|
|
|
Neph's POLITE Gun Debate
|
|
|
Northax
Newbie
|
27. December 2007 @ 19:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Therein lies the dilemma. The majority of gun owners aren't well trained and there's no assurance the guns will only be in law-abiding hands. That's what curtailed ownership of automatic weapons to begin with. This is one point we're not likely to agree on. I don't think the founding fathers had their thoughts on Nostradamus or an eye to a crystal ball when writing the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin's idea of rapid fire was a bow.
I believe in the right to bear arms, but realize there should be a limit. Otherwise, why shouldn't I be allowed a few LAWs rockets along with a GE minigun?
Then let them become well-trained. This is the sole reason why the 2nd Amendment says: "A well-regulated militia..."
I am all for this!
This is even more so a further guarantee, added onto the effectiveness of the private citizens fighting against such a corrupt domestic government, if the need were ever to arise. So, again, I'm totally for training people in the use of automatic rifles and guerrilla warfare tactics. This is training for worst case scenarios, which I strongly believe should be done. Just like any woman trains herself to be ready for a man that's trying to rape her, even though she has never been raped before in the past... she still learns from history, that she is still a target for such rape.
There's no total assurance that only law-abiding citizens will only have automatic rifles? I agree. But there's also no total assurance against criminals getting into government, and trying to take over the people by force; there's also no assurance that criminals will never join the military, steal a bunch of M-16 assault rifles, and use it against the people. But, that doesn't stop us from having governments and armed militaries, does it? No. That's because, even with the chance of there being a possibility for a corrupt government, or corrupt soldiers in the military, we still need government to keep [righteous] laws upheld; we still need a military to fight against another military attempting to invade us by force.
Thus, I do not see a sound argument against my point, that all law-abiding citizens should have a right to assault rifles.
Selling motor vehicles, planes, and other possible deadly weapons, to any private citizen, doesn't assure the population that these objects will never be used against them. But, we still sell those to people, anyway! And when those planes, which can cause more death than an M-16, crashes into buildings, as seen on 9/11, do we then ban airliners? No.
You can't ban certain things, that'll most of the time be used for good, simply because there are few times they'll be abused, and used unjustly. If that were to come true, then I say that all governments must give up their militaries! Since there are plenty of governments that've abused their power in the past, and even today, by murdering millions of people with their militaries.
Ban government military's around the world, therefore? Even one unjust government using a military, as seen in Nazi Germany, during WWII, can slaughter millions of people! Much more people died there, than all those that died by private criminals using firearms, let alone assault rifles, in the last 100 to 200 years!
Look at Switzerland! All of their male citizens have automatic assault rifles carried on their person, all of the time! You can see people riding on bicycles with assault rifles strapped across their backs! I've seen it myself! No joke.
Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world!
Yes, they're trained in defense of their country (as I imagine our militia doing, as well), but will that assure them they'll never have a murderer with an assault rifle, go on a rampage? No. Do they still let their citizens carry those assault rifles? Yes.
There are certain people that want all firearms banned, since it makes it easier for criminals to kill. You do not agree with banning all firearms, right? Because you see some firearms as a right to protect yourself with, from private criminals... correct?
Well, I'm simply going a step further up that "tree of logical defense", and suggesting that we have a right to own assault rifles, like the M-16, since the reason is clearly stated by the spirit of the 2nd Amendment: To protect all private citizens from the greatest possible criminal of all: corrupt, tyrannical government!
"The balance of power, is the scale of peace."
Of course, I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was specifically talking about cannons in every citizens' hands or homes. So, you bringing up LAW rockets in your possession, is not what I'm trying to suggest. Though, imagining if assault rifles are made useless against government military, then I will look further into suggesting we do have a right to something more powerful than assault rifles. However, until then, I think at least 250,000,000+ well-trained citizens with assault rifles (like M-16s or AK-47s) can take on an armed military, using guerrilla warfare tactics. So, right now, assault rifles should be good enough, imo.
And, if it comes down to Statewide military trying to fight the people? Then, at the least, the people have assault rifles. Again, this is a layered defense involved, for a worst case scenario.
That's apart of the exact context of the 2nd Amendment: To give private citizens, individually and also as a whole, certain firepower, that'd make domestic government (City, State and Federal) not bother trying to rule over such private citizens by force; and, if that government did try to do such a thing, they'd fail miserably! Because the people are heavily armed, to the point of keeping their liberties by sheer force.
It's that plain, and that simple.
I also believe in a limit to which firearms We The People should have a right to carry! Here it is: We should only go as far as it needs to be taken, in order for all private citizens to have the ultimate power in their hands, to therefore take back their liberties by force, if/when needed, in case their own government attempts to take away those liberties, by force, in the first place.
That is the context of limitation for which the 2nd Amendment was written, and for which Thomas Jefferson himself, had in mind.
To ensure our liberty, I believe it is best to train, keep and bear firearms, which are the same as your current military's main battle rifle.
If the government gives each of their soldiers "laser beam assault rifles" as their main battle rifle tomorrow, you'll see me say that law-abiding citizens have a right to laser beam guns. ;) And so on.
If you still disagree with this, then I guess there's no further I can go on the subject. I will agree to disagree. :)
I am happy that you at least do not believe in banning all firearms from citizens' hands! :)
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
www.ronpaul2008.com
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. December 2007 @ 21:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lets just say I'm happy with laws on automatic weapons the way they are and along with the majority of the people in this country. We've gone since the early part of the last century without civilian ownership of automatic weapons and I've seen no rights lost that didn't happen in a democratic manner. Most anything considered lost can be attributed to the voting public.
I like the freedom to own firearms, but there has to be some controls. If automatic weapon ownership was so important, I suspect someone would try to get legislation changed or at least a vote by the people. Not even the NRA is trying to do that.
When tyranny prevails and our freedom becomes eroded, then we may need heavier arms. Until then I think I can protect my home with a tactical shotgun and USP semi-automatic.
There's no winning this discussion by anyone. This amounts to your opinion vs my opinion and both are valid in our own eyes. Similar to anti and pro gun factions, no amount of rhetoric is likely to change things. I'm sure there are those who agree with both of us. If/when your faction wins, I'll accept my automatic weapon.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. December 2007 @ 23:27
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. December 2007 @ 21:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
This has absolutely nothing to do to add to this thread...just eerie that the 777th post in this thread was made by PacMan777...coincidence?????
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. December 2007 @ 21:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Gwen, it must be the end of the world is coming. It would be really convincing had it been Pacman666 and the 666th post. LMAO
Anyway, Happy New Year to you and your family and I hope Papa Noel was good to you.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. December 2007 @ 21:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ta, thanks for that and Yep, I got what I wanted, Cheers for the New Year!!
|
Moderator
1 product review
|
27. December 2007 @ 22:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Pacman777 planned it that way, it's part of his world domination scheme.
|
Senior Member
|
27. December 2007 @ 22:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Slightly off topic, but here in North Carolina, Police Agencies are now listing hand grenades and grenade simulators as weapons of mass destruction, anyone else run into this interesting interpretation of technological terminology?
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. December 2007 @ 23:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yous guys and gals are giving me too much credit for ulterior motives. LOL I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and may the new year bring you all wealth and good health.
Blivet
How long has that been going on with simulators. I can see a hand grenade being considered a weapon of mass destruction (people aren't supposed to be tossing those around in public); but when did a simulator of any sort become dangerous? They're usually very difficult to impossible to make live without purchasing some illegal components and explosives (which in their own right are weapons of mass destruction). Guess those guys who like military paraphernalia had best turn in those useless rocket tubes and shell casings. Have those Homeland guys learned the meaning of ridiculous yet? I guess they may be considering the fact it could scare the poo out of them and the public finding a simulated weapon tossed in someone's yard. I think I saw something along those lines on the news. LOL It's the live armaments that I'm worried about. Still, we're not supposed to yell fire in the movie theatre.
|
Moderator
|
28. December 2007 @ 18:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Guns rock!
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 |
Senior Member
|
28. December 2007 @ 21:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good to see you again buddy, once again the voice of reason has shown it's light throughout AD,
Welcome back Neph.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. December 2007 @ 22:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well the New Year is looking a lot better since Neph is back. Hooray!
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. December 2007 @ 23:51 |
Link to this message
|
Nephilim
You're right, guns rock. Glad to see you around. I was wondering what happened to you.
I'm touching up the bluing on an 1100 barrel I got ripped off on while having some Jack Black to releave the pain. It may come out looking like a zebra. Somebody had tried it before and forgot to clean the oil off good. LOL Win some lose some. I just got a brand new old stock skeet barrel for the 1100 for about $150.
|
Senior Member
|
1. January 2008 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Senior Member
|
4. January 2008 @ 06:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good thread, people. I'd join in but I really don't care about guns enough...They're billhooks ;)
|
Moderator
|
4. January 2008 @ 17:28 |
Link to this message
|
I completely agree blivetNC. Some folks just don't have the common sense to be safe with the things. Now if those two idiots had shot themselves in the head our gene pool would be better off!
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. January 2008 @ 17:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
4. January 2008 @ 19:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Haha, I saw one idiot mess around with his gun so it can be loaded just by hitting it against a surface. He is probably gonna shoot himself loading it that way.
|
|
Amir89
Senior Member
|
8. January 2008 @ 06:29 |
Link to this message
|
Look guys,
The common argument I always hear from American Pro-Gun activists is that Guns don't kill people, people kill people, which is a fair enough argument, in that yes, guns only kill and injure when their in the hands of idiots and maniacs.
But don't you Americans think that with your very gun-liberal laws and policies you inherently give far easier access to a means by which those idiots and maniacs can go out and harm people.
I mean if you guys had a total gun ban, you wouldn't have nearly anywhere near the number of murders you do per year, which wouldn't because Less Guns=More Safe, but because the insane, degenerate lunatics have no easy way of killing people.
And don't say people would revert to knives and spears... any idiot with half a brain can walk up to a man, squeeze a trigger and kill him. It's so simple. Since guns were invented, humans have killed each other on an unprecedented scale, because it became so damn easy to do so.
Your average joe wouldn't probably even know how to handle a knife properly, let alone have the balls and wit to kill someone with it. Trying to kill people by brute force alone is not something most people could easily accomplish, it's messy, it takes time and people can always fight back and win.
How many of Columbine-type high school kids, who went on a rampage could have killed their classmates with a knife, or a bat, or with their bare hands?
Guns are just an extremely easy and accessible means of killing people in the US. With less guns, those certain types that wanted to kill people would find it very hard to carry out their twisted desires.
I mean think of it this way, no matter how determined two nations are to go to war with each other, you take away their means of warfare and they'll eventually give up.
Humans rarely kill humans. They kill them by proxy. By a means to accomplish killing someone with something. A knife, a crowbar, a pistol, a car, sleeping pills, you get what I mean.
You take away the means to kill and surely there will be less killing.
|
|
Amir89
Senior Member
|
8. January 2008 @ 06:31 |
Link to this message
|
Look guys,
The common argument I always hear from American Pro-Gun activists is that Guns don't kill people, people kill people, which is a fair enough argument, in that yes, guns only kill and injure when their in the hands of idiots and maniacs.
But don't you Americans think that with your very gun-liberal laws and policies you inherently give far easier access to a means by which those idiots and maniacs can go out and harm people.
I mean if you guys had a total gun ban, you wouldn't have nearly anywhere near the number of murders you do per year, which wouldn't because Less Guns=More Safe, but because the insane, degenerate lunatics have no easy way of killing people.
And don't say people would revert to knives and spears... any idiot with half a brain can walk up to a man, squeeze a trigger and kill him. It's so simple. Since guns were invented, humans have killed each other on an unprecedented scale, because it became so damn easy to do so.
Your average joe wouldn't probably even know how to handle a knife properly, let alone have the balls and wit to kill someone with it. Trying to kill people by brute force alone is not something most people could easily accomplish, it's messy, it takes time and people can always fight back and win.
How many of Columbine-type high school kids, who went on a rampage could have killed as many classmates as they did with knives, or bats, or with their bare hands?
Guns are just an extremely easy and accessible means of killing people in the US. With less guns, those certain types that wanted to kill people would find it very hard to carry out their twisted desires.
I mean think of it this way, no matter how determined two nations are to go to war with each other, you take away their means of warfare and they'll eventually give up.
Humans rarely kill humans. They kill them by proxy. By a means to accomplish killing someone with something. A knife, a crowbar, a pistol, a car, sleeping pills, you get what I mean.
You take away the means to kill and surely there will be less killing.
|
|
Masterfit
Newbie
|
8. January 2008 @ 08:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Amir89:
Look guys,
The common argument I always hear from American Pro-Gun activists is that Guns don't kill people, people kill people, which is a fair enough argument, in that yes, guns only kill and injure when their in the hands of idiots and maniacs.
But don't you Americans think that with your very gun-liberal laws and policies you inherently give far easier access to a means by which those idiots and maniacs can go out and harm people.
I mean if you guys had a total gun ban, you wouldn't have nearly anywhere near the number of murders you do per year, which wouldn't because Less Guns=More Safe, but because the insane, degenerate lunatics have no easy way of killing people.
And don't say people would revert to knives and spears... any idiot with half a brain can walk up to a man, squeeze a trigger and kill him. It's so simple. Since guns were invented, humans have killed each other on an unprecedented scale, because it became so damn easy to do so.
Your average joe wouldn't probably even know how to handle a knife properly, let alone have the balls and wit to kill someone with it. Trying to kill people by brute force alone is not something most people could easily accomplish, it's messy, it takes time and people can always fight back and win.
How many of Columbine-type high school kids, who went on a rampage could have killed as many classmates as they did with knives, or bats, or with their bare hands?
Guns are just an extremely easy and accessible means of killing people in the US. With less guns, those certain types that wanted to kill people would find it very hard to carry out their twisted desires.
I mean think of it this way, no matter how determined two nations are to go to war with each other, you take away their means of warfare and they'll eventually give up.
Humans rarely kill humans. They kill them by proxy. By a means to accomplish killing someone with something. A knife, a crowbar, a pistol, a car, sleeping pills, you get what I mean.
You take away the means to kill and surely there will be less killing.
Sorry, but read your bible. PEOPLE have been killing PEOPLE from the begining of time. They will always find a way, when I took my training I was taught to take out the bad guy with the knife first.
True as it is, I see no way to take away the means to kill.
|
Senior Member
|
8. January 2008 @ 08:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm moving to Switzerland. Everyone has access to a firearm and knows how to use it. Washington DC has an almost total ban on firearms, yet one of the highest crime/murder rates, go figure.
|
|
Northax
Newbie
|
8. January 2008 @ 08:59 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
You take away the means to kill and surely there will be less killing.
If you take away the means to kill, there'll be no killing! You mean? ;)
That'll never happen, however. Humans, like almost all other living, breathing animals on this Earth, must have a means to kill for protection against other large animals attempting to kill them; for food in the wild, etc.
Sure, we already know guns make it easier to kill others. Many have known that since guns were first invented!
But, that doesn't mean we ban them! You're using the progressive way of thinking about this issue. Once you ban all guns, then you'll say: "Look at knives, how they make it much easier to slice into someone compared to a bear hand! It makes killing so much easier compared!"
Amir, automobiles injure and/or kill more people by accident, than guns do on purpose. The exhaust kills this Earth, and our lungs, too! That's pretty bad, isn't it? So, do we ban automobiles now?
And many anti-gun biased media reporting on gun death rates, will often include suicides (pointless to bring up), self-defense killings (pointless to bring up), and accidents (pointless to bring up).
1) Self-defense killing is totally righteous, and a good thing.
2) Suicides will still happen without guns! Japan being a good example.
3) Accidents happen with all things, so do we ban all those tools that cause injury by accident? Didn't think so.
-
If memory is correct, the crime is (or was) worse in the UK and Australia, according to a 2000 study by the Dutch.
Amir, look at Switzerland. Why isn't their crime soaring? They're carrying assault rifles per capita much higher than Americans!
You using America, is a bad example, because not all Americans own guns! There are States and districts within those States found in the U.S., that make idiotic laws "banning" guns in certain areas, from private, law-abiding citizens carrying them concealed. Don't you think criminals will take advantage of such a thing? Of course! They do! And thus why talking about gun crime in the U.S. is not a sound arguement. Until all law-abiding Americans are armed, trained, you really can't use this nation as an example. The power is unbalanced in certain areas. "The balance of power, is the scale of peace."
The tide would turn if all law-abiding Americans were armed, since a lot more criminals would think twice about shooting up the place, when they know others can, and will, easily shoot back.
And even then, the gun death rate is pretty low for about 70-80 million Americans owning firearms, actually! Other gun-ban countries only use the U.S. as an example to compare, and thus try to justify their own gun banning. When, again, using the U.S. is a bad example, since the power is unbalanced, due to different laws being passed in different States and districts. It's almost like you'd have to use each State to compare to each European nation, if you'd want to possibly come to a closer conclusion of comparison. Until then, the argument is pointless.
The main issue, is the mental health of a society, and its justice system (whether or not they come down hard on criminals, or not)... not guns themselves.
There's blinding bias for gun bans in the countries that banned guns!
An Australian news website, for instance, purposely left out an important fact in a Colorado church shooting that happened last month. They "forgot" to mention that the mad gunman was stopped in his tracks when an armed citizen in the church pulled out her (yes, a woman!) gun, and took him down!
Even certain liberal media in the U.S. itself will suppress information on good things that happen with guns. They refuse to talk about the good things that happen with guns, because it'd be counteractive toward their agenda! That is a fact.
You say it's easier for criminals to commit crimes with guns? Easier to murder with guns?
I say: it's also easier for good citizens to stop those crimes with guns, also! Why do you think police have guns!
That includes woman with guns, who can't physically fight off stronger men with their body alone! Guns help equalize the power for women!
When 2500 women in Orlando Florida (in the U.S.) trained and carried firearms, the rape rate went down by 83%!
A place in Georgia (State in the U.S.) made it law to own a firearm in every household! Did the crime rate soar? Nope. It actually went down, especially violent crime.
Is Switzerlands' crime rate soaring, since they all own firearms? Nope. They actually have one of the lowest crime rates in THE WORLD!
The balance of power is the scale of peace!
And what has been many dictatorships' agenda when trying to ban guns in their nations? To control the people. That's a clear fact, as well.
So, you see, there's also a much bigger issue in banning guns, than mere crime.
The founding fathers of this nation (U.S.) set up the 2nd Amendment (which shows us our natural right to defend ourselves with firearms) because of the tyrannical government they knew it'd fight off, if it ever tried to control the people. They didn't write the 2nd Amendment to merely help citizens fight off private criminals! LOL! Even though that just goes along with owning a firearm, anyway.
If you read the 2nd Amendment in context, and the context of the Bill of Rights, for which the 2nd Amendment is within, is to solely protect private citizens against their domestic government. That, also, is a fact.
Have you read who liked having guns banned from private citizens' hands, in history?
Read:
Quote:
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Who said that, which is quoted above? Adolf Hitler.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
www.ronpaul2008.com
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. January 2008 @ 10:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Amir89
Surely you can't believe that the bad guys would not get access to guns if our laws were changed. It would be the GOOD guys that wouldn't get the guns. In every state it should be legal to carry a concealed weapon; ergo the bad guys would never know when they picked the wrong target. You should try New Orleans where there are places the cops won't even go.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. January 2008 @ 12:43 |
Link to this message
|
Amir89
I find it interesting that people point to the US and talk about all the gun deaths without really paying attention to what the United States consists of. Many of the states have populations and land area the size of some independent countries. You could look at it as 50 countries. Actually more with the territories. Move to a death by percentage of population and the numbers aren't as severe when comparing to smaller countries with less population.
Also, look at the the areas and situations where most of the deaths occur. There's the aberrations that make the news, like the school killings. Those are what most people read about and see on the news. However, most of the deaths occur where you find gangs, drugs, and high crime areas (which is usually associated with the first two). That's happened so long it doesn't get much press. You get into some serious socio-economic and psychological issues when you get into gang and drug behavior. (Give me a good bank robber any day. They only want the money.) If the areas mentioned were isolated and taken out of the mix, you'd see most citizens aren't out shooting each other on a daily basis. Instead of taking guns away from law abiding citizens, more should be done to control gang violence, and drugs along with the resulting violent crime. As a sidenote, the US has a lot of outside help keeping the drug business booming. Where are the poppies and coca grown?
Guns are only one means of killing which has been pointed out. As has been pointed out, auto accidents and vehicular homicide contribute more to the death toll than firearms. A weird statistic is that more people die at the hands of medical professionals than from being shot down on the street. Ban the medical profession? Little is done to curtail auto deaths and doctors bury their mistakes. I put more time into becoming licensed to carry a firearm than taking the driver's license test. Go figure.
Quote:
You take away the means to kill and surely there will be less killing.
I like that quote. Since man has been killing man since the beginning of the human race, it doesn't appear guns started it. There were some good wars where each side went out and hacked the other up with swords, impaled them with spears, and even bashed in heads with rocks. It's even been recorded of hand to hand fighting with broken necks and strangulation. It appears in the end that man is the means and weapons are simply tools. Get rid of man and surely there will be less killing. Sort of defeats the purpose when you look at it that way.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. January 2008 @ 12:47
|
|
Masterfit
Newbie
|
8. January 2008 @ 13:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL,Amir89 You havn't met my wife. She is about 5' 2 weighs 94 Lbs. soaking wet and carries a Ruger P-90 .45 Cal. almost everywhere she goes.
YEah yeah yeah, I know you ment mankind but I couldn't resist
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. January 2008 @ 13:22 |
Link to this message
|
Here's an interesting addition. I've noticed that many in the anti-gun movement like to quote statistics from the peak years of violence. An interesting phenomena occurred in the US during the late 80s and early 90s. Firearms deaths have actually gone down over the past years in comparison. Here's more recent data from the Bureau of Justice,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm . It also includes homicides by means other than firearms. I found those numbers surprisingly high though. I've known for a long time that a cast iron skillet in the hands of an angry housewife is a deadly weapon. LOL
|
|
