BF2S Forums Gun Culture

I appologize if somebody wrote something similar to what I'm about to post, But its late and I didn't feel like reading 4 pages of postings.

Illegalizing guns will not stop gun crimes, as most gun crimes happen to be with stolen or illegally acquired guns. And most gun owners happen to be very safety conscious. I'd post more details, But I hate writting.

Nighty Night.

Allot of people in this thread keep saying that the law on guns was written a long time ago and laws change.  Well here in the United States of America we do have many laws on the books that govern the use and possession of guns, be it pistol or rifle, but they are missing one very,very important point...

Is Freedom of Speech a Law?  No, it is a right and there are many laws that govern that right
Is the  4th amendment a law against unreasonable search and seizures. No, it is a right and there are many laws that govern that right.
Is the 2nd amendment a law allowing us to keep and bear arms? No, it is a right and there are many laws that govern that right

There is quite a bit of difference between laws and rights.
The first ten amendments to the constitution are not laws but rights that are not given to us by our constitution, they are rights that we are born with.

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

There is quite a bit of difference between laws and rights.
The first ten amendments to the constitution are not laws but rights that are not given to us by our constitution, they are rights that we are born with.

Without a government and a system of laws rights are meaningless, no one is born with rights. Only does one have any rights if they are protected by a system of laws.

A Constitution of any country is meant to set down the bear minimum of legal standing and no laws passed can infringe on this minimum (IE being unconstitutional). Most countries also have methods for a government to change there constitution so even they ain't set in stone.

The UK actually has no constitution at all, they have such a long standing system of common law (well they did invent the idea) that in itself it acts like a constitution.

You've got it backwards. The thinking behind the American Constitution was that we are born with certain inalienable rights that can never be taken from us legally. They can be stamped out by tyrants and despots, but they are still rights, even if we cannot enjoy them. Systems of laws protect nothing in and of themselves, they merely state legalities. It is up to the People to safeguard Liberty.

The First Amendment was put in place to assure we could hold whatever opinion we choose on a subject.

The Second was originally to both guard the First, as well as preserve Liberty. The second part of that has become somewhat blurred over the centuries, but it is still there. The Militia is still present, available to be called up at a moment's notice. THAT ensures Liberty, for without an armed populace, what would prevent George W and his cronies from refusing to abdicate their positions come 2008? Not Congress. Not the Judiciary. Not the Army. That task falls to the People.

MurPHy wrote:

You've got it backwards. The thinking behind the American Constitution was that we are born with certain inalienable rights that can never be taken from us legally. They can be stamped out by tyrants and despots, but they are still rights, even if we cannot enjoy them. Systems of laws protect nothing in and of themselves, they merely state legalities. It is up to the People to safeguard Liberty.

The First Amendment was put in place to assure we could hold whatever opinion we choose on a subject.

The Second was originally to both guard the First, as well as preserve Liberty. The second part of that has become somewhat blurred over the centuries, but it is still there. The Militia is still present, available to be called up at a moment's notice. THAT ensures Liberty, for without an armed populace, what would prevent George W and his cronies from refusing to abdicate their positions come 2008? Not Congress. Not the Judiciary. Not the Army. That task falls to the People.

The US constitution can be changed by an act of the US government, there is no such thing as inalienable rights. Without a system of laws which in fact give those "rights" you have no rights what-so-ever.

As en example, GW and friends do not give up power and stay on with control of the military what rights do you now hold?... none, I'm sure you would be locked up for speaking your mind especially if it was against GW, you would probably be shot for starting a militia against the rule of GW. No system of laws protecting those rights mean YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!

"Natural law" and "rights" are legal entities which soon fall down as soon as there is no legal system to protect them.

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

MurPHy wrote:

You've got it backwards. The thinking behind the American Constitution was that we are born with certain inalienable rights that can never be taken from us legally. They can be stamped out by tyrants and despots, but they are still rights, even if we cannot enjoy them. Systems of laws protect nothing in and of themselves, they merely state legalities. It is up to the People to safeguard Liberty.

The First Amendment was put in place to assure we could hold whatever opinion we choose on a subject.

The Second was originally to both guard the First, as well as preserve Liberty. The second part of that has become somewhat blurred over the centuries, but it is still there. The Militia is still present, available to be called up at a moment's notice. THAT ensures Liberty, for without an armed populace, what would prevent George W and his cronies from refusing to abdicate their positions come 2008? Not Congress. Not the Judiciary. Not the Army. That task falls to the People.

The US constitution can be changed by an act of the US government, there is no such thing as inalienable rights. Without a system of laws which in fact give those "rights" you have no rights what-so-ever.

As en example, GW and friends do not give up power and stay on with control of the military what rights do you now hold?... none, I'm sure you would be locked up for speaking your mind especially if it was against GW, you would probably be shot for starting a militia against the rule of GW. No system of laws protecting those rights mean YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!

"Natural law" and "rights" are legal entities which soon fall down as soon as there is no legal system to protect them.

Laws do not give rights. That is a fallacy. Laws can only ensure they be maintained and upheld. The Constitution can be changed by an act of Congress, so theoretically speaking, they could outlaw the first 10 amendments. Will such a thing ever occur? Not in my lifetime.

As for your example, you're forgetting that the Militia is already present. Every capable man who owns a firearm is part of the militia. Would they win against Bush overtaking the government? If the Army does not support him, yes. I believe the majority of the armed forces would not support such a manuver, and would defend the People.

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

MurPHy...

If I came across you in the middle of nowhere and I have a big gun and you don't what rights do you have except to do what-ever I say or die?

I think that if MurPHy lives in the US and has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, then he has a chance of saying no and putting a bullet through your head.

Also I believe that the bill of rights will not be changed, and that guns are good for home defense. I have one twelve gauge shotgun, one single shot 22, and a semi-auto 22 that jams after 5 shots.

I do not believe that assault rifles, or RPG's or any of those kinds of weapons are good for home defense, and have no real purpose being carried around by people on the streets.

I am also an individual with access to the internet. If i was properly motivated, say i became psychopathic, I could take my parents keys and credit card, buy some fertilizer, and go make a bomb to blow up my school.

(no this is not bullshit, i quickly googled "Anarchist Cookbook", and with a quick ctrl + f found the section on how to make a crappy fertilizer bomb)
(scanned the rest of said document, holy S*^% the internet is a dangerous thing to have access to if that stuff is true and works)
(I am not psychopathic)
Also I doubt the armed forces would back Bush if he tried this theoretical take-over. Mainly because the majority are rednecks and people who would support owning firearms. (I am technically a redneck so don't flame me, and I said MAJORITY so don't flame me about that either.)

All in all I support owning firearms, and even carrying concealed farms. As long as you have to register your firearm, and take a safety class.

Has anyone read the book "A State of Disobedience"? Although it is significantly biased in favor of the right-wing parties, it was a good book.

Last edited by ninjabot (2006-06-25 21:52:15)

I own a gun because of my sig

When I hear the word "culture", I reach for my Logitech G7.

Murphy, how would you feel about a Muslim building a bomb in his US home and saying he won't use it unless he is attacked (thus, for his protection).  Would you defend his right or would you support him being thrown in Guantanamo.

P.S Any punk can shoot a gun, it's takes a real man to use his bare hands...grow a spine America.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Murphy, how would you feel about a Muslim building a bomb in his US home and saying he won't use it unless he is attacked (thus, for his protection).  Would you defend his right or would you support him being thrown in Guantanamo.

P.S Any punk can shoot a gun, it's takes a real man to use his bare hands...grow a spine America.

PS your just pissed your government took yours away and let the criminals still have access to them. What you going to do when one of those rampid gangs of kids(yes i know all about the trouble they cause on a daily basis from friends in the UK) comes into your house brandishing a pistol? You going to Kung Fu them to death while there harming your family?

As a 3rd degree black belt, i had to actually file papers for being one. I will land in prison just as fast as i would with a gun. I am considered to be excessive against any normal punk whome would break in and i had to go hand to  hand. My military training is also in question if i so choose to use my hands.

When i shot and killed the carjacker in the mobilmart that had my wife and kids hostage in the car trying to pull away, i was justified according to the courts in the way i handled the situation. i used equal force, he just wasnt quick enough. On a side note, if you dont shoot to kill in a defense situation, you WILL be arrested and probably sued by the surviving victem. That was told to me DIRECTLY by the responding officers and the Judge.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

" Gun laws were written a long time ago " So was the First amendment ! We should interpret the 2cnd like we do the first. Our founding fathers had amazing foresight, But the didn't foresee Ethnic cleansing, Death camps and all the other Ills that befell Europe in the last 50 years, Had they, they would have probably made it the first amendment.

The right to bear arms bit was written when all that was around where muskets and swords as personal weapons... not ak-47s and RPGs. The law was written about technology not a protection under law, technology changes even legal rights change (or should people still be slaves?)

Gun Control has nothing to do with a right to bear arms, gun control could actually mean no one is allowed anything but muskets and swords and it would fall within the original meaning of this "right".

So utterly lost and out of his depth that I can give no response, I am speechless at the level of knowledge that school systems provide. I weep for their future.

By this thought process Radio would not be protected by the 1st amendment.

I just can not believe I read that. I really cant. 
Please tell me you are 7 years old, It is the only redeeming reply I can think of.

I'm gonna have to agree. Circle gets the square.

TV and the Internet are no longer afforded protection under the 1st Amendment, seeing as that wasn't the original freedom of expression the founding fathers spoke of.

Just a thought here...
When the Second Amendment was written, any modern gun (of the late 1700s) was as good or better than military issue muskets.  The weapons of the citizens were on par with those of the military.  If the government became unreasonable, an entity the size of a state held a good chance of winning a civil war...given that a sizable portion of the public supported it.  This situation no longer exists. 

I am not advocating that citizens go out and purchase machine guns and anti-tank weapons.  I just found it interesting that, when the Second Amendment was written, a group of citizens could have overthrown the government if necessary.  That is, likely, no longer the case.

Fortunately, there probably will never be a despotic US regime to overthrow...thanks to the foresight and hard work of the founding fathers.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2006-06-26 08:51:04)