Support gun control?

sgtdmski · 04-26-2005, 03:55 AM

Gun Control is hitting your target.....

Everytime that the second amendment is introduced into the argument, liberals love to try to convince everyone that it was not meant for the individual but rather for the states. Considering that the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights pertain to the individual should we assume that this idea is correct?? As a conservative I think not. But then again perhaps I am wrong and the liberal interpretation is correct, the second amendment applies to the state, and if that is true that would also mean that the other nine amendments also only apply to the states.

Also the idea that the second amendment was needed because the militia need the right to bear arms to defend against the British, shows a severe lack of historical knowledge. Refresher, the Battle of Yorktown occurred in 1781, which for all practical purposes ended the Revolutionary War. The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, officially ending the war. THe Bill of rights, which included the second amendment was not ratified until 1789....I don't think it had anything to do with the British!!!!

By definition, a criminal is one who commits illegal acts. Making guns illegal will keep them in the hands of the criminals, and leave the citizen defenseless. I will not argue with the circular reasoning of the liberal on this point. Guns don't kill people, a person is needed to pull the trigger. Nor will I argue with the facts that we have a violent society. We do, we see it everyday, and for the most part we have become immune to it. But there is one statistic that is often overlooked, mainly because all too often it goes unreported, and this has been stated by the FBI who maintain most of the statistics, and that is how many times a day a gun is used to prevent a crime.

When the several of the states tried to enact right to carry laws, we heard the claims of how the states would revert to the wild west days of old, yet this has failed to occur. In every state one statistic has declined, and that is violent crimes against the individual. By allowing the citizen to protect themselves, it has made it harder on the criminal to do their jobs, because unlike in the past, they never know who is packing. Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet time and again it is at the top of the list of murders per capita. Gun control is only helping the criminal.

Some like to argue that there are too many accidental deaths with guns, considering in 2002 there were 4000 accidental deaths and considering there are some 8,000,000 million gun owners that equates to a 1/2000 ration. In the same year there were some 120,000 accidental deaths caused by doctors, consider there were some 800,000 doctors that equates to a 1/8 ratio, should we outlaw doctors?????

It is not that there are too many guns, it is that there are too many guns in the hands of criminals. The answer is not to take away the guns from the citizens, but to punish the criminals. Rehabilitation does not seem to work in prison. Let's quit coddling them, and make them work or go to school while in prison. The military has it right on this issue, manual labor, let 'em pound big rocks into little rocks. When someone is sentenced to prison, first they should feel as if it is a punishment, and then we should work on their rehabilitation.

dmk

duncanmac · 04-26-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Gun Control is hitting your target.....

Everytime that the second amendment is introduced into the argument, liberals love to try to convince everyone that it was not meant for the individual but rather for the states. Considering that the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights pertain to the individual should we assume that this idea is correct?? As a conservative I think not. But then again perhaps I am wrong and the liberal interpretation is correct, the second amendment applies to the state, and if that is true that would also mean that the other nine amendments also only apply to the states.

Also the idea that the second amendment was needed because the militia need the right to bear arms to defend against the British, shows a severe lack of historical knowledge. Refresher, the Battle of Yorktown occurred in 1781, which for all practical purposes ended the Revolutionary War. The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, officially ending the war. THe Bill of rights, which included the second amendment was not ratified until 1789....I don't think it had anything to do with the British!!!!

By definition, a criminal is one who commits illegal acts. Making guns illegal will keep them in the hands of the criminals, and leave the citizen defenseless. I will not argue with the circular reasoning of the liberal on this point. Guns don't kill people, a person is needed to pull the trigger. Nor will I argue with the facts that we have a violent society. We do, we see it everyday, and for the most part we have become immune to it. But there is one statistic that is often overlooked, mainly because all too often it goes unreported, and this has been stated by the FBI who maintain most of the statistics, and that is how many times a day a gun is used to prevent a crime.

When the several of the states tried to enact right to carry laws, we heard the claims of how the states would revert to the wild west days of old, yet this has failed to occur. In every state one statistic has declined, and that is violent crimes against the individual. By allowing the citizen to protect themselves, it has made it harder on the criminal to do their jobs, because unlike in the past, they never know who is packing. Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet time and again it is at the top of the list of murders per capita. Gun control is only helping the criminal.

Some like to argue that there are too many accidental deaths with guns, considering in 2002 there were 4000 accidental deaths and considering there are some 8,000,000 million gun owners that equates to a 1/2000 ration. In the same year there were some 120,000 accidental deaths caused by doctors, consider there were some 800,000 doctors that equates to a 1/8 ratio, should we outlaw doctors?????

It is not that there are too many guns, it is that there are too many guns in the hands of criminals. The answer is not to take away the guns from the citizens, but to punish the criminals. Rehabilitation does not seem to work in prison. Let's quit coddling them, and make them work or go to school while in prison. The military has it right on this issue, manual labor, let 'em pound big rocks into little rocks. When someone is sentenced to prison, first they should feel as if it is a punishment, and then we should work on their rehabilitation.

dmk

Well said.Thank you.

hevusa · 04-26-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncanmac

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Gun Control is hitting your target.....

Everytime that the second amendment is introduced into the argument, liberals love to try to convince everyone that it was not meant for the individual but rather for the states. Considering that the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights pertain to the individual should we assume that this idea is correct?? As a conservative I think not. But then again perhaps I am wrong and the liberal interpretation is correct, the second amendment applies to the state, and if that is true that would also mean that the other nine amendments also only apply to the states.

Also the idea that the second amendment was needed because the militia need the right to bear arms to defend against the British, shows a severe lack of historical knowledge. Refresher, the Battle of Yorktown occurred in 1781, which for all practical purposes ended the Revolutionary War. The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, officially ending the war. THe Bill of rights, which included the second amendment was not ratified until 1789....I don't think it had anything to do with the British!!!!

By definition, a criminal is one who commits illegal acts. Making guns illegal will keep them in the hands of the criminals, and leave the citizen defenseless. I will not argue with the circular reasoning of the liberal on this point. Guns don't kill people, a person is needed to pull the trigger. Nor will I argue with the facts that we have a violent society. We do, we see it everyday, and for the most part we have become immune to it. But there is one statistic that is often overlooked, mainly because all too often it goes unreported, and this has been stated by the FBI who maintain most of the statistics, and that is how many times a day a gun is used to prevent a crime.

When the several of the states tried to enact right to carry laws, we heard the claims of how the states would revert to the wild west days of old, yet this has failed to occur. In every state one statistic has declined, and that is violent crimes against the individual. By allowing the citizen to protect themselves, it has made it harder on the criminal to do their jobs, because unlike in the past, they never know who is packing. Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet time and again it is at the top of the list of murders per capita. Gun control is only helping the criminal.

Some like to argue that there are too many accidental deaths with guns, considering in 2002 there were 4000 accidental deaths and considering there are some 8,000,000 million gun owners that equates to a 1/2000 ration. In the same year there were some 120,000 accidental deaths caused by doctors, consider there were some 800,000 doctors that equates to a 1/8 ratio, should we outlaw doctors?????

It is not that there are too many guns, it is that there are too many guns in the hands of criminals. The answer is not to take away the guns from the citizens, but to punish the criminals. Rehabilitation does not seem to work in prison. Let's quit coddling them, and make them work or go to school while in prison. The military has it right on this issue, manual labor, let 'em pound big rocks into little rocks. When someone is sentenced to prison, first they should feel as if it is a punishment, and then we should work on their rehabilitation.

dmk

Well said.Thank you.

Well said? That has enough holes to drive a tank through...

FAndy · 04-26-2005, 06:28 PM

And where are those holes may I ask???

hevusa · 04-26-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAndy

And where are those holes may I ask???

No mention of militia is the first clue...

FAndy · 04-27-2005, 02:09 PM

Yes, but stating that the right to bear arms is only specific to state militias.. is interpreting the constitution very loosely.. It would be like saying you only have freedom of speech... when ...etc. etc. All 10 rights within the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed. They were set up for a purpose. To protect individual rights, protect against others, and for protection from an opressive government itself.

P.S. - Here's some success stories on Gun Control in the UK.

1. - There are still murders... I was told last week, someone was chopped to death with an Ax. I don't know about you...but if i had the choice I'd rather be shot... Murders still happen regardless, and the ones that do, are usually more brutal now.

2. - The goverment is executing a citizen for defending himself against a entruder in the UK somewhere... This is scary. I'm sure some of you would advocate against self defense rights in America since you seem to be all for supporting the bad guy.

hevusa · 04-27-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAndy

Yes, but stating that the right to bear arms is only specific to state militias.. is interpreting the constitution very loosely.. It would be like saying you only have freedom of speech... when ...etc. etc. All 10 rights within the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed. They were set up for a purpose. To protect individual rights, protect against others, and for protection from an opressive government itself.

P.S. - Here's some success stories on Gun Control in the UK.

1. - There are still murders... I was told last week, someone was chopped to death with an Ax. I don't know about you...but if i had the choice I'd rather be shot... Murders still happen regardless, and the ones that do, are usually more brutal now.

2. - The goverment is executing a citizen for defending himself against a entruder in the UK somewhere... This is scary. I'm sure some of you would advocate against self defense rights in America since you seem to be all for supporting the bad guy.

The statistics don't lie. We have a HUGE problem with gun related violence in this country. I don't understand the "throwing fire on fire" to be safer attitude people have in this country in regards to guns.

We have seen the gun related violence drop in countries where guns are not allowed or very hard to get. It would work here too.

sgtdmski · 04-28-2005, 02:59 AM

To appease all the liberals, the exact text of the 2nd Amendment reads as follows:

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.

However, when originally proposed it should be interesting to note that it read as follows:

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. This is taken from the Congressional Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, Page 97.

Once again for those who are historically challenged, it is a fact that the legislatures of many of the states regarded the Constitution as vague when establishing the rights of the individual, and therefore called for the Bill of Rights to be added as amendment in accordance with the Amendment process of the Constituion.

SO once again why is it necessary that I even mention the Militia. As I stated the original Bill of Rights was also known as the Rights of Citizens. No mention of states. So once again, either all ten of the first amendments are devised with the individual in mind, or they must all be devised with the state in mind. You can't have it both ways, try as you might.

Outlawing gun altogether will not work unless you have some way of ensuring that all the guns in this country are destroyed. Unless you can guarantee that one action, gun control is a farce. By taking away guns from law abiding citizens, you leave them in the hands of the criminals and what do you suppose they are going to do with them??

Would it be nice if we lived in a less violent country, undoubtable, but we don't. We tried it the liberal way for the last 45 years. THe sixities came along, and protest after protest left to the adoption of all these great and worthless ideals that have led us to where we are today. So let try it the conservative way for the next 45 and see which way works better.

dmk

hevusa · 04-28-2005, 08:47 AM

>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.

I think you have proven my point.

We don't need a well regulated Militia to secure a free state anymore. In fact a militia could do nothing against a modern military.

Time to amend an archaic law.

sgtdmski · 04-28-2005, 05:44 PM

See there you go again. You get through the portion of of the amendment about a well-regulated militia and your brain just short circuits and either you quit reading or comprehending the little innoculous statement that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What part of that sentence are you failing to absorb?????

dmk