Question for people Pro-guns....

[Raytan941]

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

Once again Americans read this document as if it was written with this centuries capabilities and morals but in truth it came from a simpler time, and by continuing to try and run our now complex societies off a document from such a time it will continue to lead to needless bloodshed.

Though I do agree that it won't change anytime soon. Small minds form the largest most violent mobs.

Yeah your right the Bill of Rights is soooo dated and is totally no longer relevant in complex and modern societies. Freedom of speech, bah who needs it? my government tells me everything I need to know and the commies don't need the right disagree. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process and right to trial by jury, totally unnecessary in today's modern times the police are there to do a job and they always get it right.

The second amendment is not about hunting or the sporting use of guns it is about ensuring that the people have a means to defend themselves from the actions of a corrupt or Tyrannical government. Remember the men who drafted the constitution and the bill of rights were fighting a war for independence from just such a Tyrannical government. And that most certainly is still relevant in today's society, just look at the middle east for the last couple years with the people's of several different nations fighting to overthrow their corrupt governments.

If you want a better understanding of the 2nd amendment take the time to watch this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgLEGibyXs&feature=player_embedded

Of the original 10 Amendments in my opinion there is really only one that could possibly be argued does not belong in modern times and that could be the third amendment, protection from quartering of troops. At the time the bill of rights was written this was a big issue, it no longer is. That said it being there really has little to no effects now a days and it does have historical significance of being one of the first 10 amendments so why mess with it?

 

[senordesol]

Yeah your right the Bill of Rights is soooo dated and is totally no longer relevant in complex and modern societies. Freedom of speech, bah who needs it? my government tells me everything I need to know and the commies don't need the right disagree. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process and right to trial by jury, totally unnecessary in today's modern times the police are there to do a job and they always get it right.

The second amendment is not about hunting or the sporting use of guns it is about ensuring that the people have a means to defend themselves from the actions of a corrupt or Tyrannical government. Remember the men who drafted the constitution and the bill of rights were fighting a war for independence from just such a Tyrannical government. And that most certainly is still relevant in today's society, just look at the middle east for the last couple years with the people's of several different nations fighting to overthrow their corrupt governments.

If you want a better understanding of the 2nd amendment take the time to watch this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgLEGibyXs&feature=player_embedded

Of the original 10 Amendments in my opinion there is really only one that could possibly be argued does not belong in modern times and that could be the third amendment, protection from quartering of troops. At the time the bill of rights was written this was a big issue, it no longer is. That said it being there really has little to no effects now a days and it does have historical significance of being one of the first 10 amendments so why mess with it?

Oh no? What would you characterize missile launchers on the tops of London flats?

 

[Raytan941]

Oh no? What would you characterize missile launchers on the tops of London flats?

I was speaking purely for the US since that is where the Bill of Rights was drafted, but your right its very unfortunate that things like that are allowed to happen in London because I don't think it would fly in the US.

 

[easternflame]

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

Most people who buy those types of weapons do so with the intent to never hit anything except paper targets placed downrange in a safe shooting environment. Or just because they're marvels of technology with historic importance and people want to collect that sort of thing with no intent to ever fire off a single round.

Unfortunately for those people, these things do happen every once in a while and I do not believe that lives should be at stake for the sake of collecting something.

Then we should probably ban any sort of knife or sword collection as well.

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

Not exactly. But we already know how much of a whiz this guy was with explosives and traps. He sets up traps at all but one of the entrances of the theater. When they all go off, the crowd will all try to escape, and now he has them corralled, waiting for them by the only exit. They're easy targets for him to start stabbing and cutting as they all try to get away.

Or three guys swarm him and disarm him before that happens. You are missing the point.

 

[senordesol]

Oh no? What would you characterize missile launchers on the tops of London flats?

A privately owned building letting the government use their roofs? Flats are owned by business, not the people living in their. It's one thing if the owners move tenants out to make room for troops, but merely placing the missile launchers there isn't quartering.

They have still turned residences into a military installation. That would not fly here.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

To rewrite it, you would, again, need quite a large amount of support within the federal government. A lot of people are already arguing that the arms the amendment talks about doesn't cover the current assortment of weaponry, but to be honest, its written in such a vague and broad way so that the states can make their own laws regarding gun control and there are some states that make it as difficult as possible to get those semi-automatic rifles. Remember, few countries have fully banned the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles.

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

That part was later rectified to cover almost all people with the inclusion of new amendments, including the 14th Amendment, (Which guaranteed minorities the same rights as white citizens.) and the 19th amendment (Woman's suffrage)

Yes, the constitution is an old document written in a time where people had a different set of morals, but, for the most part, the Constitution has held up remarkably well.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Because there is little reason to remove the right or the tools from the populace.

THo we have crap laws and rules dealing with the issues, fed ok's any and all carry permit, you should rack up violations for brandishing, losing it under some circumstances, mis use, misfires that cause injury or damage. If you travel with it and people see it and are spook and you are not defending a life that's a fcking violation.


X amount of violations = fines and suspensions , 50$/1 month if you get another one in less than 6 months its 200$/6 months, another one in less than 6 months 600$/1 year.

And law enforcement is not exempt, if they are doing something they are not suppose to they get hit with fines and suspensions as well.

If you are constantly getting violations or harm someone your not suppose to you lose that permit.

Also would not seeing the Fed/ATF permits for automatic, silencers and explosives be streamlined into a tiered setup that has the same violation setup.

Oh if you didn't know "repurposing" fireworks or anything else to take out a tree stump on your land is federal crime.

While we are at it a gun registry for all Pistols, automatics, silencers ,ect would be nice.

Also if you go for the advanced permits you get an automatic mental and physical health background check, this check focuses on externalizing emotion/temper whatever as long as it dose not reasonably lead to abuse of the weapon,if turned down for any reason it can be appealed in court of course.

To pay for it a 1% tax on firearms and bullets would be nice.


But this would go over as well as banning firearms altogether. LOL

 

[easternflame]

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

To rewrite it, you would, again, need quite a large amount of support within the federal government. A lot of people are already arguing that the arms the amendment talks about doesn't cover the current assortment of weaponry, but to be honest, its written in such a vague and broad way so that the states can make their own laws regarding gun control and there are some states that make it as difficult as possible to get those semi-automatic rifles. Remember, few countries have fully banned the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles.

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

That part was later rectified to cover almost all people with the inclusion of new amendments, including the 14th Amendment, (Which guaranteed minorities the same rights as white citizens.) and the 19th amendment (Woman's suffrage)

Yes, the constitution is an old document written in a time where people had a different set of morals, but, for the most part, the Constitution has held up remarkably well.

Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

 

[gufftroad]

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

To rewrite it, you would, again, need quite a large amount of support within the federal government. A lot of people are already arguing that the arms the amendment talks about doesn't cover the current assortment of weaponry, but to be honest, its written in such a vague and broad way so that the states can make their own laws regarding gun control and there are some states that make it as difficult as possible to get those semi-automatic rifles. Remember, few countries have fully banned the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles.

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

That part was later rectified to cover almost all people with the inclusion of new amendments, including the 14th Amendment, (Which guaranteed minorities the same rights as white citizens.) and the 19th amendment (Woman's suffrage)

Yes, the constitution is an old document written in a time where people had a different set of morals, but, for the most part, the Constitution has held up remarkably well.

Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

Osaka school massacre
Akihabara massacre
this guy killed 4 people stealing cars with knives
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...spree-caught-daylong-manhunt-article-1.136301
this guy killed 6 over an xbox dispute
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210953,00.html
Daegu subway fire killed hundreds with two milk cartons of a flamable fluid like gas or paint thinner

According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

I can't give you a time where 14 people were killed by a sword, but I can give you at least one example of a time when a couple of guys with knives caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

There are also dozens of serial killers who killed dozens of people with nothing but blades, bludgeoning tools and choking weapons, Like Ted Bundy (At least 36, total number unknown) or John Wayne Gacy (33) or even Luis Alfredo Garavito (172-400+). Crime happens and the psychos don't normally have access to AK-47s. The majority of murders, suicides, robberies, etc etc are not done with Semi-automatic rifles. They're done with pistols, they're done with knives, they're done with shotguns. There is no reason to punish the few people who legally went out of their ways to obtain a gun that they enjoy shooting and/or collecting because of one incident.

Remember, just because they own a certain type gun, doesn't mean they're psychotic.

 

[gufftroad]

Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

I can't give you a time where 14 people were killed by a sword, but I can give you at least one example of a time when a couple of guys with knives caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

There are also dozens of serial killers who killed dozens of people with nothing but blades, bludgeoning tools and choking weapons, Like Ted Bundy (At least 36, total number unknown) or John Wayne Gacy (33) or even Luis Alfredo Garavito (172-400+). Crime happens and the psychos don't normally have access to AK-47s. The majority of murders, suicides, robberies, etc etc are not done with Semi-automatic rifles. They're done with pistols, they're done with knives, they're done with shotguns. There is no reason to punish the few people who legally went out of their ways to obtain a gun that they enjoy shooting and/or collecting because of one incident.

Remember, just because they own a certain type gun, doesn't mean they're psychotic.

you sir have just out classed me i bow to you

 

[acturisme]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

TLDR
Still, this is the smartest response to the OP.

The drop in deaths from accidental discharges would more than make up for the amount of people who'd die from not having a gun, not even counting the amount of people those people who're out to "defend themselves" kill in the name of the change in their pockets.

So does that make being defenseless "by law" morally superior to defending yourself and family?

 

[easternflame]

Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

I can't give you a time where 14 people were killed by a sword, but I can give you at least one example of a time when a couple of guys with knives caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

There are also dozens of serial killers who killed dozens of people with nothing but blades, bludgeoning tools and choking weapons, Like Ted Bundy (At least 36, total number unknown) or John Wayne Gacy (33) or even Luis Alfredo Garavito (172-400+). Crime happens and the psychos don't normally have access to AK-47s. The majority of murders, suicides, robberies, etc etc are not done with Semi-automatic rifles. They're done with pistols, they're done with knives, they're done with shotguns. There is no reason to punish the few people who legally went out of their ways to obtain a gun that they enjoy shooting and/or collecting because of one incident.

Remember, just because they own a certain type gun, doesn't mean they're psychotic.

you sir have just out classed me i bow to you

I'm not saying they are. That's why I said, if GOOD people want to collect them, they will have to hold back.
Although that's pretty much what I can counter from this. You sir, have convinced me. And that is not an easy thing to do. You earn an internet.

 

[gufftroad]

I'm not saying they are. That's why I said, if GOOD people want to collect them, they will have to hold back.
Although that's pretty much what I can counter from this. You sir, have convinced me. And that is not an easy thing to do. You earn an internet.

why should we punish good people for the misdoings of bad people

 

[easternflame]

*Comes into the thread, and clicks onto my mouse*
*Suddenly my hand catches on fire*

Oh jeez, this thread has some serious heat going. Alright now to post-

OT: If gun laws were to be made in the USA where a citizen cannot carry a gun, even the retired police officers and what not- I believe we're in serious trouble. The crime rate might go down, or by a large margin- but there's to many gangs and groups in USA who will use the black market to get weapons regardless. With that, people who are following this rule shall be defenseless.

I'm not suggesting everyone can carry guns.. that would be bad too. We have way to many that easily snap and attack people on the streets, so everyone having guns or allowed to will make everyone sort of fearful, scared. Not to mention some (or most) will abuse this, kill someone and say "I was defending myself!" My arguments on this might not be good but trying to think about the long run.

Overall, I suggest the security is increased within every place especially at big events like movie premieres.

For fucks sake, all I'm saying is, I don't mean that ALL PEOPLE who buy assault rifles are psychos

 

[Deathmageddon]

Gun control may work in the UK where it's difficult for criminals to obtain firearms, but that's just not an option everywhere else. Plus, we love our guns and being able to defend ourselves. The police can't protect you; they only clean up the mess. If someone breaks into MY house, I'd feel much better with a 12 gauge in my hand than I would hiding in the closet waiting for the cops to show up.

Edit: also, violent crime rates are even lower in countries like Sweden who had (until recently) compulsory military service and LOTS of guns.

 

[easternflame]

*Comes into the thread, and clicks onto my mouse*
*Suddenly my hand catches on fire*

Oh jeez, this thread has some serious heat going. Alright now to post-

OT: If gun laws were to be made in the USA where a citizen cannot carry a gun, even the retired police officers and what not- I believe we're in serious trouble. The crime rate might go down, or by a large margin- but there's to many gangs and groups in USA who will use the black market to get weapons regardless. With that, people who are following this rule shall be defenseless.

I'm not suggesting everyone can carry guns.. that would be bad too. We have way to many that easily snap and attack people on the streets, so everyone having guns or allowed to will make everyone sort of fearful, scared. Not to mention some (or most) will abuse this, kill someone and say "I was defending myself!" My arguments on this might not be good but trying to think about the long run.

Overall, I suggest the security is increased within every place especially at big events like movie premieres.

For fucks sake, all I'm saying is, I don't mean that ALL PEOPLE who buy assault rifles are psychos

.. I never read any of your previous posts to know what you said, but I will say this- you got a very nice Avatar. I like it quite a bit, has a nice texture and highlighting detail to it. I know it's off topic but I love Avatars like that.

Anyways with that said, .. I still don't know why you're getting on me lol. Maybe you quoted the wrong person? Because I never mentioned anything about assault rifles my friend, and some who do buy them might just want to show off as a collection anyways, who knows really.

Lol sorry, QUoted the wrong guy.
And he was a pretty cool dude... Shame on me. Anyway, sorry and thank you.