Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Aalyy View Post
    I think you're the one with the misconception. The second amendment wasn't ensuring the right of government to bear arms. It ensures the right of the people to bear them. There is definitely a "greater good" tone to the amendment but to say that the National Guard equals a militia of the time is false. The National Guard is government, the very entity that this amendment is protecting the people's right to bear arms from.

    That said, it doesn't give any and everyone to own whatever guns they want unrestricted willy nilly. The words regulated and militia imply that there was always meant to be a sense of order about it. Which is why, in general, I'm fine with gun control laws that allow law abiding citizens to bear arms. Many gun enthusiasts take the second amendment to mean that any and all forms of gun control are constitutional. That's just silly. Reasonable gun control that allows law abiding citizens to own guns while trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the crazies is perfectly acceptable, IMO. I think our background checks need to be on a Federal scale and the gun show loopholes are outrageous. Other than that, if you don't break the law you should be able to own what you want, short of rocket launchers and hand grenades.
    In the 18th century a militia wasnt a group of government hating gun nuts in the backwoods that stockpiled weapons because of their paranoid fantasies. Militias were colony/state sponsored armies made up of private citizens so yes they are like state national guard regiments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protect state's rights as much as personal rights because the founding fathers wanted to make sure a huge central government couldnt take over the states. Saying people need guns to form a militia is just dumb, if you want to be in a militia join the national guard and actually learn how and when to use them. Also the federal government shouldnt be using the national guards to augment the army in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, if the country want to go to war they need to either recruit more for the army or draft people, its not the National Guard's job.

  2. #82
    Brewmaster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,492
    The second amendment is meant to prevent a military coup or an authoritarian state forcibly enslaving you, not to kill the 19 year old kid who broke into your house to steal $50 worth of crap. Not minimizing burglary or home invasion as a crime, but it sure doesn't deserve death.

  3. #83
    Look, this isnt even up for debate. Its a right granted to citizens of the USA. If you want to regulate and limit it ... fine ... but that doesnt change the fact that that is unconstitutional.

    If you hold these opinions, okay, but dont lie to yourself. You are disagreeing with the constitution of this country. This isnt a "lets get together as a neighborhood and make sure that our yards are all cut", this is a "I disagree with one of the founding principles of this country, and I want to see it changed."

    The point of a gun is to kill. Period. Many times the threat of that is enough, some times it isnt.

    Here is an idea. Lets read and understand why the founding fathers thought it so important for citizens to be armed and think about that.
    Here is another idea. Lets hold people accountable for their actions. If you kill someone, you pay the price, it doesnt matter if you do it with a gun or a bow and arrow or a knife.

    Guns are the ultimate interpersonal equalizer. The granny is -just- as dangerous as the street gang, AND THIS IS A GOOD THING. In a world full of guns no one is stronger than anyone else. No one can force others to do anything by force. Robberies, rapes, murders... these are all projections of force, and an armed victim is a huge deterrent to a criminal.

    tl:dr - No. this is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the citizens in this country for really good reasons.

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 12:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobdoletoo View Post
    This is all hypothetical and very much impossible. How would you police a populace that has the means to make their own bullets?
    I would guess in the same way that we have been doing it for the past 200 years.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by DraconusIX View Post
    15,241 murders in the US in 2009, 648 in England
    9,146 murders in the US by gun, 39 by gun in England

    Yes, tell me that our firearm advocacy is keeping us safe. Compare that to other western european nations and its even worse
    That statistic means absolutely nothing. First, you'd have to look at it as a percent of population, not a total number. I'm sure it'll still be higher, but not as drastic.

    Second, anyone with even a little law enforcement training will tell you in close quarters, like most home invasions, a knife is a lot more deadly than a gun. Its been a while, but I want to say within 10 feet a knife is far superior to a gun. So lets pretend you delusions come true, we ban guns and they all magically disappear. Nothing will change. We have a violent culture. Instead of 15k murders by guns, it'll be 15k more murders by knifes, or bats, or rolling pins. It really doesn't matter what weapon they use, people will still get killed.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillia View Post
    A common misconception of the Second Amendment. It says "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". Now the 1700s were full of grammatical oddities and random commas, but it looks to me like it's only referring to the right of people IN A MILITIA to keep and bear arms. That's because there was no standing military at the time. The closest thing the US currently has is our National Guard, which is by state and so technically counts as militia. However, the actual constitutional right to bear arms is definitely questionable at best.
    Lillia, hun. Owning a gun and vowing to use it in protection of your property and family from any outsiders constitutes you being part of a militia. Here in Michigan, most of us deer hunters consider ourselves part of a well regulated militia out to slay deer and bad guys. Some "formal" militia around here also have training weekends and shoot around days to get together and blow shit up (on a gun range, of course) Though I am not part of a "formal" militia, if bad guys were to come into my territory, I'd be out there firing away along with the rest of my deer hunting colleagues.

    Just the total amount of deer hunters in the state of Michigan (over 3 million) makes the state of Michigan around the 10th largest army in the world. I DARE the government to try and take my guns away. They may get them, but they are going to lose a few good men in the process.

    OT: Hell no to rubber bullets. Why not just keep a paint ball gun?

    And Sapper, if you believe that is true give it a try. Even at close quarters, I'd never take a knife over a gun, especially my 12 gauge full of turkey loads. At 10 feet, one shot would blow the face off you and your 3 buddies while you fumble over your knife.
    Last edited by tubbytubaman; 2012-05-02 at 01:48 AM. Reason: Probably should have posted OT also :D

  6. #86
    Mechagnome kleinlax21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Austin & Houston, Texas
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by tubbytubaman View Post
    Lillia, hun. Owning a gun and vowing to use it in protection of your property and family from any outsiders constitutes you being part of a militia. Here in Michigan, most of us deer hunters consider ourselves part of a well regulated militia out to slay deer and bad guys. Some "formal" militia around here also have training weekends and shoot around days to get together and blow shit up (on a gun range, of course) Though I am not part of a "formal" militia, if bad guys were to come into my territory, I'd be out there firing away along with the rest of my deer hunting colleagues.

    Just the total amount of deer hunters in the state of Michigan (over 3 million) makes the state of Michigan around the 10th largest army in the world. I DARE the government to try and take my guns away. They may get them, but they are going to lose a few good men in the process.

    OT: Hell no to rubber bullets. Why not just keep a paint ball gun?

    And Sapper, if you believe that is true give it a try. Even at close quarters, I'd never take a knife over a gun, especially my 12 gauge full of turkey loads. At 10 feet, one shot would blow the face off you and your 3 buddies while you fumble over your knife.
    This, pretty much. America is built around the principle of divided government, with The People containing the bulk of "possible rights". What I mean by this is that Americans have the rights to live where we want, eat what we want, wear what we want, say what we want, and (when it doesn't infringe on others freedoms) do what we want.*The Second Amendment is designed to allow the American people to rise up against a government that seeks to overly limit the people's freedoms. This Amendment, second only to the freedoms of press, assembly, religion, and speech, is our means of ensuring our ability to protect these freedoms.*

    On the subject of the American militia, any able-bodied citizen who can provide for the common defense is in the militia. This includes practically every mature man and woman in decent physical shape. We take it upon ourselves , as a nation of citizens, to control and direct our government through elections, rallies, political discussion and even, god forbid it became necessary, armed revolt.*

    If the Second Amendment were to be revoked, a massive power shift would move from the American people to our government. If this were allowed to occur, I know our current government would not use such a power vacuum to strip us of our freedoms. However, somewhere down the line, who knows if or when a generation of government would use the people's inability to oppose government against us. It is for this exact reason the Second Amendment exists.*

    Many nations that were driven to a totalitarian system revoked gun rights from the people, and took advantage of a disarmed and unfree populace. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia & China, and even the Southern United States before the Civil War all restricted gun rights in order to keep portions, or the entirety, of the population repressed. An elimination of a population's ability to control their government frequently results in the government controlling the people. In America, removing the Second Amendment would be the first step of a process that would result in a defenseless citizenry. The founders realized this, and provided the American people with the means to protect the security our freedoms in the worst-case scenario. Think of it as a failsafe designed to impede the process of an autocratic government developing, if you would.
    Armories: Death Knight / Paladin
    Quote Originally Posted by Regennis View Post
    Stop dating strippers.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZRebellion View Post
    Kleinlax21 who is on your 'side' had no problem doing so.He also doesn't need to attack me in literally every sentence he types.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by archelios View Post
    The limitations I believe in are no automatics, no armor piercing rounds, and no hollow points.
    Any particular reason for this? If you're trying to make the guns less lethal, they're still guns. Unless you plan on mandating rubber bullets instead of regular ones.

  8. #88
    Failure to undertake progressive measures....that is going to end real well. Gun ownership is just one of the issues.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by DraconusIX View Post
    Would they increase dramatically? That is not proven or dis-proven. People would still be welcome to non-lethal alternatives (rubber bullets are not a good alternative). One key to making black market prices rise would be gun control laws across all of the Americas. Most criminals tend to be poor and if the cost of weapons dramatically rose, they would have less ability to buy black market copies. would some still have them? yes, but every pimp and corner dealer or mugger would not. less criminals have guns, the more effective non-lethal options become.

    most criminals dont murder someone when committing a robbery or burglary for the purpose of murder, but because the person got in the way or they panicked.
    Not proven or disproven, but look at the numbers. According to the most recent report from the Home Office, and the DoJ,there were 9608 gun crimes total in the UK, which included non-violent offenses like unlawful discharge (which can be as simple as someone stupid enough to shoot their gun off in the air.) However, there were 1.1 million violent crimes across 57 million people. In the US, there were 326,000 gun crimes total, and 1.3 million violent crimes across 308 million people. The UK had 4.67 times the amount of violent crimes that the US did per person. The exact numbers per 100,000 are 2034 UK, 436 US. Not conclusive proof because culture and other factors always play a role, but that still seems like a dramatic increase in crime rate from the country that banned the guns, to me at least.

    Also, according to "wwwDOTjustfactsDOTcom/guncontrol.asp" which has source citations linked throughout, the UK has averaged a 15% higher murder rate since the handgun ban in 1997. Lastly, in 2009, there were over 14 million guns purchased legally in the US. Because of the ban, there were 0 purchased legally in the UK, yet they still managed those almost 10,000 crimes, compared to 326,000 crimes in the US. That's 42.9 guns purchased per crime in the US, and a figure you can't actually figure out for the UK, since you can't divide by zero.

    To bring it back on to the original question, yes I would support a less than lethal ammunition in the hypothetical world, if and only if, it were somehow guaranteed that everyone only had that, so I would be on equal footing with my attacker.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by anothdae View Post
    Guns are the ultimate interpersonal equalizer. The granny is -just- as dangerous as the street gang
    there is an old saying... god made men, colt made them equal

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by tubbytubaman View Post
    And Sapper, if you believe that is true give it a try. Even at close quarters, I'd never take a knife over a gun, especially my 12 gauge full of turkey loads. At 10 feet, one shot would blow the face off you and your 3 buddies while you fumble over your knife.


    http://kidnap-prevention.blogspot.jp...vs-knives.html

    Think what you want, but you are very, very wrong. I don't need to give it a try, because I've seen it first hand.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •