opinions on gun control/right-to-carry concealed weapons

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=orbindo]\
But there is perfectly good reason for citizens to carry firearms, you just have to look at the crimes and crime rates everywhere: up, up, up, im sorry to say.[/QUOTE]
That is simply not true.
Proof:
[URL] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm[/URL]
[URL] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm[/URL]

I?m with Baron Samedi on this issue. I don?t mind hunting and all. But the decrease in violent crime isn?t because of vigilante gun toting citizens. It is our ever outstanding law enforcement. If someone breaks into your house, don?t go guns blazing after him. Don?t risk yourself or the lives of your family. Instead lock your door and call the police.

Besides, you all misinterpreted the constitution. The right to bear arms doesn?t mean this:
[IMG] http://www.daisy.com/graphics/history_rights_sm.jpg[/IMG]

It actually means this:
[IMG]http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/8118/builder16bb.jpg[/IMG]

Think about it? bear arms. That would be ******* awesome.

[Anime Elf]

[QUOTE]...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [/QUOTE]

The big thing I don't like about having the right to bear arms taken away is that it would violate a constitutional (admittedly and amendment) right. If someone were to propose taking away freedom of speech or the press or religion or to reintroduce prohibition (again) or not allowing anyone but white male property owners to vote, there would be a massive public outrage, especially citing that "these are my constitutional rights, you can't take that away from me" and the like. While I do believe in stricter gun control, I don't believe that I shouldn't have the right to have a gun. That doesn't mean that every person in the United States will rush out, buy guns, and start killing each other. And I do believe that people should take responsibility for their actions done with a gun (or their gun if they left it in an inappropriate place that could be accessed by people, especially minors, who shouldn't be handling a firearm). If you kill someone, it was you. The gun did not walk up to someone and pull its own trigger. I want to be able to excerise what they Constitution of the United States of America says I am allowed to do. Like with free speech, as long as I'm not planning on hurting someone or causing any intentional harm or damage towards someone or their property, etc., I do not see why my having a gun would be bad.

But that's just my opinion.

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]It actually means this:
[IMG]http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/8118/builder16bb.jpg[/IMG]

Think about it? bear arms. That would be ******* awesome.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Indeed it would, at least until the point where Star Wars fans, myself included probably, would grow out the hair all over their body and claim to be vertically challenged Wookies. Still the right to bear arms sounds a hell of a lot funnier that way.[/SIZE]

[Panache]

I think you should be able to bear arms beacause the people who ignore the law and carrry them any way are not nice people usually. So if you meet one of these people your probably gonna die.

[Retribution]

[size=1]I was thinking about this thread a bit more, when I realized it was also talking about the right to carry concealed weapons.

Why would you need to carry a concealed weapon? Seriously, people. If you want it for protection, would it not be more useful if you carried it on your hip, for all to see. It'd be a statement saying "Look! Look! Don't mess with me!" Rather, when you conceal it, people have no idea you have it, and as a result, act as if you don't have one. Meaning, you're just as likely to get robbed with a concealed weapon as you are without one.

Really, where's the logic in this right-to-carry concealed weapons?[/size]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Retribution]I was thinking about this thread a bit more, when I realized it was also talking about the right to carry concealed weapons.

Why would you need to carry a concealed weapon? Seriously, people. If you want it for protection, would it not be more useful if you carried it on your hip, for all to see. It'd be a statement saying "Look! Look! Don't mess with me!" Rather, when you conceal it, people have no idea you have it, and as a result, act as if you don't have one. Meaning, you're just as likely to get robbed with a concealed weapon as you are without one.

Really, where's the logic in this right-to-carry concealed weapons?[/QUOTE]
Ding ding ding! Retribution wins the thread. His post reminds me of a line from the trailer for The Weather Man:

[color=black][url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000115/"][/url][/color][quote]People don't throw things at me any more. Maybe because I carry a bow around.[/quote]

[Zenriek]

Well, the point is to defend yourself. But if it's legal to carry a gun, there is also the potential to be hurt as well. It's a lose-lose situation.

But so is the other side of it. If it's illegal, people will be carrying them around conceiled, and you won't know if you're going to be shot (though that happens anyway), and you'll have no way to defend yourself (if you're nice and follow the rules). Or if somebody comes at you with a knife, you'd probably have no way to defend yourself either.

But really, I don't think anyone would come at you with a knife if they could have a gun.

There is no upside to either one, or downside. It's all crap, and we have to deal with it. Oh well.

[Raquel]

I agree that the concealing of the weapons is pointless, but sometimes that pesky trench coat just gets in the way. I'm all for the population decreasing, especially in places where the hicks with no money have eight or nine kids. I think that the idea of guns in general should be chucked. People should just go back to draging around swords. That way, your opponent has a better chance for retaliation. Where is all the entertainment in fighting if it's just *bang* "Ha ha motherfnckah! You shoulden'ta called my momma a ho even if she does work da streets." (-.-' please don't take that racialy. I know way more white boys that do that.)

[celoctopus]

i think we have the right to carry guns on our persons for our safety. i'm not saying that we should all go around with machine guns and bandeliers but it is by far one of the most effective ways to avoid confrontion. it's hard to prey on someone ( i'm sorry but some of ya'll are a bit niave in the "oh why would anyone hurt anyone" catergory but i live in a world of predators and prey, speacially after Katrina) who is just as well armed as you. also i don't believe guns heighten crime rates. there are PLENTY of other things we can use to kill people, guns are just one of the more convienient things. they're also just fun. if you've ever shot for fun and you come to that day when you nail that milk jug from 500 yards away you'll know what i'm talkin about.

[Retribution]

[size=1]I don't think people understand that the Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms to MAINTAIN A MILITIA. Not for personal on-the-street protection. Not for guarding your home for a robber. This is why I don't see any room for debate.

If you disarm guns, yes, people will still have them, but after a few years, they'll disappear. Take Japan, for example. They're not allowed to have guns, and people don't obtain them through the black market -- they have a very low homicide rate (so I understand). What's the difference between us and them? I say that if we ban guns, the same thing will happen. Yeah, it'll take decades, but in the long-run, it's safer for everyone.[/size]

[Guest Mythology]

Gun control should be allowed because if its ok for everyone to own guns then whos going to be stupid enough to try and rob someone think about it if I have a gun and you have a gun what am I really going to do have an old style western quick draw.

[Anime Elf]

[QUOTE]
I don't think people understand that the Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms to MAINTAIN A MILITIA. Not for personal on-the-street protection. Not for guarding your home for a robber. This is why I don't see any room for debate.

If you disarm guns, yes, people will still have them, but after a few years, they'll disappear. Take Japan, for example. They're not allowed to have guns, and people don't obtain them through the black market -- they have a very low homicide rate (so I understand). What's the difference between us and them? I say that if we ban guns, the same thing will happen. Yeah, it'll take decades, but in the long-run, it's safer for everyone.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, it was the intent of the founding fathers to allow citizens to bear arms, and of course interpretation of the law is all that matters now. And remember, back then the militia was whoever volunteered. There was no draft, just normal people who would fight for their country. Now, keeping that in mind:
[QUOTE]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]

Of course virtually any court will agree that we are allowed to bear arms, and that if murder was the intent of someone, having the right to bear arms wouldn't matter so much, a way would be found to murder the person.

Now for the quotes from the dead of the time.

[QUOTE]
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
[/QUOTE]

Using Japan, while it might seem relevant and an indicator of what America could become, isn't. The main point is culture. The two cultures are different, the priority of self over the society. Maybe it is seen as safer to not own guns in Japan, so they are more willing to embrace that. Here in the US of A, there is a mentality more towards "Who cares about society? It's better for me to own a gun, so bring on the guns!" And, as I'm sure many of you will agree with, not everything in one culture is good for another. If we're upset about imposing our culture and beliefs on others, how much worse to have other's imposed onto us?

Not to sound cliche, but people kill people, guns don't kill people. If I really wanted to kill someone, I could use a pen, a book, a knife, a plastic bag, martial arts, etc. A gun is just one of many things to use. Guns aren't just there to shoot people with. Lot's of people hunt and I'm sure that many people carry guns in their cars. I mean, if there's a gunrack on the back of your truck, I'm sure that a gun is nearby. It seems as if most people assume that if you have a gun, you'll kill someone. Look at how many people actually own a gun compared with how many people actually decide to murder someone with it. I'll guantee it's not a 1:1 ratio, that's for sure.

It's a constitutional right to bear arms. The last time an amendment tried to take away a rather common "right" so to speak, another was passed to fix the error (prohibition --> reversing it).

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]Nobody's been disputing that it's an American citizen's constitutional right to bear arms. What we [b]are [/b]disputing is: a) whether the law is outdated, seeing as it was passed when the British could have come storming back to reclaim their land at any moment; and b) why people think they need to carry a gun.

Yes, okay, true, if someone has [b]premeditated [/b]murder of a person on their mind, they will probably find a way to kill said person whether or not guns are legal. But consider spur-of-the-moment, rage-induced killings. (I'm aware someone's made this point already, but I think it's necessary to reiterate as it obviously hasn't got through to some people.)

[b]UK:[/b] You discover someone's been sleeping with your wife. What're you gonna do? Kill the slimeball! Raaargh! But with what? Bare hands? Knife? Both take effort. Neither's a surefire kill. Hmmph. Rage around for a bit, smashing lawn ornaments. Cool off. Aaaah. No killing today. Just spraypaint his car with 'adulterer' instead.

[b]US: [/b]You discover someone's been [/font][/color][color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]sleeping with your wife. What're you gonna do? Kill the slimeball! Raaargh! Get the gun - the nigh-on surefire method of killing you're legally allowed to own - out of your sock drawer/holster and blow the guy's brains out. Heck, why not blow your wife's brains out too?

It's a fairly facile example and obviously I've biased it to make my point, but read back a ways in the thread and you'll find another post that puts it a lot better than I did. So I don't think the "if he's going to kill someone he's going to, and it doesn't matter whether he's allowed a gun or not" argument is really a valid one, when guns make rage-motivated murders so simple to carry out.
[quote name='Anime Elf][/font][/color]...but people kill people, guns don't kill people.[color=DarkGreen'][font=Trebuchet MS][/quote] True that. But don't you think it's society's duty to make it as [b]difficult as possible [/b]for people to kill people? Allowing everyone to carry a device designed and built for the purpose of killing makes it a little too simple.
[/font][/color]

[Disenchanted]

Ok first off i live in Australia and one we are not allowed to carry guns at all. the only people who are is the police force, game hunters and specialied proffessions. for an example people that live in the out back or 'desert' on ranches who need guns to shoot thier horses (if they are injured) or wild dogs that come after their sheep. Now heres my point.

We dont have guns. BUT in your instance people will still find ways to get thier hands on them. you take away peoples right to carry consealed weapons or take away the right to bare arms all together then people are still going to get guns from somewhere.

My seccond point is, if someones going to kill someone i dont think that not having a gun is going to stop them from doing as such. In fact one set person without access to guns may stab, strangle, drown, burn, impale, tourture (....well you get the picture) their set victem to death. My point being you take away rights people will still kill regardless, you may lesten the rate or what have you. but people will still die.

forgive my wording but if you get rid of guns then people are going to find more 'creative' ways to kill people.

perhaps the law is out dated in the sence when it was made but,
[QUOTE]b) why people think they need to carry a gun.[/QUOTE]
BUT if you've got all thse people going around wanting to carry guns for thier own well being, someones gotta take a step back and think hang on ... what kind of a place have we become where eveyone has to go around carrying guns because there scared for thier own safety and protection...

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Anime Elf]Okay, it was the intent of the founding fathers to allow citizens to bear arms, and of course interpretation of the law is all that matters now. And remember, back then the militia was whoever volunteered. There was no draft, just normal people who would fight for their country. Now, keeping that in mind:

Of course virtually any court will agree that we are allowed to bear arms, and that if murder was the intent of someone, having the right to bear arms wouldn't matter so much, a way would be found to murder the person.

Now for the quotes from the dead of the time.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]You must think [I]why[/I] the militia existed. What was the militia?s function? Back in 1776, the militia was used to rebel from Britain (the government) due to the fact that they imposed unjust laws upon the Colonists. The citizenry fought against an imposing, oppressive government because they had the right to bear arms. Had their right to bear arms been infringed upon, the American Revolution would never have happened. [b]This[/b] reason is why the Second Amendment exists today. The Founding Fathers wanted future generations to have the ability to overthrow the oppressive government, and as a result, they provided the future generations with the ability to do so. This isn?t the right to shoot a bear whenever you?d like, or carry your gun on your hip because you don?t ?feel safe.? The right to bear arms is in place solely because the Founding Fathers thought that we should have the ability to overthrow the unjust government.

This means that if you bear arms, you don?t do so to protect yourself from a criminal or go kill game because you find it fun. You bear arms to potentially overthrow the American Federal Government, that in case the government becomes overly unjust, the People can and will revolt against the government, just as we did three hundred or so years ago.

However, America has the most effective military in the world. I say with certainty that the citizenry would not [b]ever[/b] be able to revolt and overthrow the government in the state that it?s in now. There?d be scattered resistance across the country, and theoretically, the Armed Forces could just order air strikes at those pockets. There?s no possible way for the citizens to overthrow the government at this point. This is why the Second Amendment is as outdated as ?Women aren?t allowed to vote,? or ?African Americans are 3/5ths of a person.?

[quote]Using Japan, while it might seem relevant and an indicator of what America could become, isn't. The main point is culture. The two cultures are different, the priority of self over the society. Maybe it is seen as safer to not own guns in Japan, so they are more willing to embrace that. Here in the US of A, there is a mentality more towards "Who cares about society? It's better for me to own a gun, so bring on the guns!" And, as I'm sure many of you will agree with, not everything in one culture is good for another. If we're upset about imposing our culture and beliefs on others, how much worse to have other's imposed onto us?[/quote]
Alright, take the UK. To my knowledge, they do not have the right to bear arms as Americans do, yet they are also a Western nation, and share many of our philosophies. Is a man born and raised in the UK all that different from a man born and raised in the US? Would they not value the self over society? It?s not a cultural thing here, that guns cause death, and people can?t be trusted with them.

[QUOTE]Not to sound cliche, but people kill people, guns don't kill people. If I really wanted to kill someone, I could use a pen, a book, a knife, a plastic bag, martial arts, etc. A gun is just one of many things to use. Guns aren't just there to shoot people with. Lot's of people hunt and I'm sure that many people carry guns in their cars. I mean, if there's a gunrack on the back of your truck, I'm sure that a gun is nearby. It seems as if most people assume that if you have a gun, you'll kill someone. Look at how many people actually own a gun compared with how many people actually decide to murder someone with it. I'll guantee it's not a 1:1 ratio, that's for sure.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you could use many other things to kill a person, however, as Raiyuu stated, it is much harder to do so. Besides, a few miles from here in South East DC, people get shot weekly, and I?m certain that these people would not go to great lengths to kill. It?s a ?He looked at my girl,? or ?He stepped on my shoe? (I?m not kidding). Would you really stab someone to death with a pen for that? Probably not. It?d most likely result in a relatively harmless fist-fight. However, when guns are added to the equation, there is no time to diffuse the situation. Rather, people escalate too quickly, and decide to kill the other person ? not because they really deserve it, but because they are overcome in a fit of rage, and they can most easily harm the opponent with a gun.

Those with guns kill more often than those without. There?s been about 150 homicides in DC this year ALONE due to guns. I can count on one had the deaths due to other methods of attack. I?m tired of the killing, and it can be easily stopped, however people hell-bent on keeping their outdated rights cling onto the Second.

[QUOTE]It's a constitutional right to bear arms. The last time an amendment tried to take away a rather common "right" so to speak, another was passed to fix the error (prohibition --> reversing it).[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we also took away the part in the Constitution about how African Americans are worth 3/5ths of a person. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren?t holy things ? they can and are [I]meant to[/I] be modifiable to change [I]with the times[/I].[/size]

[Anime Elf]

The law is hardly outdated. The 3/5 compromise was just something to have the Constitution ratified, back when slaves weren't considered people , but property. And the Convention didn't even want democracy for fear of the uneducated, non-elite majority taking control, much less give women the right to vote. America was already in a fragile state when the Consitution was being drafted, and the members were trying to get along, even though not everyone in the convention signed it. But back on track, yeah shootings are easy, but back before guns were so widespread, people carried knives with them, so mess with the wrong person and they'll kill you with a knife. More messy, a little more complicated, but still a relatively simplistic way to kill, and it was very common, and would probably gain prominence once again if guns were outlawed for citizens. I know that people kill each other for rather pointless reasons. Stabbing still kills.

About the American Revolution, it was hardly just about quatering soldiers, right to bear arms, or tea taxes. The American Revolution was a culmination of a series of events happening in American and Britian. Whether or not the colonists right to arms was infringed or not would have had little to no effect on whether the Revolution would have happened or not. Also, it is still citizens who make up our military. I personally know of people who were and are in the armed forces, and most of them own at least one weapon that they keep at home for emergencies and what not. Even though they might not be part of the military anymore, they still have a weapon, is that wrong then?

Bearing arms doesn't mean you'll go kill a person. Most people have it tucked away in a drawer or safe or something. The view here seems to be that if you have a gun you [U][B]will[/B][/U] go out and kill somebody. That's hardly the case. A slim minority of gun owners actually shoot someone else, much less kill them.

As for the UK, yes they might have similar philosophies and a similar lifestyle, but if you look at the (stereo)typical American compared with anyone else, chances are the American will be more independent and self driven, self-focus and motivated, and not really wanting to take anything from anybody." The American mentality is truely unique, and taking away the right to bear arms is not something most Americans will like. And taking away the right doesn't mean it won't be done. 98% of Americans have, are doing, or will use at least one illegal substance. Even though they are illegal, look at how many people break that law. And people don't always just get their highs from using drugs.

People won't stop killing each other if we take away the Second Amendment. But since guns apparently hurt people, and we can carry them, let's just take that amendment away. Hmm, let's also take away that one about repealing prohibition, because drunk drivers kill and not to mention drunken brawls that may lead to some serious injury, or maybe even death. What about that first one? Some one might verbally abuse me or maybe someone else's religion doesn't agree with mine. Hey, freedom of religion is fine when practically all the founders are the same religion, right? To bad they're all dead and the times have changed. Oh, and the press lies. We should shut that down right now. It's okay when the press was controlled by the elite, but now it's controlled by numerous people, elite and not elite. That first one is a little outdated, it should go.

Amendments are meant to adapt to the times, not to be changed by or completely removed just because we live in aren't the same has 215+ years ago. Why carry guns? Well, just exercising my right to. Why not drive a BMW or a Cadillac or a Mercedes if I can afford to? But then again, boo on that. It might cause class conflict. We should all ride the bus, because no one is better than another if they all ride the bus.

As you can probably tell by now, I think that getting rid of the citizen's right to own and carry a gun is pretty ridiculous. Yeah, that right gets abused, but so do a lot of other rights, but we don't go around (seriously) saying to get rid of free speech or the press. Aside from the fact it wouldn't pass, it wouldn't stop the killings going on today. And while it could be argued that it would reduce homicide, there's no way to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't like guns, don't carry them. Don't try to remove them from the rest of the people who actually use them responsibly.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Anime Elf']The law is hardly outdated. The 3/5 compromise was just something to have the Constitution ratified, back when slaves weren't considered people , but property. And the Convention didn't even want democracy for fear of the uneducated, non-elite majority taking control, much less give women the right to vote. America was already in a fragile state when the Consitution was being drafted, and the members were trying to get along, even though not everyone in the convention signed it. But back on track, yeah shootings are easy, but back before guns were so widespread, people carried knives with them, so mess with the wrong person and they'll kill you with a knife. More messy, a little more complicated, but still a relatively simplistic way to kill, and it was very common, and would probably gain prominence once again if guns were outlawed for citizens. I know that people kill each other for rather pointless reasons. Stabbing still kills.[/quote]
[size=1]You?re right ? the Constitution was drafted during a critical period of America. We needed arms and a ?well regulated militia? to ensure the safety of the country. Every state had their own militia that served only within the state?s borders. The Second Amendment was put in place to ensure the safety of fledgling America. Unless you?re ready to serve in the militia, there?s no reason for the Second.

Before guns were so widespread, the homicide rate of America wasn?t as high as it is now. Besides, how many homicides are enacted with knives, and compare that to those with guns. Your point is really stretching it here ? I don?t really agree that if guns were taken away, the homicide would still be as high. Take Japan, or the UK. I?m absolutely certain that their homicide rate is much, much lower than the States?.

People will at least [I]try[/I] to kill other people all the time. The degree of their success relies on the potency of the available weapons, however, and if guns are outlawed, death won?t be a finger-twitch away.

[quote]About the American Revolution, it was hardly just about quatering soldiers, right to bear arms, or tea taxes. The American Revolution was a culmination of a series of events happening in American and Britian. Whether or not the colonists right to arms was infringed or not would have had little to no effect on whether the Revolution would have happened or not. Also, it is still citizens who make up our military. I personally know of people who were and are in the armed forces, and most of them own at least one weapon that they keep at home for emergencies and what not. Even though they might not be part of the military anymore, they still have a weapon, is that wrong then?[/quote]
I beg to differ on your first point. Had America not had the right to bear arms, there would have been no way to fight Britain ? the world?s best-trained military of the time. Yes, there was severe unrest for quite some time ? nearly fifty years prior to the Declaration of Independence, but there would have been nothing more than rioting in the streets, had people not owned guns. There would have been no Revolution without weaponry.

Yes, the citizens make up the military, but this is almost entirely irrelevant. Yes, I?m sure they own weaponry at home, and I think that for servicemen and women, it should be allowed, as they have proven they are trustworthy of bearing the responsibility that comes with a weapon. In short, they are less prone to killing a man on the street in a fit of rage. I don?t have a problem with that ? I have a problem with the people who shoot others for stepping on their shoe, for looking at their girlfriend the wrong way, for insulting them. If those people did not exist, there would be no reason to have this debate, as my argument would have no grounds.

[quote]Bearing arms doesn't mean you'll go kill a person. Most people have it tucked away in a drawer or safe or something. The view here seems to be that if you have a gun you [U][B]will[/B][/U] go out and kill somebody. That's hardly the case. A slim minority of gun owners actually shoot someone else, much less kill them.[/quote]
I recognize the fact that only a small percentage of people will actually go out and shoot someone on the street, however, that small percentage is still enough to heavily impact America. However, there?s no real point to having a right to bearing arms. Seriously, why would you [I]need[/I] one? To go to the shooting-range? Maybe to go hunting? There?s no point to it ? the fact of the matter is that you should be bearing arms if you are prepared to become part of a well-regulated militia, and I?m sure that at least 90% of gun-owners wouldn?t want to do that.

[quote]As for the UK, yes they might have similar philosophies and a similar lifestyle, but if you look at the (stereo)typical American compared with anyone else, chances are the American will be more independent and self driven, self-focus and motivated, and not really wanting to take anything from anybody." The American mentality is truely unique, and taking away the right to bear arms is not something most Americans will like. And taking away the right doesn't mean it won't be done. 98% of Americans have, are doing, or will use at least one illegal substance. Even though they are illegal, look at how many people break that law. And people don't always just get their highs from using drugs.[/quote]
Yeah, yeah, the American mentality is unique, but the general principle of what I said has nothing to do with a ?unique? mentality. It has to do with basic cracking down on guns. True, Americans wouldn?t want to respect that authority, but if the government is doing it, what will they do? They might not [I]want[/I] to give up their Second Amendment rights, but they [I]must[/I] if the Federal Government demands it.

The second part of this, I really have no idea what your point is. Something about how 100% of people won?t follow the law. Yes, you?re right ? not everyone will follow the law, however if even 98% of people do, there will be a significant reduction in crime. The police would be able to confiscate weapons over time as well. If there?s no great input into the system, the illegally weaponry will taper off over time. I think you were saying something along the lines of ?Even if you do confiscate the guns, people won?t obey.? Is that any reason not to do the right thing? ?Even if you do desegregate, people won?t obey.? Is that any reason not to do the right thing? We should at least start towards change.

[quote]People won't stop killing each other if we take away the Second Amendment.[/quote]
Wrong. Look at Japan. The UK. Our homicide rate is exponentially higher than both of theirs ? hell, both of theirs combined.

[quote]But since guns apparently hurt people, and we can carry them, let's just take that amendment away. Hmm, let's also take away that one about repealing prohibition, because drunk drivers kill and not to mention drunken brawls that may lead to some serious injury, or maybe even death. What about that first one? Some one might verbally abuse me or maybe someone else's religion doesn't agree with mine. Hey, freedom of religion is fine when practically all the founders are the same religion, right? To bad they're all dead and the times have changed. Oh, and the press lies. We should shut that down right now. It's okay when the press was controlled by the elite, but now it's controlled by numerous people, elite and not elite. That first one is a little outdated, it should go.[/quote]
Are you kidding me? Your comparisons are laughable. Drunk drivers and drunken brawls combined don?t kill as many as bullets, not nearly as many. Freedom of Speech is legal because that in and of itself won?t kill anyone. Your next argument against Freedom of Religion is foolish. I said the Second Amendment is outdated because it serves no modern purpose, and you tried to say the same for the First. The First Amendment serves a wonderful modern purpose. Without it, African Americans would not have won equality forty years ago. Without it, non-Christians would not be tolerated. Without guns? Well, the homicide rate would be lower. The press lies. Sometimes. It serves a practical modern day purpose, as you can see without my having to point it out to you. The First Amendment is valid in this day and age, whereas the Second is not. The militia has not be employed it ? what? Two hundred years?

[quote]Amendments are meant to adapt to the times, not to be changed by or completely removed just because we live in aren't the same has 215+ years ago. Why carry guns? Well, just exercising my right to. Why not drive a BMW or a Cadillac or a Mercedes if I can afford to? But then again, boo on that. It might cause class conflict. We should all ride the bus, because no one is better than another if they all ride the bus.[/quote]
Your comparisons are faulty at best. You carry a gun because you can, and tried to justify that by saying that you can drive a BMW or a Cadillac because you can. Carrying a gun can potentially result in death. Driving a BMW versus Cadillac will not result in death. I also don?t understand your comparison between carrying a gun versus not carrying, and driving different kinds of cars meaning you?re better than someone else driving different car. Carrying a gun has nothing to do with being better or causing class imbalance. Neither does driving a car.

[quote]As you can probably tell by now, I think that getting rid of the citizen's right to own and carry a gun is pretty ridiculous. Yeah, that right gets abused, but so do a lot of other rights, but we don't go around (seriously) saying to get rid of free speech or the press. Aside from the fact it wouldn't pass, it wouldn't stop the killings going on today. And while it could be argued that it would reduce homicide, there's no way to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't like guns, don't carry them. Don't try to remove them from the rest of the people who actually use them responsibly.[/QUOTE]
The right to freedom of speech rarely, if ever, results in death, whereas the right to wear a tool that can cause a human being death will. I also think it silly that if you look at the homicide statistics of America versus other countries that cannot carry guns, you will see a huge correlation. Maybe that?ll clue you into the fact that [b]guns can and do cause a huge amount of death in the United States annually.[/b] It?s too bad that the responsible people have to have their right taken away, but it?s for the greater good, and there?s no real point to having one anyone.[/size]

[Anime Elf]

We still need a militia. Have you ever heard of the generational theory on war? Basically, it states that every generation has a war, and depending on the deathcount, who won, and what was gotten approximately determines when the next war will happen in a 15-30 year span. Given that this theory has proven true for the most part (just look at a timeline of all the wars in American history with the three factors), we will always need a militia. Since the military consists of private citizens who volunteer (for the most part), why not have them prepared before they even start basic training?

The homicide rate doesn't just hinge on guns. If you sat and thought about it, then you would come to this conclusion. Hate crimes, regular crimes, resisting arrest, and many other things make up the homicide rate, not some angry person who carries a gun 24/7 who gets ticked about any little thing. The reason I'm using knives compared to guns is that the knives would replace the guns for those who can't get a gun. But considering who murders - criminals - I find it highly unlikely that outlawing guns will do much to disuade these people. And while Japan and the UK are such perfect example apparently, there must not be any countries where this has backfired. Well, let's not look at countries like say Australia or Switzerland or Israel. In Israel, almost everyone has a gun (no surprise there), and most of their crimes are bombings and Palestinian acts, not Israelis gunning each other down. Switzerland has more guns per capita than the US does, and their crime rate is pretty darn low. Unlike the gun-free utopias of Australia or GB. Countries that have outlawed handguns and whose gun crime rates have risen over the past 5 years. Like in Australia, in some parts of the country, violent crime went up 100%, and that's when the guns were "gone". GB's crime rate is up to 10.9 and did you hear of the madmen running into church and killing their victims with swords (which could be seen as really big knives if you want). And don't even get me started on the disarmed South Africa, whose own government is controlling the population by brute force. But apparently Japan is good enough to cover everyone. Because it "worked" once, it apparently works everytime (if you overlook the times when it doesn't).

The colonists stole a lot of the weaponry they had, not to mention using guerilla tactics and having French allies. Not everyone owned a gun, and guns at home can only do so much so long.

And as long as law enforcement is being used, while they might be less likely to kill, isn't everyone human? Not too long ago, where I lived the head of county law enforcement was arrested and imprisoned, for public intoxication and stupid (but not dangerous) acts he performed under the influence. Remember a man named Clinton and his little scandal? Even those in power screw up, despite how much more responsible and less prone to whatever they seem to be.

Why do we need guns? Why do we need a car? Why do we need a steady job? We like security and convienience. If yours or someone you knew very well's house ever got broken into, I'm sure that you might think guns are for a little more than going to the shooting range or hunting or killing your girlfriend's secret fling. Maybe the amount of thieves detered and/or stopped by a homeowner's gun is enough to be seen as beneficial and a good reason for owning a gun.

As for if the federal government took away the second amendment rights, I ask you to look at South Africa and other countries in which it is estimated that 100 million were killed due to acts of genocide performed by a government they trusted who disarmed them first. If you look at concealed weapon stated with the most lax laws, you will see they have the "best behaved gun owners". Look at Florida, or Montana or Utah or Texas. But then again, this is just reinforcing a previously made point. Also, while the logic about the 98/2 seems like it might work in a perfect world, lets take a look at crack. Illegal. Most of the people in America follow that rule, but some don't. When the police find it, it gets taken away. Unfortunately, crack, like guns, isn't some finite resource we can lock in a vault and destroy the key. More comes into the country and probably always will.

I've already said this, but people will always kill people, with or without the second amendment, as my previous evidence proves.

While killing someone when drunk might not be like killing someone with a gun, an estimated 80 or so people a day are killed because of drunk drivers (themselves or others). While that might not be homicide in everycase, you seem to think that every little bit counts. So we can punish the people who drink responsibly while the "criminals" will brew their own beer and get drunk and kill people. Under the freedom of speech, voilence might be incited, not to mention "verbal abuse" that could lead to someone going on some killing spree (depressed high school kids who get picked on killing people is a good example that has happened on numerous occasions), and if their mind is set on that, having a gun won't matter that much. Freedom of Speech isn't what got blacks "equality" (seeing the racism today, it was only in a legal sense), it was a changing mindset in the majority of the right people who could pass the law, even though the equality was supposed to start happening once the slaves were freed, but the country was to fragile to stop people from taking advatage of the blacks (ex. poll taxes and grandfather clause). Yeah I know that non-Christians would be tolerated to an even less degree, but the point is, the founding fathers shared a religion (or at least many of the core concepts) and since practically everyone was the same religion, why not just throw that in there? I was saying that the First Amendment was "outdated" so to speak compared when the Constitution was first made, and those members of the elite stood to profit from its passing and they had a larger degree of control over those rights than today. So in that sense, it's "outdated", but then again, I still enjoy it, kind of like how I don't really mind that second amendment so much.

How were my car comparisons faulty? No one in their right mind would think that a car is not capable of killing someone. There's even a name for killing someone with a car, vehicular homicide or manslaughter (case pending). People with the nice, fast cars are more likely to drive them fast. But then again, a lot are rich and many times the case doesn't even make it to court. And about class imbalance, I was making a reference to Marxism, which basically says that as long as there's imbalance (classes), there will be conflict. And conflict kills. Not that I really need to explain that one, of course.

The right to freedom of speech gets abused, much like the right to own a gun can be abused. Do most people abuse it? No. But since there is a minority of people abusing the right, apparently the reasoning is to take one of those rights away. The greater good. I'm betting that you oppose Iraq, even though it's supposed to be "for the greater good of the Iraqi people to provide them with democracy" and the oil is just a fringe benefit. To bad with the responsible people getting their right taken away, the irresponsible will keep on being irresponsible. The criminals will keep committing the crimes while the innocent are punished. That's some great logic there.

Obviously, you won't ever see normal people owning guns as a good thing because of potential evil or I a bad thing because most people are responsible.

[Retribution]

[size=1]I will only reply to the first part of your argument, as the rest is straying away from what exactly the Second Amendment says. I think I've addressed the rest of your points, and we're just not going to agree, so at a certain point, you just have to call it quits and pack up.
[quote name='Anime Elf']We still need a militia. Have you ever heard of the generational theory on war? Basically, it states that every generation has a war, and depending on the deathcount, who won, and what was gotten approximately determines when the next war will happen in a 15-30 year span. Given that this theory has proven true for the most part (just look at a timeline of all the wars in American history with the three factors), we will always need a militia. Since the military consists of private citizens who volunteer (for the most part), why not have them prepared before they even start basic training?[/quote]
I missed the part about why we need[ed] a militia. You're saying that there's a war every 15-30 years, which I don't know one way or the other about it, factually speaking, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this "generational theory on war." So there's a war every so often. This is why we have a military (NOT the same as militia). They are volunteers, yes, but that doesn't make it a militia. What makes our military a military is that there is extended organization to our Armed Forces -- soldiers go to Basic, go fight a war, are part of a Chain of Command, recieve income for fighting.

Why not have them prepared before they even start basic training? Because someone younger than 18 doesn't need to be training in the Arts of War before then, anyway. You'd be teaching a minor how to kill another human being, which I find quite disturbing in general, let alone to teach to a minor. They don't need to be prepared before Basic training because the military takes regular civilians and prepares them to be part of the world's best trained military. Prior experience or no, they are prepared to do battle efficiently and effectively. There's no reason for people to have prior experience with weaponry before Basic.

The homicide rate, the necessity of guns for on-the-street protection, those are all side effects, relatively inconsequential to the main issue here.[/size]

[Anime Elf]

Oh, sorry for not tying in the militia part with the rest of my argument so clearly. I had alluded to it in the part about South Africa, but let me explain a little more clearly why I think that the United States still should have a militia.

In the past one hundred or so years, it has been estimated by Amnesty International that there have been over one hundred million deaths resulting from genocide performed by the country's own governments. One factor that these governments all had in common was the disarming of the citizens.

While this may or may not happen in America, the citizens are powerless to go up against a corrupt government successfully if the government has all the weapons while they have few to none. This is what history has proven. I know that America is not like the other countries, but these countries didn't start off hating or distrusting their government. They believed that their government was acting in their best interests only to be stabbed in the back.

Oh, and happy MLK day everyone!

[eXo]

Give everyone a gun, allow them all to carry them, that way you won't cut the guy off on the highway, because you know he has a gun and will probably shoot you.

Let the gangbangers kill each other off, let the criminals kill each other off, all is fair in love and guns.

:catgirl: :animesmil :animestun :p