But what if your neighbor would like to own a gun to protect his family? In a true state of individual liberty he'd be allowed to do so as long as he was responsible enough not to hurt others, as most legal gun owners are.AnarkyXtra wrote:
Well, you put it fairly well: to do what makes me happy, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's happiness.
If guns make you feel happy, then that's fine. A lack of guns here makes me happy.
Well, hang on: you asked what I consider freedom to be. What has my neighbour owning a gun got to do with my happiness?
And if he did, how do I - or anyone else - know he's responsible? What about his wife? What about his brother who comes to visit? Are they all responsible? etc etc.
Like I said, I'm totally fine with knowing that you (as an individual and a nation) think guns make you free. This debate has been quite educational in that respect, insofar as I didn't really know why you all thought like that...and now I do.
And if he did, how do I - or anyone else - know he's responsible? What about his wife? What about his brother who comes to visit? Are they all responsible? etc etc.
Like I said, I'm totally fine with knowing that you (as an individual and a nation) think guns make you free. This debate has been quite educational in that respect, insofar as I didn't really know why you all thought like that...and now I do.
Nothing, it has to do with his happiness. My personal freedoms only extend as far as someone else's nose. My owning a gun does not directly affect my neighbor but his demands that I not own one would certainly affect me if I had to oblige.AnarkyXtra wrote:
Well, hang on: you asked what I consider freedom to be. What has my neighbour owning a gun got to do with my happiness?
And if he did, how do I - or anyone else - know he's responsible? What about his wife? What about his brother who comes to visit? Are they all responsible? etc etc.
Like I said, I'm totally fine with knowing that you (as an individual and a nation) think guns make you free. This debate has been quite educational in that respect, insofar as I didn't really know why you all thought like that...and now I do.
Rights come with responsibilities. How do we know you're responsible behind the wheel off a three thousand pound machine that can travel triple digit speeds? Because you're licensed, you've proven that you can be proficient with a vehicle and not be a danger to others. While I'm not required to take any courses to have a gun in my own home, as I shouldn't be, most states that allow concealed carry permits require at least standard saftey instruction. If your neighbor hasn't commited any crimes then why should you assume that he's not responsible?
I'm perfectly ok with other people not owning guns; I would never try to push them onto anyone nor force anyone to see my views. But my idea of liberty requires that no one else ever be allowed to restrict my most basic rights, including that to my life and to protect it as I see fit.
Thanks for keeping the debate civil, it's been a pleasure.
Ok, but there's nothing to say that he is responsible with a gun, or whether he'd actually be able to use it in a safe manner, should he ever feel the need to use it.FeloniousMonk wrote:
If your neighbor hasn't commited any crimes then why should you assume that he's not responsible?
Ditto. I appreciate I've not necessarily been civil to one or two others, but they weren't putting across proper arguments. Debate should be just that, not a contest to see who's the bigger Internet macho man.FeloniousMonk wrote:
Thanks for keeping the debate civil, it's been a pleasure.
True but there's nothing to say that he isn't responsible either. Believe me, almost nothing angers me more than seeing a gun owner who doesn't follow the four crucial safety rules and doesn't regularly target practice. In my opinion a gun without the training is as useless as the training without a gun.AnarkyXtra wrote:
Ok, but there's nothing to say that he is responsible with a gun, or whether he'd actually be able to use it in a safe manner, should he ever feel the need to use it.
Again, it's just a different mindset because of our different histories. We've learned to trust ourselves more than people who rise to power.
Pepper spray is always effective and if isn't it's not pepper spray I haven't yet seen no one who hasn't gone down when sprayd up on. Tear gas dosn't work on every one and is highly contaminating.FeloniousMonk wrote:
Pepper spray is not always effective. I would much rather incapacitate a bad guy with a bullet than with a spray. There's a better chance for my survival. Period. That's all that matters; if someone is trying to hurt or kill me or someone else, they no longer deserve to live and if it means putting a bullet in someone's temple to keep him from raping a girl on the street, I'll do it without a moment's hesistation.
The rapist will be dead, the girl will be alive and healthy. I don't see a down side to this.
Yes, a misfired rounds can kill someone which is why training is important. We don't have a problem with cops running around with guns despite the fact that many amatuer shooters are far better trained than police officers. Private gun owners like to hit the range as often as possible, cops only do so when required.
I have no problem with the castration of rapists but I still believe that a woman should be allowed the chance to protect herself. If she just lays down and takes it then the criminal wins and there's a likely chance that he will rape again. If she manages to shoot a hole in his head then there's a much smaller chance that he'll rape again.
And if the rapist is you father or relative what then? Should he be killed too?
So it's okey to misfire a few rounds and kill some one on the other side of the road while killing the attacker who is taking only you wallet or something? Doesn't have to be a rapist just a bad guy.
Last edited by Hakula (2005-11-25 05:22:45)
Sorry but you're wrong. Pepper spray, even the stuff cops carry, is not always effective. The reason being that if it doesn't hit a crucial point on the body it's not going to do anything. If a mugger gets pepper spray on his leg it's not going to stop him; if he gets a bullet in that leg he's likely to hit the ground.Hakula wrote:
Pepper spray is always effective and if isn't it's not pepper spray I haven't yet seen no one who hasn't gone down when sprayd up on. Tear gas dosn't work on every one and is highly contaminating.
And if the rapist is you father or relative what then? Should he be killed too?
So it's okey to misfire a few rounds and kill some one on the other side of the road while killing the attacker who is taking only you wallet or something? Doesn't have to be a rapist just a bad guy.
All rapists should be killed, end of story. If someone is caught in the act of raping a woman I would shoot without a moment's hesistation. (edit: eh, maybe that was a bit harsh because i know of too many cases where a girl simply lies about being raped and the guy isn't at fault...but anyone caught in the act is not going to be shown any mercy from me)
No, it's not ok to misfire even a single round. That's why I keep stressing the importance of safety and training. We trust cops not to misfire, don't we? You think just because they're wearing uniforms that they won't miss? The only reason we trust them not to hit innocent bystanders is because of their training, the same kind of training that any responsible gun owner gladly takes. You'd be amazed at how many people at the average firing range can shoot better than most non-SWAT police officers.
No, I wouldn't advocate shooting someone for trying to steal a wallet. A gun should be used to preserve human life, to protect one's safety. If someone poses a threat to my safety or the safety of another, they've given up their own right to it. If someone tries to steal my wallet by demanding it, I won't pull a gun. I've had enough hand to hand combat training that few men would scare me in that situation; however, the moment I saw a knife or a gun or any other indication that would suggest to me that my life is in danger, I'd draw. I'd also draw if that same mugger was posing an imminent threat to anyone with me.
One of the most crucial rules of gun safety is that you never fire unless you're sure of the target; you don't even put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire and you don't point your gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. Now the fact that there are people out there who don't take on the responsibilities associated with the rights sickens me. If I could change that I would, and I try to encourage gun owners and prospective gun owners to etch all the safety rules into their brains and to target practice as often as possible. Again, a gun without the training is as useless as the training without a gun.
Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2005-11-25 08:02:27)
right to bare arms.... you can wear sleeveless shirts whenever you like, obviously.
god bless american public schools.
god bless american public schools.
Since when are M16's fully automatic? I only see single and burst when I see anything about M16's, not full, AK-47, auto.Homeschtar wrote:
I do think we should be able to bear Shotguns, handguns and the like, but the NRA is a little extreme. There aren't any citizens in the U.S. that need an M16 laying around the house. Shootings are already bad enough in the U.S. now, handing everyone an automatic would just make it worse.KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:
Well, thank God you do not have the final say on this issue. Already we have given in on this by saying OK just Automatic weapons for people with a lic. They meant just what it says we as citizens have the right to keep and bare firearms. Thank god for the NRA. As soon as they take or try to take one weapon then all will someday be taken just like in other countries. The right is mine and all Americans and I hope it remains that way. SUPPORT NRA!!!!
Yea, then when the Government shows up at your doorstep wanting to throw you out of your house for no reason, I can see you taking down the group of guys, most likly in body armor, with your single shot tranq, while they still have their real arms lol.Mad dawg wrote:
I think they ment bear arms by weapons. Not specifically guns. i think they mean like knifes and stuf like that. I dont think they really ment keep a gun at ur doorstep and everytime someone rings the doorbell u answer it holding a DAO. u wouldnt look to friendly now would u. lol. I think they should change that to like tranquilizer arms or something. Lol
There is not a lack of guns, anywhere, you are ignorant if you believe no criminals will have guns, no matter what your countries "laws" are, they don't follow laws, that's why we call them criminals. I hope a guy with a gun breaks into your house, and steals your T.V., I don't want him to hurt you, but I want you to run around angrily saying, "Why don't I have one of those?! I could have protected my T.V.!" since most criminals are cowards!AnarkyXtra wrote:
Well, you put it fairly well: to do what makes me happy, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's happiness.FeloniousMonk wrote:
How do you perceive freedom? Again, I'm not trying to put you down, I just have a different point of view and I'm curious what yours is.
If guns make you feel happy, then that's fine. A lack of guns here makes me happy.
Last edited by piett55 (2006-01-29 22:55:19)
Hmm, I notice Australia is off the list... And we have strict gun control laws.atlvolunteer wrote:
Yeah, the UK, which doesn't allow anyone to own guns (except hunters who must keep them locked up at a hunting lodge), has higher crime per capita than the US.General_Anabolic wrote:
Here is the per capita data:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
Looks like the US is less then several western European countries. Yes the US needs to get crime down but its not because people have the right to guns.
The thing is, we actually LEARNT from our mistakes. It took just one gun massacre (Port Arthur) to make us come to our senses.
So therefore: Hard to get guns, and what do you know! The only school shooting I can remember was with a crossbow.
Anyway, you can't get shot if you don't have any guns. Learn to fast-bowl a cricket ball if you want to kill someone.
Although if you screw up, you SCREW UP big time.
--
Do some research before making such claims please.KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:
Also in our country we have a Constitution which you all don't. We also had a civil war and killed our own for our fredoms and rights, did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_constitution
--
Horseman: Please use the quote tool. It's confusing, instead of "<insert name here> said <insert comment here>, Horseman: <insert reply here> "
--
See! I haven't called anyone names! So eat that, bitches!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lol no need for guns when you have boomerangsSpark wrote:
atlvolunteer wrote:
General_Anabolic wrote:
Here is the per capita data:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
Looks like the US is less then several western European countries. Yes the US needs to get crime down but its not because people have the right to guns.
Yeah, the UK, which doesn't allow anyone to own guns (except hunters who must keep them locked up at a hunting lodge), has higher crime per capita than the US.
Hmm, I notice Australia is off the list... And we have strict gun control laws.
The thing is, we actually LEARNT from our mistakes. It took just one gun massacre (Port Arthur) to make us come to our senses.
So therefore: Hard to get guns, and what do you know! The only school shooting I can remember was with a crossbow.
Anyway, you can't get shot if you don't have any guns. Learn to fast-bowl a cricket ball if you want to kill someone.
Although if you screw up, you SCREW UP big time.
It's hard to compare the crime rate with number of gun owners.....what would be far more interesting is Crime Vs. Punishment in the graphs that were so elegantly linked. Sure China or Wonderland has an extremely low muder per capita however if the punishment is death...and I don't mean 20 years of appeals proceeses then I would imagine that people in those countries think twice before commiting a crime.
A few years ago in a neighboring city a woman was parking her car at a mall when two armed suspects opened her car door pointed a gun in her face and told her to move over she was being car-jacked...she pulled out a Colt 1911 .45 and killed one and wounded the other....that City and ZERO carjackings for a full year after the incident. Now I'm not saying that this is the soul reason to own a handgun....but a pretty damn good reason that my wife packs heat.
When our forefathers wrote the Constitution....keep in mind that they were fearing an overly oppressive government. It is an excellent document and I'm amazed that it still stands pretty much intact. But we all know that changes have to be made for our Nation to grow and mature. That's where the existing government has it's hands full trying to balance what was written then and what needs our Great Country has now.
Flame-Catcher
A few years ago in a neighboring city a woman was parking her car at a mall when two armed suspects opened her car door pointed a gun in her face and told her to move over she was being car-jacked...she pulled out a Colt 1911 .45 and killed one and wounded the other....that City and ZERO carjackings for a full year after the incident. Now I'm not saying that this is the soul reason to own a handgun....but a pretty damn good reason that my wife packs heat.
When our forefathers wrote the Constitution....keep in mind that they were fearing an overly oppressive government. It is an excellent document and I'm amazed that it still stands pretty much intact. But we all know that changes have to be made for our Nation to grow and mature. That's where the existing government has it's hands full trying to balance what was written then and what needs our Great Country has now.
Flame-Catcher
Baseball bat never goes out of style but it seems most people that have a firearm for home defence is a 12 gauge shotgun.
But today in the Modern Age most americans have there own Atom Bomb tucked away in there closet for home defence.
But today in the Modern Age most americans have there own Atom Bomb tucked away in there closet for home defence.
Last edited by Berserk_Vampire (2006-01-30 00:18:17)
Guns were never the problem. We had very few gun laws and little crime. My girl friend tells me in Pa. USA During Hunting season kids would bring their rifles to school and leave in their lockers.
The problem is our over breeding welfare class goverment dependent crackhead scum who infest our country and "alltough everyone else could " just can't seem to climb out of poverty no matter how much money free housing food stamps etc. you throw at them. " the democratic voter base " When you look at the Election results map, you will see ( in 2000 and 2004 ) Bush took every state except for the states with Huge slums. New york. Mass. Cali.
The thread is "what did OUR forefathers mean " Not what do you think about ownership in Aussy, lol
When they took your Firearms away, they were saying " you'd be a mass murderer too if you had a gun ! and you are agreeing with them. Thats cool. thats how you think of yourself and fellow Aussy's
The problem is our over breeding welfare class goverment dependent crackhead scum who infest our country and "alltough everyone else could " just can't seem to climb out of poverty no matter how much money free housing food stamps etc. you throw at them. " the democratic voter base " When you look at the Election results map, you will see ( in 2000 and 2004 ) Bush took every state except for the states with Huge slums. New york. Mass. Cali.
The thread is "what did OUR forefathers mean " Not what do you think about ownership in Aussy, lol
When they took your Firearms away, they were saying " you'd be a mass murderer too if you had a gun ! and you are agreeing with them. Thats cool. thats how you think of yourself and fellow Aussy's
mmmmmm................huh?Horseman 77 wrote:
Guns were never the problem. We had very few gun laws and little crime. My girl friend tells me in Pa. USA During Hunting season kids would bring their rifles to school and leave in their lockers.
The problem is our over breeding welfare class goverment dependent crackhead scum who infest our country and "alltough everyone else could " just can't seem to climb out of poverty no matter how much money free housing food stamps etc. you throw at them. " the democratic voter base " When you look at the Election results map, you will see ( in 2000 and 2004 ) Bush took every state except for the states with Huge slums. New york. Mass. Cali.
The thread is "what did OUR forefathers mean " Not what do you think about ownership in Aussy, lol
When they took your Firearms away, they were saying " you'd be a mass murderer too if you had a gun ! and you are agreeing with them. Thats cool. thats how you think of yourself and fellow Aussy's
While I'll agree with the over-breeding of welfare smooching crack heads, I...myself don't like to lump all welfare recipients into the same class. Some need it and when used properly is one of the best tools our goverment has to combat poverty.
However don't misrepresent the facts and attune them to only your arguement. While the States you've listed, have "slums" so does every major city in the western world. I do and will continue to support (even openly) Bush....I hate getting into left wing/right wing...rePUBLICAN/DemocRAT arguments as this is the reason our Country has a problem getting major issues resolved. Always too worried about who's sukin who and who ain't getting theirs.
Flame-Catcher
No wonder 50,000 people are killed by guns in USA each year...KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:
Well, thank God you do not have the final say on this issue. Already we have given in on this by saying OK just Automatic weapons for people with a lic. They meant just what it says we as citizens have the right to keep and bare firearms. Thank god for the NRA. As soon as they take or try to take one weapon then all will someday be taken just like in other countries. The right is mine and all Americans and I hope it remains that way. SUPPORT NRA!!!!
I often wish I had an AK-47 sitting on the wall in my kitchen JUST IN CASE the shit hits the fan.
if the shit hits the fan, you dont need an AK-47, you need papertowels, cleaning products and suchRathji wrote:
I often wish I had an AK-47 sitting on the wall in my kitchen JUST IN CASE the shit hits the fan.
Dont confuse an AK-47 with proper cleaning tools, many have probably died needlessly for that reason!
Well I am not a judge on the Supreme Court or a lawyer, but I am pretty sure the constitution needs to be looked at with regard to the time when it was conceived. The colonies had just succesfully engaged in a brutal rebellion against their motherland ( strangely enough, today, those guys are called patriots, while they were technically rebels/terrorists/insurgents at the time ). They felt that the laws of the british empire were suppressive and that they were not as free as they thought they should be.
Also, they had no standing army at the time. every man essentially fought with the weapons he had at home for personal defense ( muggers, the natives, wild animals, etc ) anyway.
Therefore, considering the circumstances under which the US was created, it should not be much of a surprise that the framers of the constitution wanted to keep the principle of an armed militia. They had witnessed first hand what an oppressive government can do ( the british weren't very well behaved in their attempts to bring the rebels back into the Empire ).
So, put into its historical context, it is perfectly obvious why such a "right to bare arms" would be added to the constitution.
The Question at hand is, what does it mean today ?
The argument back then was "if we keep a militia with wepaons comparable to those of a national army, we can be sure the government is kept in check"
Is that argument still valid today ? Of course it isn't. Times have changed. The balance of power between the people and the government has been carefully constructed during the last 200+ years. Moreover, today, it is a democratically elected government, compared to a monarchy back in the 18th century.
Therefore, today the people in the US actually have the power to change the laws which govern them, through their elected representatives.
They don't need a militia as a safeguard. that's just paranoia.
That's why I believe that the right to keep and bare arms, while being perfectly valid under the circumstances back then, can be questioned today.
Wether it should be abolished at all is something which the US government ( being the elected representatives of the people ) has to decide.
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." - Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821
Also, they had no standing army at the time. every man essentially fought with the weapons he had at home for personal defense ( muggers, the natives, wild animals, etc ) anyway.
Therefore, considering the circumstances under which the US was created, it should not be much of a surprise that the framers of the constitution wanted to keep the principle of an armed militia. They had witnessed first hand what an oppressive government can do ( the british weren't very well behaved in their attempts to bring the rebels back into the Empire ).
So, put into its historical context, it is perfectly obvious why such a "right to bare arms" would be added to the constitution.
The Question at hand is, what does it mean today ?
The argument back then was "if we keep a militia with wepaons comparable to those of a national army, we can be sure the government is kept in check"
Is that argument still valid today ? Of course it isn't. Times have changed. The balance of power between the people and the government has been carefully constructed during the last 200+ years. Moreover, today, it is a democratically elected government, compared to a monarchy back in the 18th century.
Therefore, today the people in the US actually have the power to change the laws which govern them, through their elected representatives.
They don't need a militia as a safeguard. that's just paranoia.
That's why I believe that the right to keep and bare arms, while being perfectly valid under the circumstances back then, can be questioned today.
Wether it should be abolished at all is something which the US government ( being the elected representatives of the people ) has to decide.
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." - Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821
Why would you want to shave your arms? Though I do agree with keeping them, would be awfully difficult doing things without them.
Gaah, this thread is back?
piett55: Actually, the M16 was originally fully auto, and (I think) the real M16 now has four settings: Safe, Single, Burst, Full Auto.
Schuss: One thing to think about: if the second ammendment were repealed in the US, who would suffer? The law-abiding citizen. Do you think the criminals (who acquire their guns illegally anyway) would turn in their guns?
piett55: Actually, the M16 was originally fully auto, and (I think) the real M16 now has four settings: Safe, Single, Burst, Full Auto.
Schuss: One thing to think about: if the second ammendment were repealed in the US, who would suffer? The law-abiding citizen. Do you think the criminals (who acquire their guns illegally anyway) would turn in their guns?