Guns and paranoid citizens.
Should guns be legal? maybe just illegalize semi and fully automatics?
The way i see it, by keeping a gun at home you're more prone to have an accident with it than actually use it on somebody that attacks you. And if someone goes to your house ilelgally its usually to steal, not kill you. I've had 2 people break into my house, and as soon as they see me they run for they're lives. Worst case scenario is they tie you up while they steal. Killing the house owner would be the single dumbest thign a mugger could do, since they get into much more trouble.
Violence generates more violence. It is a proved fact that gun control makes murders go down a lot. Murderers and criminals arent born that way, but having guns around them all day long sure as hell doesnt help them avoid criminal lives. Right now getting a gun in america is as easy as getting a hamburger. And everyone goes around with the dumb argument of "guns dont kill people, people kill people.". Its funny how people believe it more when it rhymes. Its either that argument or its they're american paranoia, telling them that if they dont have a gun, when a murderer comes to they're house, they're gonna die a horrible death. Cmon. the chances of someone going to your house to murder you are slim to non. Unless you actually fucked up with a drug dealer or something.
Getting killed in the street is easier. But unless you're gonna go around with you're gun in your belt its useless at home. ANd who goes around with a gun in they're belt? its sick. WHo the fuck is so alienated by media that they actually have to go with a gun in they're belt as they walk by they're own neighbourhood to feel some fake safety?
Im sick of it. Getting murdered is a risk in life, deal with it. Out of 50 people, nearly half of them will die before they're 50.Be it disease accidents or murder, its a risk in life, a risk you have to embrace and accept. Going aorund with a gun wont help you. We aint in the wild west, a criminal isnt gonna challenge you to a duel before he shoots you. He's just gonna shoot you.
FPT, what sort of "gun control" are you talking about? when most people talk about legislative gun control they mean the absence of ability for a citizen to legally purchase a gun. i'm all for gun control, but not that sort. i'm for the sort of gun control that educates the people it gives firearms to. removing guns from citizen's hands has not been proven to reduce the amount of violent crimes, not even slightly. i think i've provided all the stats on this in the other gun control thread from a while ago. here's the link: [url]http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=6964[/url]
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a gun. But an assault weapon? That's ridiculous. I mean, why the fuck do you need a gun that can shoot through cement blocks?
No i dont mean no guns at all. Even if i dont support and wouldnt have guns, people have they're rights. Gun control means (for me):
-no semi or fully automatic guns. Ever.
-A deep and intense series of mental and psychological tests before a gun is allowed
-Papers for the gun ownership. THis will only be given if the user has a good reason for having a gun. Papers must be reviewed and updated yearly.
-Only guns and hunting guns allowed. You might wanna defend yourself, but a semi automatic is overkill
-No more than two guns per household. (granted that one is for hunting and the other for self defence, and this only if the hunting gun is too big and awkward for quick self defense use) You really dont need more.
-The police should have your name on a list, and you should never take the gun out of the state without police permission.
If any of these rules are violated, the responsible one should be shot in the head at town center.
not!
But some time in jail with no fee or paying out of it option is a must have.
And i know chris rock said it as a joke, but 5000 dollar bullets is not a bad idea.
Also police should do raids where all existing guns be burnt so we can start with a new slate so to speak.
what's the problem with semi-automatics? most of them are no more powerful than a hunting rifle. basically it's their look that usually gets them removed from the public.
sometimes a gun's name get's it removed, like what was that one, the "street sweeper" or soemthing?
I look at gun control in the same way I look at how I think we should regulate drugs: basically, by not. I don't want the government to take away my rights, especially those allocated by our constitution, just because some people are irresponsible and dumb.
Now, as for automatic weapons, I see no need for those to be in the hands of civilians.
[QUOTE=Judas]I look at gun control in the same way I look at how I think we should regulate drugs: basically, by not. I don't want the government to take away my rights, especially those allocated by our constitution, just because some people are irresponsible and dumb.
Now, as for automatic weapons, I see no need for those to be in the hands of civilians.[/QUOTE]
and what exactly should the government due to not take away your rights yet still restrict what kinds of guns you can own?
You tell me why anyone needs to make a hole the size of a head in something as a hobby.
Okay, that was skating. People should be allowed to bear arms, just not weapons that can inflict that amount of harm on other people.
I'm against gun control, because I've seen first hand how well it doesn't work. HOWEVER, your death by gun ratio per capita is astounding.
Basically, if you're not a proffessional target shooter or a hunter, why the fuck should all these guns be floating around?
I mean AK-47s? That's just asking for trouble.
[QUOTE=Judas]I don't want the government to take away my rights, especially those allocated by our constitution, just because some people are irresponsible and dumb.[/QUOTE]
It's an outdated amendment, and it's not like it's one of the ten commandments.
Why people lump "bear arms" with "freedom of speech" is beyond my comprehension.
against too much gun control. certain weapons that have no recreatoinal/reasonable self defense purpose really need not be available or legal for citizens ie: assault rifles. but I believe the public should not be disarmed as a whole, only individuals who have used a firearm in any setting other than self defense or recreation. the reason why the rest of us should be allowed to carry guns is obvious: some people will always carry guns, registered or not, and some people will always use them for harm. if you disarm honest citizens, you make self defense one step harder to accomplish while turing some gun enthusiasts and right to bear arms kind of people into criminals for not wanting to surrender their perfectly legal gun collection.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE]
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
[/QUOTE]
Are regular citizens well regulated militia needing to secure freedom of the state?
Are militias currently necessary to the security of a free state?
so to everyone who's answered against semi-automatic and full automatic guns, what do you have to say about gun collectors?
They've got a lame hobby.
[QUOTE=mungkay]Are militias currently necessary to the security of a free state?[/QUOTE]
maybe, maybe not. the purpose of a militia has always been more for protecting citizens from their own goverment. a militia is not going to help fight terrorism or protect our borders, it's supposed to be there to keep the government in check. this is the one of the long-forgotten arguments against gun control. these days it's all 'people accidentally get shot' vs 'i want protection against criminals who invade my home!'. i'm opposed to gun control because, considering how dangerous powerful our government is, and how little they are trusted by everybody, i don't want to live in a country where the government has missiles that can actually fly down a chimney to hit a target while all the citizens aren't even allowed to own .22's for home protection. in my mind that is a huge fucking step towards a police state, big brother-ism, etc.
But always misquoted 2nd amendment make it clear that we [I]do not[/I] have right to bare arm...unless of course you are a militia currently necessary to the security of a free state. Which nobody is.
That's a very interesting point izen.
I have a question: could the NRA be considered a militia? How does one go about forming aa militia?
[QUOTE=bboymute]But always misquoted 2nd amendment make it clear that we [I]do not[/I] have right to bare arm...unless you are a militia currently necessary to the security of a free state[/QUOTE]
so give us the direct quote. i've never heard anybody suggest that amendment 2 is misquoted.
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]so to everyone who's answered against semi-automatic and full automatic guns, what do you have to say about gun collectors?[/QUOTE]
They should collect guns. Not automatic and semiautomatics. Its like if i like making small fireworks, why cant i get an h bomb? i swear om not gonna use it, i just like collecting them and showing them to people.
[QUOTE=izen]so give us the direct quote. i've never heard anybody suggest that amendment 2 is misquoted.[/QUOTE]
I already did but I'll do it again
[QUOTE]Amendment ll
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[/QUOTE]
People alway only quote right to bare arms part.
[QUOTE=mungkay]They've got a lame hobby.[/QUOTE]
heaps above stamp collecting. even so, gun collectors aside, everyone talks about the GUN's potential to destroy, the GUN's potential to kill, the GUN's capabilities exceeding what someone should need. since when is gun control about the guns and not the people using the guns. i've made the comparison time and again. vehicles kill more people than gun per anum (in the US), yet are viewed as being "more necessary" than guns. they're both TOOLS, and their capabilities are not the issue. the issue IS how the PEOPLE use these TOOLS. it's not the guns at all, it's the uneducated persons using them. the goal should not be to be in a society where guns are non-existant, but to be in a society where guns do exist and the people know the proper use of them. it has nothing to do with what type of gun they're using. in fact i'd go out on a limb (and it's not a very hard limb to go out on) and say that most weapons used in violent crimes are not actually registered to the person committing the crime.
[QUOTE=bboymute]I already did but I'll do it again
People alway only quote right to bare arms part.[/QUOTE]
gotcha, i didn't pay attention when you quoted it before, i paid more attention to your oddly phrased question in the same post.
[QUOTE=izen]gotcha, i didn't pay attention when you quoted it before, i paid more attention to your oddly phrased question in the same post.[/QUOTE]
But my personal opinion is let people own them if they fancy that sort of stuff.
[QUOTE=Fake Plstic Trees]They should collect guns. Not automatic and semiautomatics. Its like if i like making small fireworks, why cant i get an h bomb? i swear om not gonna use it, i just like collecting them and showing them to people.[/QUOTE]
why the comparison of guns:semiautomatics and fireworks:h bomb? and what's it to you if someone want to have a fully automatice weapon on display? what's it to you if an EDUCATED person (educated on weapon handling) owns an assault weapon, or even a fully automatic weapon?
i shall now draw upon the power of my previous posts
"they're only for killing people" - is not reflected in the crime rates before and during the ban
"there's no need for them" - as i said, there's no need for a lot of things, why ban them then?
"i don't like them" - that's your opinion, not legislation
"why buy them when you can get something that works the same cheaper?" - because you don't want the cheaper item, much in the same way people tend to buy name brand items
"you can buy kits to make them automatic" - yea, you can obtain information on how to MAKE and automatic, doesn't make it illegal. you can buy the technology to record mix cds and download music, even if it's illegal.
...
i'm not saying there is a need for them, but just because there's no need does that mean that the government should put a ban on these items? for that matter there's no need for hummers, i say the gov't bans them, there's no need for any assortment of items that we legally posess the rights to have, yet the gov't does not impose bans on them. why is that? because there is a strong preconceived notion that legally owning a weapon will influence one's saftey toward the negative, and on top of that, most people tend to think that banning weapons will help lower crime, when both of those ideas have no bearing, hold absolutely no weight and have no evidence to support them, but rather have evidence to disprove them.
stop hanging onto your preconcieved notions that it is the bloody tool that is what we need to be discussing here.
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]why the comparison of guns:semiautomatics and fireworks:h bomb? and what's it to you if someone want to have a fully automatice weapon on display? what's it to you if an EDUCATED person (educated on weapon handling) owns an assault weapon, or even a fully automatic weapon?[/QUOTE]
Where does the line get drawn? Who draws the line?
If the person's educated, why not a rocket launcher? Why not a landmine? Why not an anti tank gun?
Also, what's wrong with owning an unfirable weapon for collecting? People collect antique guns too old to fire, you never hear them complaining.
[QUOTE=mungkay]Where does the line get drawn? Who draws the line?
If the person's educated, why not a rocket launcher? Why not a landmine? Why not an anti tank gun?[/QUOTE]
good question. my best answer to that would be, research the semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. semi-autos are no more powerful than your average hunting rifle, and generally pump out no more shots per second than your average handgun. the assault weapons ban was about semi-autos only, and i have no problem with that ban being lifted. the assault weapon was being challanged due to it's appearance. i don't see why it would be overly detrimental for the public to have the capability to own them. fully automatic weapons i'm uncertain on. i'm sure there are plenty of reasons to have them in circulation, and plenty of reasons not to. considering the US has an incredible tax restriction on fully automatic weapons for public use, and none are made in the US anymore, i don't think that's something we have to worry about. there are also steps in place to regulate more destructive weapons, such as rocket launchers and land mines and anti-tank guns. yet there are still provisions for collectors to own these. i'd draw the line somewhere before fully automatic weapon to be widely available to the mass market. there are ways to protect who can legally own certain types of firearms.
and as per bboy's post, militia refers to anyone who is a citizen
"All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly.
and a bit of interesting reading from the Second Amendment Foundation-
[list]There are an estimated 65 million handguns in private circulation in the United States. (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 9/1997)[/list]
[list]The fastest growing group of gun owners is women, according to Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns.[/list]
[list]Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun (Targeting Guns).[/list]
[list]The accidental firearm death rate is at it's lowest point since records were started nearly 100 years ago according to Injury Facts 2000 from the national Safety Council.[/list]
[list]Motor-vehicle accidents, drowning, suffocation, and fires each kill more children under the age of fifteen than do firearms.[/list]
[list]Less than one handgun in 6,500 is ever used in a homicide.[/list]
so why are people so afraid of guns? my answer = media hype.
Right, my two bits:
Guns are dangerous. The reason there are laws regarding guns is the same reason why your mom tells you not to run with scissors. While it doesn't happen to everyone you know, people do get hurt sometimes and often it's serious. I don't agree with making guns illegal, especially in the US. People, especially every place between Seattle and New York, would go completely apeshit about how the government will soon be taking away their babies and making them all communists. Plus, you take away the guns from all the legal owners and the only people left with guns are the criminals. At this point, the US is just not ready to give up its right to bare arms. In my opinion, though, semi-autos, autos, assault rifles, and maybe even handguns just don't deserve a place in homes. These guns were made with the sole purpose of killing people. They don't have any other purpose, so why have them if you don't intend to use them? Now, in the real world, I know there's no way we're getting rid of all of these weapons. So, realistically, permits should be needed everywhere, licenses for each gun, background checks, anything that can be done to make guns difficult to get your hands on. If you really want that AK47 that badly, you should be able to prove that you want it just to look pretty. I'm sure I have more to say on the subject, but I've come to the end of my train of thought for the moment.
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]The "militia" was provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads:
"All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly. [/QUOTE]
But still not a well regulated nor a necessity of securing free of state.
[QUOTE=bboymute]But still not a well regulated nor a necessity of securing free of state.[/QUOTE]
militia regulation generally comes after it's decided that the citizens are in need to take up arms against their government. i'm not saying that at this point in time is it necessary, but a lack of necessity does not equal the right to remove arms from the public.
I disagree with gun control. Guns are not the problem, people are. People can kill themselves with tons of other things, and just because of that we are not going to live in a padded world because of it.
So...We are still going to die. Right?
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]militia regulation generally comes after it's decided that the citizens are in need to take up arms against their government. i'm not saying that at this point in time is it necessary, but a lack of necessity does not equal the right to remove arms from the public.[/QUOTE]
Well, according to the constitution, yes, it does...
Since we now have army ordinary citizens necessary to pick up arms to fight and [I]even[/I] if we ,hypothetically, are a necessity, we still don't have rights to bare arms unless we are a part of well form group.
-----
^that is of course according to the constitution. Personally I don't care who owns what they fancy.
With the way things are going politically, militias' of Demeocrats might be forming soon 
.
Guns are dangerous, no matter what type, be it 9mm hand guns, Tek 9, or a 30-30. But its the people behind them that make them dangerous.Just like its the people who make cars dangerous. Take people out of the process, and everything is harmless.
A well trained, educated person with firearms poses no threat to society. They have taken the proper classes and had the proper traing on their use.
Most gun related crimes are commited with stolen handguns. Some of those arent even semi auto.
There is no easy answer. You try to take away guns and we will have a revolt and Republicans in office for the next 50 years.
Whatever, I dont even own one, so who am I to talk.
[QUOTE=bboymute]Well, according to the constitution, yes, it does...
Since we now have army ordinary citizens necessary to pick up arms to fight and [I]even[/I] if we ,hypothetically, are a necessity, we still don't have rights to bare arms unless we are a part of well form group.
-----
^that is of course according to the constitution. Personally I don't care who owns what they fancy.[/QUOTE]
the constitution [B]does not[/B] call for arms to be taken away from public use in the meantime. that would just be a silly provision. if guns were not available, and the people wanted to take up arms against their government, you think the government would just jump right up and say "get your guns, get your guns!". the constitution DOES say that there is a right to bear arms by the people in such a case as it is necessary.
We should also then discuss about there being no rule against dogs playing major league soccer or basketball(unless of course there is a rule that say no dogs allowed, then I was misinformed by 'Air Bud'). Or 'Stop' signs and 'Do Not Walk' signs.
[QUOTE=bboymute]We should also then discuss about there being no rule against dogs playing major league soccer or basketball(unless of course there is a rule that say no dogs allowed, then I was misinformed by 'Air Bud'). Or 'Stop' signs and 'Do Not Walk' signs.[/QUOTE]
there's no rule that i'm aware of for dogs playing any major sport. of course you'd have to find a coach ignorant enough to request an animal play on it's team. the constitution is only to be use to protect the rights of it's people. that's a given about the constitution. it is meant to be taken at it's word, and if it's word becomes outdated, or vague, it is meant to be updated. so far they have not found it necessary to update it as per firearms. so your rational doesn't hold up there.
and saying you've watched air bud (not to mention basing a whole post on it) doesn't help your credibility there
First thing first, I only saw the [I]trailer[/I] on TV, not the movie.
Second thing second, I did misunderstand your post. I guess people still have right to own a gun if it is well kept in your house.
I was only quoting 2nd amendment to show that we do not have the rights to [I]bare[/I] arms according to the constitution - because it's alway misquoted.
the full text of the 2nd amendment states:
it's not just talking about owning, but carrying. one is allowed to openly carry a weapon (as long as it's in a manner not calculated to cause alarm; ie holding it aimed at someone). many states also have provisions for conceal carry weapons. so we do have the right to bear arms.
what else are you basing your information on? the trailer to spy kids? heh
the moment we give up our rights to own weapons, or limit our rights to ownership we have sold ourselves to the government. fpt, owning guns isn't just about hunting and defending one's household and family it is also about defending your constitutional rights. at least for me it is . . . . have a wonderful afternoon!
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]what else are you basing your information on? the trailer to spy kids? heh ;)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state[/B], the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]
That part.
[QUOTE=bboymute]That part.[/QUOTE]
that's a nice segment of the full amendment, but when taken in context you'll see
"well regulated militia" explains why the amendment is needed. the RIGHT goes to the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. if the amendment read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" i might be with you on this one. it CLEARLY states that it's the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear the arms.
follow?
Not quite. Doesn't "being necessary to the security of a free State" mean anything? Don't we now have army? Or police? Or fire marshals?
This is off topic but why would a fire marshals need a gun?
and what happens when the army, police or the firemen at the behest of the federal government decide that your individual freedoms shall be abridged. what then? you gonna call ghostbusters?
[QUOTE=framstedt]and what happens when the army, police or the firemen at the behest of the federal government decide that your individual freedoms shall be abridged. what then? you gonna call ghostbusters?[/QUOTE]
Defend
can i do that when i come back from the laundry? i've got a load, maybe two and only so many quarters. but, in the spirit of keeping this dialog moving along, just imagine what it would be like if every organization that is supposed to be protecting us decided one day to act in concert and hold us hostage instead and we didn't have any weapons to rise up and defend ourselves and our rights.
i have an excellent example that is more specifically to the point but it really has to wait until my laundry is locked and loaded.
remember the wicker man for he shall burn away his sins and sanctify our harvest.
[QUOTE=bboymute]Not quite. Doesn't "being necessary to the security of a free State" mean anything? Don't we now have army? Or police? Or fire marshals?
This is off topic but why would a fire marshals need a gun?[/QUOTE]
you're obscuring the point, not to mention confusing the text of the constitution. lemme break it down now...
[b]meaning that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the citizens of the nation[/b]
the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
[b]meaning that the people therefor need the right to own and bear weapons, that this right is what will help when a "well regulated militia" is needed to protect the security of the citizens.[/b]
shall not be infringed.
[b]this amendment should never be overturned[/b]
with me yet? the sentence is set up so that the first part of the sentence is MODIFYING not BEING MODIFIED byt the second part.
paraphrased in today's language: [I] "The people need the right to own and bear weapons should there be a need for a well regulated militia to protect the citizens from the government. In no case should this amendment be overturned."[/I]
since the police and the military are under control of the government, this doesn't apply to them, but rather the citizens.
fire marshals are authorized to carry a firearm because they are authorized to conduct investigations, carry out investigation interviews, interrogations, and MAKE ARRESTS among other things. they are basically the fire station's liason with the police.
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]with me yet?[/QUOTE]
Except for the questionable usage of [I]militia[/I].
I tried to look for clear answer but everyone seems confused as well.
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]fire marshals are authorized to carry a firearm because they are authorized to conduct investigations, carry out investigation interviews, interrogations, and MAKE ARRESTS among other things. they are basically the fire station's liason with the police.[/QUOTE]
Ah.
i support lethal firearm ownership under one condition: training, and lots of it.
courses about lethal firearms contain some common themes:
you own a gun because you want to or may need to kill a person or animal.
when you point a gun at a person or animal, you intend to shoot them.
when you shoot a person or animal, you intend to kill them.
all of the usages of your gun are your responsibility.
as long as people understand this, gun ownership is fine.