Gun Regulation. - Page 9

garysher · 09-27-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Gerclamwell

Well of course the action would be violative of the 2nd Amendment but it also would violate the basic principles the Constitution rests upon.

I doubt you are up for such a discussion so I will just say that since the right to arms is not granted, transferred, given, established or otherwise conferred to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment, modifying or striking the words of the 2nd from the Constitution would not empower government to do, what it previously was forbidden to do. That attempt to "take back" that which was never under its control would be an illegitimate action and would expose the government to the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment; the people rescinding their consent to be governed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thanks for confirming what I've already pointed out - the downside of a Constitution is that it constricts the authority of We The People to run their own country as they see fit, and forces them to abide by the best intentions of 18th century politicians.

Nations that don't have to labour under these archaic restraints have benefited by having vastly reduced murder rates.

Since many of them did not exercise the right to be armed and their right to self defense then perhaps no "accommodation" should be made for them.

People who rely on the state for protection and think that they are absolved of being responsible for their personal security are sadly mistaken. The government and police in particular are not responsible for your safety; they are completely exempt from being duty bound to protect anyone. The individual is responsible for their personal security; not taking the duty seriously is rolling the dice .
>>>>>>>>>

Are you seriously suggesting that when someone is shot dead it was really their fault for not carrying a gun?

Do you really want America to look like a cowboy movie?

Your obsession with guns is quite sickening.

It's not a strawman just because discussing it makes people uncomfortable! You don't want to allow the topic to be breached because the label of racism is so easily thrown about. The FACTS can not even be discussed because some are afraid of being labeled.

I'm not a racist, I'm a realist and I do not shy away from discussing all aspects of this problem.

Is it your contention that the fact that murder is so over-represented in the black community should not be a factor in the discussion of remedies?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm saying it's completely irrelevant.

The fact remains that the US has a murder rate 5-10 times higher than its industrialised peer nations.

Your attempts to divert attention from that fact or minimise it by blaming it on the "black folks" is utterly transparent.

As usual you have it completely backwards . . . Should regular citizens be treated as Yardies? Should the conduct and actions of everyone be ruled and mandated by the government's reaction to violent drug gangs; that's the question.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Another bogus, inverted, emotional argument.

Firstly, Yardies who are British citizens are also regular citizens.

Secondly, the law doesn't differentiate between people who can drive safely at 100 mph, or with more than the legal blood alcohol level.

The law sets absolute standards. Sometimes that adversely affects those who can perform or behave above those standards.

Infact they are only a tiny, localised problem. Hardly a justification for disarming a whole nation saying we are risking another Dunblane/ Virginia Tech style massacre if John Q. Citizen doesn't give up their guns.

There, that's much, much better!

Can you explain why Virginia Tech/Columbine style massacres happen far more frequently in America than in nations that control and discourage gun ownership?

Do you seriously advocate that America's students and teachers should attend classes with guns stuffed down their sweatshirts?

Are you so fixated on gun ownership that your judgement has been impaired that badly?

mytmouse57 · 09-27-2007, 06:27 PM

"Do you seriously advocate that America's students and teachers should attend classes with guns stuffed down their sweatshirts?"

Nothing gets me going like a young hottie with a .45 shoved into the waistline of her hip-hugger jeans.

sgtdmski · 09-29-2007, 07:52 AM

It is always the same, the US and its murder rate. Don't you just love it, yes we have a violent society, would it be that way with out guns????? Who knows, if someone is willing to kill another person, should we assume that in the absence of a gun they would not?? Seems kind of farfetched to me.

Addressing the issue of race is a valid point and argument. The facts were presented regarding the percentage of the population blacks make up as well as the percentage of the murder victims. Their rate of murder is higher than another as a percentage of the population. It is a question that needs to be asked and addressed by the black community itself, much like their rate of single mother households and out of wedlock births.

Anytime a tragedy occurs there is a natural reaction to grab the guns, VA Tech, Columbine, et al. So why is this only the case with guns???? How many people die each year because of medical malpractice caused by doctors??? Why not outlaw the doctors??? More children are accidentally drowned in a swimming pool each year than children are killed with guns, should we ban swumming pools as well????

One of the great things about America is our diverse culture, our country is made up of many different people from many different backgrounds, we are a nation of immigrants. With great diversity also comes great misunderstanding and many different sociological problems.

Yes guns kill people, but they require a person who is willing to kill to do so. Taking away the gun will not necessarily mean taking away the desire to kill.

dmk

Ollie Gerclamwell · 09-29-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Thanks for confirming what I've already pointed out - the downside of a Constitution is that it constricts the authority of We The People to run their own country as they see fit, and forces them to abide by the best intentions of 18th century politicians.

That you enjoy living under such a system is wonderful. That you advocate such a system for the conduct of a government is fine . . . That you can not grasp that people may have a different opinion about what's best for them is the manifestation of a elitist hard head at least or a personality defect at worst.

You continue to advocate positions and actions that are undoable in America because of the limited government we have. You stomping your feet and whining like a petulant child will not sway the tenets of the US Constitution . . . We are different than you and we like it that way . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Are you seriously suggesting that when someone is shot dead it was really their fault for not carrying a gun?

There are many Americans who swallow the lie that the police are there to protect you and that all you need to do is not resist a criminal and give him what he wants like it's some kind of binding contract between the assaulted and his/her assaulter . . . How stupid. The responsible, good civic minded citizen takes the best precautions to not be a victim but also takes responsibility for his/her personal security. The ultimate insult to good citizens is when their government disarms them and tells them to be good, well behaved victims when the sub-human predators government is impotent to disarm, attack them.

I don't ascribe to that (your) formula for modern civilization. The best thing about America is that I don't have to accept it and that "right to choose" is not dependent upon the ignorant whims of public opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Your obsession with guns is quite sickening.. . . Are you so fixated on gun ownership that your judgement has been impaired that badly?

Funny thing is, there is no obsession; I really don't think of guns much in my daily life . . . It is your side that is fixated on them and imbibe in them incredible powers to change people into homicidal maniacs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I'm saying it's completely irrelevant.
Your attempts to divert attention from that fact or minimise it by blaming it on the "black folks" is utterly transparent.

It is not irrelevant if one wishes to discuss ideas and programs to actually reduce gun crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

. . . the law doesn't differentiate between people . . .
The law sets absolute standards. Sometimes that adversely affects those who can perform or behave above those standards.

Sort of like how my kid who was sucker punched in the back of the head was suspended 5 days for fighting, just like the kid who assaulted him? Is that the type of leftist moral equivalency you mean? Gotta love the left!

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Can you explain why Virginia Tech/Columbine style massacres happen far more frequently in America than in nations that control and discourage gun ownership?

See above . . . I would venture a guess it's because we have a lot of screwed up kids. How come school shooting did not occur when I was in school or earlier, especially when kids could buy guns through the mail or at the hardware store?

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Do you seriously advocate that America's students and teachers should attend classes with guns stuffed down their sweatshirts?

I think declaring any area a "GUN FREE ZONE" only assures a person bent on rampaging that he will not face any legitimate resistance to his actions. GUN FREE ZONES are occupational health regulations for criminals and maniacs . . . we don't want them to get hurt while they are massacring people do we???

mytmouse57 · 10-01-2007, 01:27 PM

"There are many Americans who swallow the lie that the police are there to protect you and that all you need to do is not resist a criminal and give him what he wants like it's some kind of binding contract between the assaulted and his/her assaulter . . . How stupid. The responsible, good civic minded citizen takes the best precautions to not be a victim but also takes responsibility for his/her personal security. The ultimate insult to good citizens is when their government disarms them and tells them to be good, well behaved victims when the sub-human predators government is impotent to disarm, attack them.

I don't ascribe to that (your) formula for modern civilization. The best thing about America is that I don't have to accept it and that "right to choose" is not dependent upon the ignorant whims of public opinion."

I've visited with a number of police offices about this subject. Overwhelmingly, they FAVOR responsible citizens -- who have the proper training -- being armed. They also seem to agree that an armed citizens DISCOURAGE thugs from just randomly attacking people. Again, it think it's no coincidence that nearly all the towns and small cities I've lived in were in areas where everybody and his granny has a gun -- and things like random muggings, home invasions and car jackings are virtually unheard of.

garysher · 10-01-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

"There are many Americans who swallow the lie that the police are there to protect you and that all you need to do is not resist a criminal and give him what he wants like it's some kind of binding contract between the assaulted and his/her assaulter . . . How stupid. The responsible, good civic minded citizen takes the best precautions to not be a victim but also takes responsibility for his/her personal security. The ultimate insult to good citizens is when their government disarms them and tells them to be good, well behaved victims when the sub-human predators government is impotent to disarm, attack them.

I don't ascribe to that (your) formula for modern civilization. The best thing about America is that I don't have to accept it and that "right to choose" is not dependent upon the ignorant whims of public opinion."

I've visited with a number of police offices about this subject. Overwhelmingly, they FAVOR responsible citizens -- who have the proper training -- being armed. They also seem to agree that an armed citizens DISCOURAGE thugs from just randomly attacking people. Again, it think it's no coincidence that nearly all the towns and small cities I've lived in were in areas where everybody and his granny has a gun -- and things like random muggings, home invasions and car jackings are virtually unheard of.

The point about the police not having responsibility to protect everyone all the time is moot - it applies equally in countries that have guns under control, and still benefit from the vastly reduced murder rate.

Whenever the UK police are polled on gun ownership they always vote overwhelmingly AGAINST arming either the public or themselves, as it simply ensures the proliferation of arms and the inevitable increase in injuries and death.

In other words they don't want to end up like America!

garysher · 10-01-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

It is always the same, the US and its murder rate. Don't you just love it, yes we have a violent society, would it be that way with out guns????? Who knows, if someone is willing to kill another person, should we assume that in the absence of a gun they would not?? Seems kind of farfetched to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why do you resign yourself so quickly to the assumption that America is more violent than other countries?

Is America also more prone to using drugs, and if so, is that a reason to abandon drug legislation?

That seems far-fetched to me!

Addressing the issue of race is a valid point and argument. The facts were presented regarding the percentage of the population blacks make up as well as the percentage of the murder victims. Their rate of murder is higher than another as a percentage of the population. It is a question that needs to be asked and addressed by the black community itself, much like their rate of single mother households and out of wedlock births.
>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe so, but what about E pluribus unum?
It's still an American problem not just a black problem isn't it?
Anytime a tragedy occurs there is a natural reaction to grab the guns, VA Tech, Columbine, et al. So why is this only the case with guns???? How many people die each year because of medical malpractice caused by doctors??? Why not outlaw the doctors??? More children are accidentally drowned in a swimming pool each year than children are killed with guns, should we ban swumming pools as well????
>>>>>>>
You don't see a difference between a gun and a swimming pool??

This is such a specious argument it barely warrants an argued response!!

Please be serious!

One of the great things about America is our diverse culture, our country is made up of many different people from many different backgrounds, we are a nation of immigrants. With great diversity also comes great misunderstanding and many different sociological problems

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ditto Canada, Australia, and many European countries who don't have America's gun problem.

Yes guns kill people, but they require a person who is willing to kill to do so. Taking away the gun will not necessarily mean taking away the desire to kill.

dmk

Maybe not. But it will take away the certainty of death and the impulsiveness of the action.

nuttyjoe · 10-01-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Maybe not. But it will take away the certainty of death and the impulsiveness of the action.

I'm not sure I can accept that, Gary. I tend to believe the others. A gun (or anything used as a weapon) first requires a human being with the desire to do so. So what if you did take away all guns. Another weapon of choice would be used by someone who wanted to kill another. I could only accept the outlaw of guns if; as I've said before, there was such a gun that could load itself, aim itself, and discharge itself. To the best of my knowledge, such a gun does not yet exist. I would be all for banning it if it did exist.
While you don't accept the argument of the swimming pools; substitute auto mobiles here. What is the ratio between automobile-related deaths to gun-related deaths? Would you support banning all automobiles? I'm pretty sure that they far outnumber guns as far as deaths are concerned.
When you speak of taking away the certainty of death and the impulsiveness of the action, again you are forgetting that there was a person whom made the choice to use the gun to try and kill another. I think we must focus our efforts towards teching people not to even want to harm or kill another. A all order, I admit; maybe even impossible- but this is where any crime starts- somebody making he decision to do so. Until we address it from this point; guns really are irrelevant. A crimewill still be committed, its just that another weapon would be used. Can anyone out there tell me that they would feel any better if they were the victim of an assault in which the perpetrator used a knife to attack them rather than a gun? If so, why would you feel any better?

CrazyFlamingos · 10-01-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

Can anyone out there tell me that they would feel any better if they were the victim of an assault in which the perpetrator used a knife to attack them rather than a gun? If so, why would you feel any better?

Yes. Somewhat better chance of surviving a knife attack -- especially if it is an impulsive attack by someone who has no experience with using a knife for a weapon.

knot_e_lady · 10-01-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

Yes. Somewhat better chance of surviving a knife attack -- especially if it is an impulsive attack by someone who has no experience with using a knife for a weapon.

Not to mention, a gun is an impersonal weapon. Anything else you have to get up close and personal.

How many drive by stabbings have you heard of?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode