Without guns it would be really hard for the revolt to come. And believe me its really important to allow that to happen. I mean its the natural order of governments imo. The rise, Corruption, Revolt and Fall.
Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
IF you are the kind of person who lets their governments run your life for you, then yes, gun control is fine. But for the rest of the populace who know that government doesn't really give a shit about their citizens, and whose only desire is to grab more power where they can get it, guns are a means of protecting the populace at large from retarded, corrupt (read:all) governments. Until you can understand this please stop starting threads on a topic that has been done to death, risen to undeath, and then beaten back down with a sledgehammer. Eventually you will realize that your government doesn't give a shit about your well-being, and I hope I'm there when that day comes.
You are not being cool or popular by raging against the U.S. for some perceived "barbarous ways" its already been done, move on to an original topic.
You are not being cool or popular by raging against the U.S. for some perceived "barbarous ways" its already been done, move on to an original topic.
The Founders were incredibly smart, well-educated men. They spent a good deal of time reviewing states and governments of old before penning the layout for the USA's government. Time and time and time again the removal of arms was the first step in governments oppressing thier people. If you take away the ability to overthrow government, there is no regulation keeping government from acting in self interest at the expense of the citizen. This concept is not western exclusive (look at Japan's history) nor is it outdated (World War II Germany's rise of the National Socialist Party, Communist Party taking power in Soviet Union).
Freedom is hard won and easily lost. A nation can look as benevolent as it likes, but somewhere in it is an ambitious tyrant waiting for thier time to shine.
I hate to bring up the tired addage "Outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns" but after a friend of mine went to Ireland for a few years on a musical apprenticeship had one person she knew gunned down for looking at a person funny and another having to be relocated by police because he caught the eye of the gangs and the police didnt even have the ability to confront the gangs because they had weapons and the police didnt...well I became a true believe in that trite but true saying.
Freedom is hard won and easily lost. A nation can look as benevolent as it likes, but somewhere in it is an ambitious tyrant waiting for thier time to shine.
I hate to bring up the tired addage "Outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns" but after a friend of mine went to Ireland for a few years on a musical apprenticeship had one person she knew gunned down for looking at a person funny and another having to be relocated by police because he caught the eye of the gangs and the police didnt even have the ability to confront the gangs because they had weapons and the police didnt...well I became a true believe in that trite but true saying.
Guns are meant to protect yourself from the government and others trying to harm you. If we banned guns, criminals would still get a hold of them, and even if they couldnt by some strange reason, they'd still kill even without a gun. Look at england, they banned guns and knife murders went way up after. Back in the late 80s, russia wanted to invade the US, and one of their reasons for backing off was because they found out almost every citizen owned a gun(it was admitted by their own general, btw.).
I think it could stand a bit of tightening down but I doubt the politicians could do it the right amount so I think it is fine the way it is, see if you had done it before just about everyone owned guns I would kinda agree but now if you get rid of all the guns it will basically just be criminals and besides I think with all the major society ending crap that could happen I would I think it is a good idea to keep a gun around encase someone launches up an emp. And even if we banned guns it would still be fairly easy for the people who you don't want with guns to get off the black market and besides if the government does ever need to be kicked off it's roost we will need guns.
actually the us's track record when dealing with gorrila warfare is REALLY bad I mean Nam Korea and Iraq(granted it hasn't been resolved but we are struggling) now if we were to try to have a good ol' fashioned war we would be boned but if we were to fight a gorrila war it COULD work.Wintermute_ said:
Did you know the number of school shootings in America dwarf the combined total from the rest of the entire world?
I found it out while researching gun laws/satistics and stuff for an assignment a while ago.
Another interesting thing is despite the high prevalence of arms in countries (such as in the middle east), it did absolutely nothing to suppress tyrannical regimes from seizing control in these areas.
Either way, its not going to change America, they're too stuck in their gun-tottering ways.
edit:
I mean look, one of their arguments against banning guns is 'knife murders would just go up instead', acting as if its clearly better to have deadly at any range guns, as opposed to deadly only at physical contact range knives...
I found it out while researching gun laws/satistics and stuff for an assignment a while ago.
Another interesting thing is despite the high prevalence of arms in countries (such as in the middle east), it did absolutely nothing to suppress tyrannical regimes from seizing control in these areas.
Either way, its not going to change America, they're too stuck in their gun-tottering ways.
edit:
I mean look, one of their arguments against banning guns is 'knife murders would just go up instead', acting as if its clearly better to have deadly at any range guns, as opposed to deadly only at physical contact range knives...
Your entire reply was great, and I agree entirely, but this one last segment reminded me of a bit of wisdom, eerily enough from a blue-collar comic. To quote Larry The Cable Guy: "If you can blame crime on guns, then I can blame miss-spelled words on my #2 pencil." Any tool is useful if you know how to use it, and a mis-used wrench can sink a battleship full of sailors just as easily as a 22" shell.Foolishman1776 said:
My personal view (though I don't pretend to be anything close to an expert on the matter) is that the second amendment shouldn't apply to America anymore, on the basis that the situation in 1787 was completely different than it is now (IE, we're not fending off attacks by Native Americans on a daily basis, and the concept of a true civilian militia is thus of little use). That said, I agree that starting to take away amendments from the Bill of Rights is a very slippery slope.
Additionally, I seriously question the usefulness of gun control. I wish we could get all guns out of the hands of nutjobs and criminals, but unfortunately, I think it's far too late for that.
Totally banning firearms in the United States would be as unfeasible and costly as it would be politically impossible. Furthermore, I believe relatively soft measures, such as completely banning automatic weapons or other "more dangerous" firearms, would simply be a waste of time. I rather doubt the average criminal uses a submachine gun, or an M16. More likely, he uses a small, easily-concealed handgun. Furthermore, if you look at some of the more horrifying shootings in America, you'll find that very few involved military-grade automatic weapons; the Virginia Tech massacre, as a recent example, involved only two semi-automatic pistols.
To summarize my seemingly-conflicting arguments: I believe the second amendment is no longer relevant and care little for any right to bear arms, but attempts at gun control are futile, and distract us from more...solve-able issues.
Also, this has been bugging me while reading over the thread. I sincerely doubt a civilian uprising could overthrow the United States government. First of all, we can pretty much throw numerical superiority out the window, because any such event will be political in nature; a small group of extremists, rather than a massive 300 million-person revolution.
The M1 Abrams is a US Army main battle tank. It has a 120mm main gun. Friendly fire incidents have shown that an M1 can survive a direct, point-blank hit...from another M1. Do you have any idea what shotguns and rifles (or an RPG, for that matter) would do to it? And if your plan is guerilla warfare, well, if you went to shoot at some soldiers, a Predator drone would simply follow you home. Then bomb you.
Oh, lastly: unless your strategy is "suicide bomb local civilians until Congress cuts funding for the war", Iraq isn't comparable. And unless you're a highly-experienced fighting force backed by China and the Soviets that already defeated the French after an eight-year war...Vietnam isn't exactly comparable either.
Additionally, I seriously question the usefulness of gun control. I wish we could get all guns out of the hands of nutjobs and criminals, but unfortunately, I think it's far too late for that.
Totally banning firearms in the United States would be as unfeasible and costly as it would be politically impossible. Furthermore, I believe relatively soft measures, such as completely banning automatic weapons or other "more dangerous" firearms, would simply be a waste of time. I rather doubt the average criminal uses a submachine gun, or an M16. More likely, he uses a small, easily-concealed handgun. Furthermore, if you look at some of the more horrifying shootings in America, you'll find that very few involved military-grade automatic weapons; the Virginia Tech massacre, as a recent example, involved only two semi-automatic pistols.
To summarize my seemingly-conflicting arguments: I believe the second amendment is no longer relevant and care little for any right to bear arms, but attempts at gun control are futile, and distract us from more...solve-able issues.
Also, this has been bugging me while reading over the thread. I sincerely doubt a civilian uprising could overthrow the United States government. First of all, we can pretty much throw numerical superiority out the window, because any such event will be political in nature; a small group of extremists, rather than a massive 300 million-person revolution.
The M1 Abrams is a US Army main battle tank. It has a 120mm main gun. Friendly fire incidents have shown that an M1 can survive a direct, point-blank hit...from another M1. Do you have any idea what shotguns and rifles (or an RPG, for that matter) would do to it? And if your plan is guerilla warfare, well, if you went to shoot at some soldiers, a Predator drone would simply follow you home. Then bomb you.
Oh, lastly: unless your strategy is "suicide bomb local civilians until Congress cuts funding for the war", Iraq isn't comparable. And unless you're a highly-experienced fighting force backed by China and the Soviets that already defeated the French after an eight-year war...Vietnam isn't exactly comparable either.
Guns effectively made natural selction obsolete.
What´s wrong with a knife or a blade and beeing up close and personal?
Guns`pff.
What´s wrong with a knife or a blade and beeing up close and personal?
Guns`pff.
Eh you will never win this debate, I think most people from other countries on the Escapist would agree with the OP but US citizens are the only people who like to defend it. Hey, maybe their minds will be changed when their family members are the victims of random mass public shootings.
Everyone who's pro 2A said it already so I'd like to posit this
Cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, in the name of saving lives we should ban them no? It's incredibly dangerous for everyone to just be able to buy a weapon of vehicular mass destruction like that!
and hundreds of kids die accidentally in swimming pools every single year in the united states alone, for the sake of the children we should brick up all the swimming pools! People are dying for guys!
Cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, in the name of saving lives we should ban them no? It's incredibly dangerous for everyone to just be able to buy a weapon of vehicular mass destruction like that!
and hundreds of kids die accidentally in swimming pools every single year in the united states alone, for the sake of the children we should brick up all the swimming pools! People are dying for guys!
I am uncomfortable around guns. I prefer my swords and daggers. Yes, I know, shut up. That's not my point. Anyway, knowing that people carry guns around does not make me feel safer. How many people had a gun in the Arizona shooting, yet didn't use it? A wise choice, but also punches a hole in the theory of "I carry it for protection." I believe many people pause too often with a gun, which makes it not worth having. HOWEVER, I believe it is a right that will never be taken away, nor should it be. But like many laws, people tend to follow the letter, not the spirit, of the law. I believe no civilian should own anything more than a bolt action hunting rifle and a standard hand gun. No one really needs a semi automatic or an assault rifle.
I saw a gun owner in an interview. He was training his young children on how to fire an assault rifle. I think it was an M-16, but I can't be sure. When asked about a new law that was attempting to pass prohibiting the sale of "deadly weapons" out of the hands of children (the law's term, not mine), the man held up a pin and said, "What's that supposed to mean? I was in the special forces, and as such, I can kill you with this pen (holds up a pen). Does that mean I shouldn't allow my kids to play with a pen?" People like that are missing the point of the argument, and they are missing it willingly, which in my opinion, makes them very dangerous.
I saw a gun owner in an interview. He was training his young children on how to fire an assault rifle. I think it was an M-16, but I can't be sure. When asked about a new law that was attempting to pass prohibiting the sale of "deadly weapons" out of the hands of children (the law's term, not mine), the man held up a pin and said, "What's that supposed to mean? I was in the special forces, and as such, I can kill you with this pen (holds up a pen). Does that mean I shouldn't allow my kids to play with a pen?" People like that are missing the point of the argument, and they are missing it willingly, which in my opinion, makes them very dangerous.
edit: doesn't want to embed for some reason so here's the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ZF_mjEGP4
Courtesy of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
Also FYI for the guys who are saying the 2nd Amendment only ensures firearms ownership for members of the militia it says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They are separate thoughts. The militia which is the common body of the populace taking up arms, not the formal military, is vital to the preservation of the free state. Thus the rights of the PEOPLE aka the common citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Watch through the 2A Today video, it'll take you maybe 30 minutes, then you can yell at me all you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ZF_mjEGP4
Courtesy of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
Also FYI for the guys who are saying the 2nd Amendment only ensures firearms ownership for members of the militia it says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They are separate thoughts. The militia which is the common body of the populace taking up arms, not the formal military, is vital to the preservation of the free state. Thus the rights of the PEOPLE aka the common citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Watch through the 2A Today video, it'll take you maybe 30 minutes, then you can yell at me all you want.
Aaaaaaaaand /thread.Radeonx said:
Anyone looking to abolish laws protecting your right to own/carry is an emotionally-charged fool. But let's say we DID remove a citizen's legal right to carry... like another country, perhaps known as a kingdom of sorts...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Funny how that works, huh? Guns are made illegal to all law-abiding citizens, and yet crimes with guns rise! It's almost as if the criminals know their victims can't fight back effectively without a gun of their own...fascinating!
Google "knife crime" or "it doesn't have to happen", then ask yourself a morbid question...namely, "Gun or knife, which way would I rather go out?"
I also love how we've raised the US Military to this new status of godhood [the same "godly" Military that can't find Osama (who at 6'4" in Afghanistan, is similar to looking for Yao Ming in China)].
I wish that there were a way to limit a nutjob's access to guns, I really do, but the fact of the matter is this: no law will ever do that. If someone really wants a gun, they'll find a way to get it, period. Instituting a law only leaves you defenseless when said resourceful nutjob decides you'd make a lovely new victim.
You really should start killing ducks with your bear hands. It's pretty satisfying to hear their neck crack...(kidding. Maybe)The Man With the Soap said:
OT: Just because civilians have guns doesn't mean they can mount an effective resistance. African countries and middle eastern countries also have a shit-ton of guns, but the people don't know shit about topping the corrupt regimes they live in.
It isn't like everyone has trained in a community mitila or anything...
Also, why the fuck isn't this in religion and politics?
My two cents: considering the number of replies to this thread already, don't be surprised if there's some overlap over what someone else said.
1) Outlaw guns if you want, but like prostitutes, meth, or child pornography, if someone really wants it, they'll find a way to get it. And if you were to get a gun with such a method, then Its doubtful that you want it for self-preservation. Basically, if you make guns illegal, then the only people who have them will be planning to use them for illegal things. And those of us law-abiding citizens who are gunless will be screwed.
2) I know this has been said before, but another reason guns should be legal would be "shits hit the fan" insurance. Say, the goverment becomes oppressive, or there's a huge solar flare that takes out all our electricity, or there's a riot, or something like that: ownership of a gun would draw the line between who survives and who doesn't. Like it or not, the gun is the modern-day weapon, and people have a right to defend themselves and their property.
My 2 cents is non-refundable.
thanks
1) Outlaw guns if you want, but like prostitutes, meth, or child pornography, if someone really wants it, they'll find a way to get it. And if you were to get a gun with such a method, then Its doubtful that you want it for self-preservation. Basically, if you make guns illegal, then the only people who have them will be planning to use them for illegal things. And those of us law-abiding citizens who are gunless will be screwed.
2) I know this has been said before, but another reason guns should be legal would be "shits hit the fan" insurance. Say, the goverment becomes oppressive, or there's a huge solar flare that takes out all our electricity, or there's a riot, or something like that: ownership of a gun would draw the line between who survives and who doesn't. Like it or not, the gun is the modern-day weapon, and people have a right to defend themselves and their property.
My 2 cents is non-refundable.
thanks