the people, every citizen, every person, not merely "armed mobs".

 

 

Now things are very different.  There is an armed, trained, national police force which fulfill the role of the ancient militias far better than they ever did.  The police go through rigourous training and are the subject of extreme scrutiny through internal audits and external attention via the national media.  Any law officer you talk to has a genuine interest in serving the community.  The state police, FBI and so on are far more effective at combatting crime than leaving it to Joe Smith to try and fit in between working 9 to 5 at the office, raising a family, keeping up with the news and watching the NASCAR.  Especially since modern crime is organised and international, which is another thing which simply didn't exist when the constitution was written

 

By having a disciplined police force to combat modern, organised crime, ordinary civilians can go about their everyday economic activities without having to take time of work to sit outside suspected crack dens taking pictures of potential drug dealers.  Production can continue without interruptions due to groups of workers getting a new lead on a people-smuggling operation on the border  To expect the population to sort crime out by themselves is utterly ridiculous in this era when crime is so organised, so well funded and so well armed.

 

Controlling the ownership of guns so that only responsible persons can buy them would cut out the unbeleivably easy way ordinary gangs get guns - they can just walk into a store and buy them.  This reduction in the basic rate of gun crime would allow law enforcement agencies to concentrate their efforts on the organised cells which remained, strangling the criminal use of firearms whilst keeping responsible gun ownership for normal citizens intact.  As well as radically reducing the number of gun crime victims.

 

This is pretty much what all modern nations do apart from America.  All the other nations far fewer victims of gun crime because they only allow responsible ownership.  They put the burden of tackling crime on the law enforcement agencies, whose officers have the skills and equipment the modern role requires.  Letting the population take the law into their own hands with vigilante justice is clearly not going to work, it would be civil war with a very fine line between the criminals and the vigilantes.

 

To begin, let me say that police favor citizens having arms also, as a 1999 police survey recorded the following results:

92.7% of the officers believed citizens should be able to purchase guns for self defense and/or recreational purposes

65.8% believed there should be no gun rationing

97.9% believe that criminals are able to obtain any type of firearm through illegal means

 

A cop in D.C. said the following:

"Gun control has not worked in Washington D.C. The only people who have guns

are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest

murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being

robbed."

 

Furthermore, police have no obligation to protect, and courts have repeatedly ruled so. Such as Warren vs. DCMPD.

The idea that police are our only means of protection is insane. At any given time, there are around 150,000 on duty police officers, this includes many officers not out on the streets, but being desk clerks and such. According to population, that means there is 1 police officer for every 1,800 people.

 

Some more facts for your pleasure:

 

Fact: Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

Fact: The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

Fact: 95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.

Fact: In over 90% of U.S. cities, technology does not give police dispatchers the location of a cellular telephone caller, making police protection nearly impossible for travelers.

Fact: 75% of protective/restraining orders are violated and police often won't enforce them unless they witness the violation.

Edited August 4, 2005 by ISuck

[BrassKnuckles]

 

you talked.

 

Anyway. I'm sure others have touched on this topic, but in case they haven't, I'd like to point out a crucial shortcoming in your logic. You said, and I paraphrase, that citizens need guns to facilitate government change--say, if President Bush got really plastered and decided he wanted to go Stalin-style, then 'the people' would require high-powered explosives and miniguns to maintain democracy. But you're forgetting the very engine of democracy, which, I might add, has successfully driven American Democracy for 230 years: the vote. Not once in American history have 'the people' been forced to lock n' load to keep their rights or to elect a new government. We went from Washington to Bush (regrettably) on more than 57 very smooth transitions. So don't try to pull that wool over our eyes. Nobody needs an assault rifle to vote.

 

Very smooth transitions Good one. Forceful rule has happened with democratically elected leaders also, like say, Hitler. By the way, all of your attributions to how well America has been, please give credit where credit is due, to the Constitution, and explain to others who find it merely as an outdated piece of paper.

 

The 2005 Congress is not the 1933 Reichstag, for the record. Our vigilance of human rights, corruption, and cheating is so upgraded now, what with private investigations and so forth, it would be absolutely impossible for a dictator to rise. Personally, I'd say the Bush Administration has too much power--and look! Forty-eight percent or more of the populace agrees with me. This isn't Hitler-era Germany.

 

And about the Constitution, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks it's an outdated piece of paper. It does contain some of the most important founding principles for this nation. It must adapt, however, to changing national states. And right now, the national state is one of unrestricted gun ownership, use, and abuse.

 

 

What your argument is based upon, I guess, is the assumption that the government is out to get us one safety procedure at a time. Chicken Little politik, we'll call it. Tell me if I'm getting something out of place here.

 

My arguement is that people have a right to self defense, unregulated by a government. Whether it be defense from a common criminal or be it defense from the government, or even from other powerful enemies(I believe it was General Tojo who, discussing the invasion of mainland America said it was impossible because "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass").

 

We've gone over this before. Self-defense from criminals? Knives, common sernse, hands, stricter gun laws, better gun enforcement policies, economic fairness...and I don't know, the f*cking POLICE. Self-defense from the government? Voting, voting, and voting. And election laws, maybe. Self-defense from powerful enemies? Since there are so many...the National Guard. There is absolutely no need for the abolition of restrictions on guns. Especially when that opens the door for unrestricted access to rocket launchers, weapons-grade plutonium, and lasers.

 

 

Victim disarmament? And you talk about misnomers. Because I was always under the impression that taking guns out of the hands of those who would wield them also (and much more commonly) fell into the categories Criminal Disarmament, Rapist Disarmament, Burglar Disarmament, Murderer Disarmament, and Kidnapper Disarmament. Calling gun control "victim disarmament" is like calling abortion "babykilling." It's partisanese.

 

It's a proven fact that "gun control" usually takes away the arms from law abiding citizens, while criminals recieve their guns illegally. A study showed that almost 40% of criminals get their arms through illegal street sellers, and less than 1% got them through "gun shows".

 

Good proof, man. If 40% of criminals get their arms through illegal street sellers and 1% get their arms through gun shows, then a solid 59% of criminals were the 'law-abiding citizens' who had unrestricted access to the Desert Eagle they used to shoot Uncle Jethro over the stolen pig. Those aren't good numbers.

[ISuck]

 

 

Anyway. I'm sure others have touched on this topic, but in case they haven't, I'd like to point out a crucial shortcoming in your logic. You said, and I paraphrase, that citizens need guns to facilitate government change--say, if President Bush got really plastered and decided he wanted to go Stalin-style, then 'the people' would require high-powered explosives and miniguns to maintain democracy. But you're forgetting the very engine of democracy, which, I might add, has successfully driven American Democracy for 230 years: the vote. Not once in American history have 'the people' been forced to lock n' load to keep their rights or to elect a new government. We went from Washington to Bush (regrettably) on more than 57 very smooth transitions. So don't try to pull that wool over our eyes. Nobody needs an assault rifle to vote.

 

Very smooth transitions Good one. Forceful rule has happened with democratically elected leaders also, like say, Hitler. By the way, all of your attributions to how well America has been, please give credit where credit is due, to the Constitution, and explain to others who find it merely as an outdated piece of paper.

 

The 2005 Congress is not the 1933 Reichstag, for the record. Our vigilance of human rights, corruption, and cheating is so upgraded now, what with private investigations and so forth, it would be absolutely impossible for a dictator to rise. Personally, I'd say the Bush Administration has too much power--and look! Forty-eight percent or more of the populace agrees with me. This isn't Hitler-era Germany.

 

So your baseless assumptions that we can trust the government with inexpendable amounts of power means that you can take the guns away from the populace. Such an act would be Hitleresque in itself.

 

 

And about the Constitution, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks it's an outdated piece of paper. It does contain some of the most important founding principles for this nation. It must adapt, however, to changing national states. And right now, the national state is one of unrestricted gun ownership, use, and abuse.

 

It's pretty obvious that next to nobody on this forum has respect for the constitution in any way, "they wrote it 200 years ago there's no possible way it could still be useful now" is the general consensus. For a change to happen, obviously an amendment is needed. Amendments can change previous amendments such as the 2nd so it is possible, but sickening to think about. However, you must concede that all gun legislation right now is unconstitutional.

 

 

What your argument is based upon, I guess, is the assumption that the government is out to get us one safety procedure at a time. Chicken Little politik, we'll call it. Tell me if I'm getting something out of place here.

 

My arguement is that people have a right to self defense, unregulated by a government. Whether it be defense from a common criminal or be it defense from the government, or even from other powerful enemies(I believe it was General Tojo who, discussing the invasion of mainland America said it was impossible because "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass").

 

We've gone over this before. Self-defense from criminals? Knives, common sernse, hands, stricter gun laws, better gun enforcement policies, economic fairness...and I don't know, the f*cking POLICE. Self-defense from the government? Voting, voting, and voting. And election laws, maybe. Self-defense from powerful enemies? Since there are so many...the National Guard. There is absolutely no need for the abolition of restrictions on guns. Especially when that opens the door for unrestricted access to rocket launchers, weapons-grade plutonium, and lasers.

 

Ive already proven that the police don't do a good job and cited that police don't even have an obligation to do so and thus citizens should have a right to self defense. And you still seem to be misunderstanding, that criminals are going to get guns no matter what legislation you put on the country, that's the reason they are criminals, they don't respect your law.

 

 

Victim disarmament? And you talk about misnomers. Because I was always under the impression that taking guns out of the hands of those who would wield them also (and much more commonly) fell into the categories Criminal Disarmament, Rapist Disarmament, Burglar Disarmament, Murderer Disarmament, and Kidnapper Disarmament. Calling gun control "victim disarmament" is like calling abortion "babykilling." It's partisanese.

 

It's a proven fact that "gun control" usually takes away the arms from law abiding citizens, while criminals recieve their guns illegally. A study showed that almost 40% of criminals get their arms through illegal street sellers, and less than 1% got them through "gun shows".

 

Good proof, man. If 40% of criminals get their arms through illegal street sellers and 1% get their arms through gun shows, then a solid 59% of criminals were the 'law-abiding citizens' who had unrestricted access to the Desert Eagle they used to shoot Uncle Jethro over the stolen pig. Those aren't good numbers.

 

There are other ways to get arms illegally than just through street sellers. And you have missed the point of the statistic. This means that if you take away guns from the populace, 100% of regular citizens will be defenseless with at least 40% of the criminals armed without regulation.

Another fact: More than 70% of armed career criminals get their guns from "off-the-street sales" and "criminal acts" such as burglaries, and 71% of these firearms are stolen