darth tang
Active Member
I am enjoying reading this. I have to interject a question though. It states the right to bare "arms". Now what is the definition of that. Is there a line on the arms?
Gun Control
- Thread starter darth tang
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
The issue is still, however, why is violent crime such an issue?
God? Nope... America still has more people in church on Sunday mornings than Europe, Australia, etc.
Parents? Don't buy that either... parents in Europe are just as lax, if not more so, than here..
Violence on tv, games? Doubtful... again, other industrial and post industrial countries have similar.
I agree that disarming people is the first step in oppressing them. I don't have a concealed carry permit because I don't want a paper trail of my gun. If guns are ever confiscated you can bet concealed hand gun permits will be used to go after them all.
Do crimes happen across the world... absolutely. When was the last time though a couple of 16 year olds did a drive by using an Uzi in London, Madrid, Brataslava, Sydney, etc?
I get to visit and talk to missionaries quite a bit in my job. We frequently talk about this issue. Why is it that sooo many elementary kids are able to safely ride public transportation to school every day in Europe?
I'm going to a village in Macedonia next week where wolves are more dangerous than people. How odd is that? We live in the most free nation in the world, but our streets are infested with gangs, crime, etc.
God? Nope... America still has more people in church on Sunday mornings than Europe, Australia, etc.
Parents? Don't buy that either... parents in Europe are just as lax, if not more so, than here..
Violence on tv, games? Doubtful... again, other industrial and post industrial countries have similar.
I agree that disarming people is the first step in oppressing them. I don't have a concealed carry permit because I don't want a paper trail of my gun. If guns are ever confiscated you can bet concealed hand gun permits will be used to go after them all.
Do crimes happen across the world... absolutely. When was the last time though a couple of 16 year olds did a drive by using an Uzi in London, Madrid, Brataslava, Sydney, etc?
I get to visit and talk to missionaries quite a bit in my job. We frequently talk about this issue. Why is it that sooo many elementary kids are able to safely ride public transportation to school every day in Europe?
I'm going to a village in Macedonia next week where wolves are more dangerous than people. How odd is that? We live in the most free nation in the world, but our streets are infested with gangs, crime, etc.
phixer
Active Member
Why? Because the criminals are tough,... much tougher than the law is at preventing them and they currently do not fear the law. Because this fear is gone.... crime is more prevailant. Singapore is a good example of crime control. If someone commits a violent crime in Singapore the penalty is severe and justice is swift. Just the fact of knowing what the consequences are prevents it from occuring in the first place. The fix: Criminals wont commit the same crime if they are permantly removed from society, future criminals will see this and most will be detered. Not enacting more laws but enforcing the ones we have. There is a lack of Courage to do what is right in favor of what is popular... so most just ignore the problem hoping that it never happens to them.
If you cut off the head of the snake it cant strike.
If you cut off the head of the snake it cant strike.
wrigley11
Member
The second amendment was put in place to protect the people of the United States. The reasoning is the same today as it was back then. Back in the day, it had to deal with the British or some other country invading this country. Today, it allows all the bad guys out there to second guess breaking into someone home.
As an America you are free and one of your rights as a free America is to own a gun.
Any one who complains about this right, I can sum it up like this... and these are real life examples that both deal with two seperate women in their middle 30's.
Guy kicks in a sliding door... woman A doesn't own a gun and gets raped and killed.
Woman B owns a guy and has been trained on how to defend herself. Woman B does fatally wound the intruder but doesn't get a stratch, I really don't feel sorry for the intruder.
For that reason alone, I will never give up mine or any other American's right to own a gun.
As for the original statement that made comments about Tanks & IBCM... there are different classes of arms. The two mentioned above have nothing to deal w. the second amendment.
As an America you are free and one of your rights as a free America is to own a gun.
Any one who complains about this right, I can sum it up like this... and these are real life examples that both deal with two seperate women in their middle 30's.
Guy kicks in a sliding door... woman A doesn't own a gun and gets raped and killed.
Woman B owns a guy and has been trained on how to defend herself. Woman B does fatally wound the intruder but doesn't get a stratch, I really don't feel sorry for the intruder.
For that reason alone, I will never give up mine or any other American's right to own a gun.
As for the original statement that made comments about Tanks & IBCM... there are different classes of arms. The two mentioned above have nothing to deal w. the second amendment.
darth tang
Active Member
Originally Posted by wrigley11
As for the original statement that made comments about Tanks & IBCM... there are different classes of arms. The two mentioned above have nothing to deal w. the second amendment.
By stating this, you are ignoring history. When the law was written the following "arms" were available. Muskets and cannons. A cannon could be owned by a private citizen if he could afford it. A cannon back then is our equivalent to ICBM's and tanks. So if the musket is equivalent to today's guns and today's guns are covered under the law, shouldn't ICBM's and such be legal to own, using the same thought process?
As for the original statement that made comments about Tanks & IBCM... there are different classes of arms. The two mentioned above have nothing to deal w. the second amendment.
By stating this, you are ignoring history. When the law was written the following "arms" were available. Muskets and cannons. A cannon could be owned by a private citizen if he could afford it. A cannon back then is our equivalent to ICBM's and tanks. So if the musket is equivalent to today's guns and today's guns are covered under the law, shouldn't ICBM's and such be legal to own, using the same thought process?
dennycrane
Member
Originally Posted by Phixer
Thanks Denny
Keep em coming... but Im getting tired and have argued this subject many times and have no intention of convincing you otherwise...its a waste of energy. As mentioned eariler, "I didn't think people actually talked like that" If you do enough reasearch and gain the experience you realize that people do talk like that, most often because of an experience they had. There are figures everywhere, and as the old saying goes... "Figures dont lie but liars can figure", so what it really boils down to is; personal first hand experience. I have been fortunate enough to live in a variety of countries for more than two years at a time, was born and lived in Germany, Japan, Turkey, Haifa Israel, visited Australia 4X have lived in (not visited) Dubai, Saudi Arabia, UAE (Jebel Ali), Oman, Pakistan and Egypt for longer than a year at a time. I understand how it really is over there and not the view points of a paid lobbyist in an airconditioned office. Its hard to agree with you after witnessing first hand what the loss of the right to keep and bear arms has on a society. It significantly reduces the protection and freedoms of the people. Many of the folks who support the second ammendment do so because of first hand experience. Not an opinion based on a text book or what is lectured on a campus, but based on living in the real world. Fortunately we live in a coutry that allows us to express these beliefs. We have been given this right and is currently defended by brave Americans with guns.
"We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns"
At least we have one thing in common, we both like marine aquariums.
Best regards
Phixer
Cheers, Fixer. Your experience, no doubt, warrants your opinions. You're lucky to have lived in so many places. I went to school in the NE of England and that experience profoundly affected me. I can imagine how you've grown through yours. So in the end, its just two opinions...neither right or wrong, so to speak...just different.
Good luck,
DennyCrane
Thanks Denny
Keep em coming... but Im getting tired and have argued this subject many times and have no intention of convincing you otherwise...its a waste of energy. As mentioned eariler, "I didn't think people actually talked like that" If you do enough reasearch and gain the experience you realize that people do talk like that, most often because of an experience they had. There are figures everywhere, and as the old saying goes... "Figures dont lie but liars can figure", so what it really boils down to is; personal first hand experience. I have been fortunate enough to live in a variety of countries for more than two years at a time, was born and lived in Germany, Japan, Turkey, Haifa Israel, visited Australia 4X have lived in (not visited) Dubai, Saudi Arabia, UAE (Jebel Ali), Oman, Pakistan and Egypt for longer than a year at a time. I understand how it really is over there and not the view points of a paid lobbyist in an airconditioned office. Its hard to agree with you after witnessing first hand what the loss of the right to keep and bear arms has on a society. It significantly reduces the protection and freedoms of the people. Many of the folks who support the second ammendment do so because of first hand experience. Not an opinion based on a text book or what is lectured on a campus, but based on living in the real world. Fortunately we live in a coutry that allows us to express these beliefs. We have been given this right and is currently defended by brave Americans with guns.
"We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns"
At least we have one thing in common, we both like marine aquariums.
Best regards
Phixer
Cheers, Fixer. Your experience, no doubt, warrants your opinions. You're lucky to have lived in so many places. I went to school in the NE of England and that experience profoundly affected me. I can imagine how you've grown through yours. So in the end, its just two opinions...neither right or wrong, so to speak...just different.
Good luck,
DennyCrane
mimzy
Active Member
Guns are inanimate objects. They can't do anything on their own.
..neither can cars, or motorcycles, or toasters or hairdryers....
People die from using all sorts of things. People kill other people by using all sorts of things. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them, we just need to promote and perpetuate their RESPONSIBLE USE.
..neither can cars, or motorcycles, or toasters or hairdryers....
People die from using all sorts of things. People kill other people by using all sorts of things. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them, we just need to promote and perpetuate their RESPONSIBLE USE.
zman1
Active Member
Guns don't shoot friends, just Vice Presidents do....
Honestly Officer it was self-defense. If you don't believe me, you can ask the deceased.
In Illinois we have a FOID card issued by the State Police, and the gun toting felons don't. I have mixed feeling about the FOID card. I don't like being a law abiding citizen having to register with the State Police to own a gun and buy ammunition. However, trying to make it harder for the non law abiding citizen to buy ammunition is a plus.
Honestly Officer it was self-defense. If you don't believe me, you can ask the deceased.
In Illinois we have a FOID card issued by the State Police, and the gun toting felons don't. I have mixed feeling about the FOID card. I don't like being a law abiding citizen having to register with the State Police to own a gun and buy ammunition. However, trying to make it harder for the non law abiding citizen to buy ammunition is a plus.
talath
Member
Mimzy, you're on to something! Seeing as though 43,000 people were killed in 2004 as a result of traffic fatalities, I think we should ban motor vehicles!.....Or maybe we should try to just drive safer. I'm confused now. By banning motor vehicles wouldn't we also ban over 43,000 fatalities? It sounds good, but the logic doesn't stand. Nor would the logic stand that we would eliminate murders if we eliminated guns. People were murdered long before guns existed.
I agree with Mimzy, A person murders, not an implement. It's a dangerous path to assign blame to an object. It destroys personal culpability.
I agree with Mimzy, A person murders, not an implement. It's a dangerous path to assign blame to an object. It destroys personal culpability.
mimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by talath
Mimzy, you're on to something! Seeing as though 43,000 people were killed in 2004 as a result of traffic fatalities, I think we should ban motor vehicles!.....Or maybe we should try to just drive safer. I'm confused now. By banning motor vehicles wouldn't we also ban over 43,000 fatalities? It sounds good, but the logic doesn't stand. Nor would the logic stand that we would eliminate murders if we eliminated guns. People were murdered long before guns existed.
I agree with Mimzy, A person murders, not an implement. It's a dangerous path to assign blame to an object. It destroys personal culpability.
Mimzy, you're on to something! Seeing as though 43,000 people were killed in 2004 as a result of traffic fatalities, I think we should ban motor vehicles!.....Or maybe we should try to just drive safer. I'm confused now. By banning motor vehicles wouldn't we also ban over 43,000 fatalities? It sounds good, but the logic doesn't stand. Nor would the logic stand that we would eliminate murders if we eliminated guns. People were murdered long before guns existed.
I agree with Mimzy, A person murders, not an implement. It's a dangerous path to assign blame to an object. It destroys personal culpability.
aw2
Active Member
Violent video games and movies is a useless point to me. I grew up playing the most violent games of the times...Doom and the like...I've never killed anyone (when it wasnt nessesary), nor do I have the desire to.
It's not solely the parents fault though...but, to some degree, I believe it is. Parents instill values into their children, whether they try to or not. It's just the way a human being is.
I believe that people should be educated on the actual statistics, and the reasons behind those statistics and not just rely on what the media has to say. People think..."well, if it doesnt directly effect me, then I dont have to worry about", which is the biggest load of crap, IMO.
To the guy that said, way back in an earlier post..."I think citizens should have access to the same firearms as law enforcement and military"...not to be rude and this just my opinion...but IMO, you fall into the category of people who should not be allowed to possess a firearm. Guns are not toys, nor are they available for you to show your friends and look cool, or tough. You do not need a fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, your home, or your family...it wont do any better than a handgun or a shotgun.
Children die, in this country every year, by shooting themselves or another child for the simple fact that parents are careless...that's plain and simple, if you ask me. Common sense is...dont put a firearm and ammunition within easy reach of child. You want to protect your home and family, you say??...ok then...protect your curious children by being responsible.
I think gun laws, in this country, are becoming (or will become) too strict. Ban the automatics for the common person, yes...have a more through system of allowing who can possess a firearm. But, my question is this...is a shotgun, in the hands of an angry psycho, any less dangerous than a fully automatic weapon?? IMO, I dont think so.
I've worked in SWAT type and anti-terrorist units, as well...to me, someone with a handgun is just as dangerous as someone with a fully automatic rifle.
It's not the firearms that should be restricted...it's that we need better rules and regulations concerning the people that should be able to possess them.
I just recently moved from Chicago, where I read a newspaper article within the past year. A man and his family lived in an upper scale suburb of Chicago. In this suburb, they have a mandatory law, prohibiting ANYONE from owning ANY type of gun, including handguns. One night, a burgler broke in, stole a large quantity of valuables and left (but not before taking the keys to the owners BWM SUV). A few nights later, that same burgler returned, intending to steal the SUV...and, he returned with a pistol.
The homeowner owned a handgun, even though he wasnt supposed to. He confronted the burgler, right outside his own daughters bedroom and when the burgler saw the homeowner had a firearm, he fired a shot at the homeowner and then tried to get away. The homeowner shot him in the leg (intentionally), incapacitating him and then called the cops.
When the police arrived on scene, not only did they arrest the burlger, but they also arrested the home owner for possessing a firearm. Now, do you think that's right? Say that homeowner didnt own that firearm and was unarmed, while the burgler still had his own pistol...things would have certainly been different.
It's not solely the parents fault though...but, to some degree, I believe it is. Parents instill values into their children, whether they try to or not. It's just the way a human being is.
I believe that people should be educated on the actual statistics, and the reasons behind those statistics and not just rely on what the media has to say. People think..."well, if it doesnt directly effect me, then I dont have to worry about", which is the biggest load of crap, IMO.
To the guy that said, way back in an earlier post..."I think citizens should have access to the same firearms as law enforcement and military"...not to be rude and this just my opinion...but IMO, you fall into the category of people who should not be allowed to possess a firearm. Guns are not toys, nor are they available for you to show your friends and look cool, or tough. You do not need a fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, your home, or your family...it wont do any better than a handgun or a shotgun.
Children die, in this country every year, by shooting themselves or another child for the simple fact that parents are careless...that's plain and simple, if you ask me. Common sense is...dont put a firearm and ammunition within easy reach of child. You want to protect your home and family, you say??...ok then...protect your curious children by being responsible.
I think gun laws, in this country, are becoming (or will become) too strict. Ban the automatics for the common person, yes...have a more through system of allowing who can possess a firearm. But, my question is this...is a shotgun, in the hands of an angry psycho, any less dangerous than a fully automatic weapon?? IMO, I dont think so.
I've worked in SWAT type and anti-terrorist units, as well...to me, someone with a handgun is just as dangerous as someone with a fully automatic rifle.
It's not the firearms that should be restricted...it's that we need better rules and regulations concerning the people that should be able to possess them.
I just recently moved from Chicago, where I read a newspaper article within the past year. A man and his family lived in an upper scale suburb of Chicago. In this suburb, they have a mandatory law, prohibiting ANYONE from owning ANY type of gun, including handguns. One night, a burgler broke in, stole a large quantity of valuables and left (but not before taking the keys to the owners BWM SUV). A few nights later, that same burgler returned, intending to steal the SUV...and, he returned with a pistol.
The homeowner owned a handgun, even though he wasnt supposed to. He confronted the burgler, right outside his own daughters bedroom and when the burgler saw the homeowner had a firearm, he fired a shot at the homeowner and then tried to get away. The homeowner shot him in the leg (intentionally), incapacitating him and then called the cops.
When the police arrived on scene, not only did they arrest the burlger, but they also arrested the home owner for possessing a firearm. Now, do you think that's right? Say that homeowner didnt own that firearm and was unarmed, while the burgler still had his own pistol...things would have certainly been different.
redleg
New Member
i have never read such aload of crap u talk about gun law. here in n.ireland a country about half the size of your avarage state we tried to wipe each other out with 5000 persons dead connected to the troubles. sometimes i wish i had agun just to feel safe but yet we,r not allowed. last week someone tried to burn my house and i know who it was with 2 persons haveing seen him do it the police never even went to his house. they let all the killers out of jail here yet they will put me inside for trying to protect my kids and home yes i would use it without adoubt but iwill end up in jail, the normal joe in jail and the killers on the street.come to think of it the police never came to my house. LAW what law, why do u americans need guns to shoot tin cans or feel safe, yes guns kill people its just that we cant decide whats right and whats wrong and who we should kill GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE DO thank**** deer cant use guns
jzuse
Member
Originally Posted by Oaktree
I agree with you
I feel the same way. It all starts at home. I myself have been around guns my whole life, I have pics where I am about 4yr. old shooting my dads little .25. I have grown up in a family of hunters and have learned to respect firearms, and the key word is respect. At home all the guns have gun locks and are in a gun safe.
I agree with you
I feel the same way. It all starts at home. I myself have been around guns my whole life, I have pics where I am about 4yr. old shooting my dads little .25. I have grown up in a family of hunters and have learned to respect firearms, and the key word is respect. At home all the guns have gun locks and are in a gun safe.
