RE: not another US guns thread

RE: not another US guns thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 2:20:14 PM)
We've been over this a few times already, and everyone's point of view is pretty clear at this point. Private citizens shouldn't be permitted to own firearms for the same reason that they shouldn't permitted to own, oh, I don't know, radioactive uranium maybe? An elephant? Smallpox samples? The threat to public safety that they represent grossly outweighs the infringement on individual freedom that banning them would entail. Now there's always gonna be someone telling you he has a God-given right to own his goddamned firearm. But I find such statements pretty meaningless. If everyone has a God-given right to something just because they claim one, we don't have a civilization. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Instead, I want to discuss as to why an everyday person with no criminal record and no history of psychological/psychiatric issues, who is a tax paying, responsible citizen, should not be permitted to own a firearm, should he/she want one?

Zensee -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 2:27:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Actually, it isn't in the US Constitution, but in the Second Amendment. "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." A good discussion of the various interpretations is in Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution My read, based on my own research into the Federalist Papers and other such documents: I have the right, as granted by the 2nd Amendment, and it shall not be infringed. Are you a member of a "well regulated militia"? Does "the people" refer to the private citizen or the collective citizenry organised in a well regulated militia? Was the amendment about private firearms ownership or about making sure states could field armed resistance if the British came back for another try? You may construe the second amendment to permit unregulated private ownership but, given the time in history it was written, the words of the amendment are pretty ambiguous, especially applied to the modern situation, which the framers of the amendment could not have anticipated. Anyway, the OP asked for a discussion not specific to the USA and presuming NO such amendment as a basis for argument. Why did you bring it up? Z.

Aileen68 -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 2:55:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster We've been over this a few times already, and everyone's point of view is pretty clear at this point. Private citizens shouldn't be permitted to own firearms for the same reason that they shouldn't permitted to own, oh, I don't know, radioactive uranium maybe? An elephant? Smallpox samples? The threat to public safety that they represent grossly outweighs the infringement on individual freedom that banning them would entail. Now there's always gonna be someone telling you he has a God-given right to own his goddamned firearm. But I find such statements pretty meaningless. If everyone has a God-given right to something just because they claim one, we don't have a civilization. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Instead, I want to discuss as to why an everyday person with no criminal record and no history of psychological/psychiatric issues, who is a tax paying, responsible citizen, should not be permitted to own a firearm, should he/she want one? That's such bullshit LaM. You can have a gun sitting out there in the open for thousands of years. It will never do anything unless someone comes along and loads a bullet and pulls the trigger. Radio active Uranium....eventually it would decay the container it was in if left alone. An elephant...leave him alone with no food, water and sex and he's gonna get mad and trample some people. The smallpox...that vial will break over time and spread like wildfire. They are a threat whether there is human intervention or not. Not a gun. A huge percentage of owners never have an issue with their firearms. I won't debate you any further because I don't like debating and I suck at it and you'd be able to outword me anyway...right or wrong.

Lordandmaster -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 3:03:47 PM)
There have been far fewer cases where someone mishandled a vial of smallpox than a firearm, wouldn't you say? Anyway, I'm not even talking about accidents. With so many reports of accidental gunshot wounds, I wonder how anyone can pretend that handguns are safe, but that's not even my objection to them. My objection is that something is wrong when any dumass can buy an assault weapon and shoot up a building. quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen68 The smallpox...that vial will break over time and spread like wildfire. They are a threat whether there is human intervention or not. Not a gun.

mistoferin -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 3:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster My objection is that something is wrong when any dumass can buy an assault weapon and shoot up a building. Let's not forget that the largest mass murder to date in this country was committed with.....box cutters.

meatcleaver -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 3:29:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You can't divorce guns from the American myth. I'm curious as to what you see as "the American myth?" [;)] The wild frontier.[;)]

Vendaval -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 6:15:00 PM)
Manifest Destiny quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You can't divorce guns from the American myth. I'm curious as to what you see as "the American myth?" [;)] The wild frontier.[;)]

farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 6:52:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Does "the people" refer to the private citizen or the collective citizenry organised in a well regulated militia? We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. If they meant that the government was only prevented from disarming the Militia, then they would have written that. quote: Was the amendment about private firearms ownership or about making sure states could field armed resistance if the British came back for another try? It was about not needing to go running to anyone to defend yourself. quote: You may construe the second amendment to permit unregulated private ownership but, given the time in history it was written, the words of the amendment are pretty ambiguous, especially applied to the modern situation, which the framers of the amendment could not have anticipated. I disagree. It SAYS exactly what it says. If anyone needs ANYTHING in the Constitution "Interpreted", I would suggest they are simply illiterate. Anyway, the OP asked for a discussion not specific to the USA and presuming NO such amendment as a basis for argument. Why did you bring it up? Z. Do people have a Creator-given right to own property as they choose? Or is it the proper role of a Government to regulate what items a private person can purchase with their own money? Is ownership really "Private" if it must be sanctioned by the Government? Isn't that sort of Government just permitting you to possess things UNTIL THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND? Who wants to live in Communist Paradise like that?

Crush -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:31:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Actually, it isn't in the US Constitution, but in the Second Amendment. "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." A good discussion of the various interpretations is in Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution My read, based on my own research into the Federalist Papers and other such documents: I have the right, as granted by the 2nd Amendment, and it shall not be infringed. Are you a member of a "well regulated militia"? Does not apply, as the "historical documents" of the time point out. Does "the people" refer to the private citizen or the collective citizenry organised in a well regulated militia? No, it refers to BOTH, as an INCLUSIVE -or-, not as an EXCLUSIVE -or -: 1)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, too bad they didn't use a semicolon, but we all know what a pain they are to use. Was the amendment about private firearms ownership or about making sure states could field armed resistance if the British came back for another try? The Ten Amendments were all about taking care of what couldn't be in the US Constitution, as evidenced in the Federalist Papers. It was clearly about the right of the States to form Militias and the rights of individuals to own and use arms. I can imagine in one sense they were combined to keep the Amendment count to 10... You may construe the second amendment to permit unregulated private ownership but, given the time in history it was written, the words of the amendment are pretty ambiguous, especially applied to the modern situation, which the framers of the amendment could not have anticipated. Actually, it was not very ambiguous, as I've stated above, based on the Federalist Papers and other writings of the times, including those of Hamilton, Madison and others. Anyway, the OP asked for a discussion not specific to the USA and presuming NO such amendment as a basis for argument. Why did you bring it up? Z. The thread had deviated from what LadyE started. Why not, since it is relevant. Or are we just to quote stats from the US but not consider the basis for their existence?

Sinergy -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:36:50 PM)
Ned (to Cartman) when he pointed his gun at Kyle "Dont do that, it is dangerous; you will spill your beer." Sinergy

His1kitten -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:40:26 PM)
i would say it depends on your definition of firearms. As stated before i don't agree that anyone should own assult weapons, automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons.

Sinergy -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:43:00 PM)
Slippery slope. When you start banning gun type A, it is only a matter of time until they start wanting to ban gun type B. Eventually, Kenny is shot by a TSA person as a terrorist trying to take a nail file on an airplane. Sinergy p.s. Maybe I should stop watching so much South Park.

Crush -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:43:26 PM)
However, to point to the "original intent" of the thread, let me say: There is no good reason to prohibit a law-abiding individual from owning a handgun, rifle, bow, sword, meat cleaver, tank of propane, fertilizer, or even chlorine bleach and ammonia which can be combined into a very toxic gas. Baseball/cricket bats? Glass bottles? Heck, I can get dozens of recipes for explosives off the Internet. I know, I know..."Guns are designed to hurl metal bits and can kill people." But they are only a tool. At least it is pretty clear what a gun does. And even more clear what happens when people don't have access to tools to defend themselves. And often, just "pulling it out and saying STOP!" is sufficient to abort an attack, as many stats I've cited elsewhere point out. Ultimately the real difference in opinion, as I see it, is whether or not we expect and hold people to be personally responsible for themselves. If we don't expect people to be responsible adults and that we have to nanny state them, then we need a lot more nannies. But then, the nannies will be armed, so have we solved anything? So which way do you see it? People are trustworthy in general and should be responsible for their actions or not?

farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:43:34 PM)
I see that kind of attitude as a restriction an a FREE PERSONS right to own property. If you're a Free Person, you can buy whatever you want. If you're a Government Slave, you can only buy what they permit you to.

Sinergy -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:47:51 PM)
To bring South Park around to the OP. I think it would be idiotic to give 4th graders a bunch of guns and beer. On the other hand, being an idiot is not a crime in the United States. Q.E.D. Sinergy

Zensee -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: You may construe the second amendment to permit unregulated private ownership but, given the time in history it was written, the words of the amendment are pretty ambiguous, especially applied to the modern situation, which the framers of the amendment could not have anticipated. I disagree. It SAYS exactly what it says. If anyone needs ANYTHING in the Constitution "Interpreted", I would suggest they are simply illiterate. Right - that's why the debate about the meaning and interpretation of the second amendment has persisted to the present day, even amongst people clearly NOT illiterate. It's ambiguous, not exact. Z..

farglebargle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 7:58:42 PM)
"Right - that's why the debate about the meaning and interpretation of the second amendment has persisted to the present day, even amongst people clearly NOT illiterate. It's ambiguous, not exact." There is no debate among Jeffersonians/Jacksonians. It's the Hamiltonians who lobby for their "Liberal Interpretation", because they have their own agendas, which require people to believe that it says ANYTHING but what is clearly written. Let me put it this way? Why would anyone count on the same Supreme Court which ruled in Dredd Scott(1) to decide ANYTHING correctly? Footnote 1) that no negro would EVER standing to bring action in a court.

Lordandmaster -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 8:25:57 PM)
So that makes it OK that any dumass can buy an assault weapon and shoot up a building? I don't exactly follow the logic. quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster My objection is that something is wrong when any dumass can buy an assault weapon and shoot up a building. Let's not forget that the largest mass murder to date in this country was committed with.....box cutters.

Casie -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:55:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Given the parameters above, what arguments can be found to deny such a person ownership? I have no desire to ban guns, but as I have said before on previous threads, I have seen gun accidents hurt two families (one of them my own). So even honest good people can be careless with their guns. Not to mention my sister lived next door to a guy that kept an arsenal practically in semi Automatics, historical guns, and even some automatics (he had them before the ban). I unknowingly witnessed the break in while I was at her house, they took the huge gun safe and nothing else. Who knows what hands those weapons made it into? It was a rather big deal, in fact they sent over an artist for me to try to make a composite drawing of these men. So guns are not guaranteed to stay in the hands of nice folks just because they were issued to them. They can be used by kids or stolen. Not that this is enough to ban them, just sayin Our gun safe is bolted down the floor and wall. Which is what alot of gun owners do. And the door has a sort of over lay that would make it extreamly difficult to pry open with say a crown bar. Futher more our bed room door has a dead bolt on it that is locked whenever we aren't in there. This is an extra procaution we use to not only make it harder if a criminal was to break in, but also an extra saftey net so our childern and house guest so they have no way to get in(this isn't an issue yet as they are only 3 and 2 months) but when they are teenagers it will be an extra barriar. I can't believe that gun own so many firearms and expessially historical guns did make an extra effort to ensure their saftey.

Casie -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:05:23 PM)
Just another quick thought. During world war two, a japanese spy told the japanese government that they would never succed at a land invasion because every average joe would be in their back yards shoting them out of the sky. I think even on a national offense level, that other countries consider that if they were ever gonna try to invaid us. There are ALOT of gun owners here. And I know if some forein asshats where para trooping down to kill us I would be out side picking them right of the sky, and I'm sure most gun owners would be too lol.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125