An anonymous list in Thank God CBS didn't shut him up!:) beginning "Right on" carries a paragraph on the right to bear arms and asserts thatAnonymous wrote: Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.Here we go then - the "Guns don't kill people, people do" territory.
Guns make killing people easier. People - military, paramilitary or civilian - who would otherwise not kill become killers because they have access to a gun.
The majority instance of killing by gun in a civilian context is suicide, not murder or accident. The most commonly used method of suicide in the United States is firearms. In the UK, where access to firearms is difficult and inconvenient, shooting forms an insignificant proportion of suicides. Ready access to guns makes impulse-suicide far more available in the US and the rate of suicide is noticeably higher.
Either for suicide or for murder the easy accessibility to guns makes killing a simpler proposition. What would otherwise be difficult becomes easy. Killing someone with a baseball bat is, as the list says, possible, but it's nowhere near as common. It might be more satisfying but it takes a lot more effort and the result's a lot less certain.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
I would uphold anyone's right to bear arms . . . but wouldn't they be kinda hairy? :wah:
Sorry Spotalicious . . . I just couldn't resist! :wah:
Sorry Spotalicious . . . I just couldn't resist! :wah:
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Rapunzel;751678 wrote: Sorry Spotalicious . . . I just couldn't resist! :wah:
Your ancestry involved many goats. Go for a long walk, check the horizon for Spaniards or whatever people do where you live.
Happy new year, the four of you!
Your ancestry involved many goats. Go for a long walk, check the horizon for Spaniards or whatever people do where you live.
Happy new year, the four of you!
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
spot;751696 wrote: Your ancestry involved many goats. Go for a long walk, check the horizon for Spaniards or whatever people do where you live.
Happy new year, the four of you!
So when my maaa said "go aht" she didn't mean 'go out' she was calling me a goat!
Ahh. Light dawns. I didn't understand at the time - well, I was just a kid! :wah:
Sorry for the silliness, I was always a fan of pans...er...puns.
Happy New Year Spot. :-4
Happy new year, the four of you!
So when my maaa said "go aht" she didn't mean 'go out' she was calling me a goat!
Ahh. Light dawns. I didn't understand at the time - well, I was just a kid! :wah:
Sorry for the silliness, I was always a fan of pans...er...puns.
Happy New Year Spot. :-4
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
spot;751673 wrote: An anonymous list in Thank God CBS didn't shut him up!:) beginning "Right on" carries a paragraph on the right to bear arms and asserts thatHere we go then - the "Guns don't kill people, people do" territory.
Guns make killing people easier. People - military, paramilitary or civilian - who would otherwise not kill become killers because they have access to a gun.
The majority instance of killing by gun in a civilian context is suicide, not murder or accident. The most commonly used method of suicide in the United States is firearms. In the UK, where access to firearms is difficult and inconvenient, shooting forms an insignificant proportion of suicides. Ready access to guns makes impulse-suicide far more available in the US and the rate of suicide is noticeably higher.
Either for suicide or for murder the easy accessibility to guns makes killing a simpler proposition. What would otherwise be difficult becomes easy. Killing someone with a baseball bat is, as the list says, possible, but it's nowhere near as common. It might be more satisfying but it takes a lot more effort and the result's a lot less certain.
Guns are necessary tools to prevent the government from overstepping their boundaries -- the fact that we don't use them for that even when it's long past justified and that some small sectors of society abuse their puposes notwithstanding.
Guns make killing people easier. People - military, paramilitary or civilian - who would otherwise not kill become killers because they have access to a gun.
The majority instance of killing by gun in a civilian context is suicide, not murder or accident. The most commonly used method of suicide in the United States is firearms. In the UK, where access to firearms is difficult and inconvenient, shooting forms an insignificant proportion of suicides. Ready access to guns makes impulse-suicide far more available in the US and the rate of suicide is noticeably higher.
Either for suicide or for murder the easy accessibility to guns makes killing a simpler proposition. What would otherwise be difficult becomes easy. Killing someone with a baseball bat is, as the list says, possible, but it's nowhere near as common. It might be more satisfying but it takes a lot more effort and the result's a lot less certain.
Guns are necessary tools to prevent the government from overstepping their boundaries -- the fact that we don't use them for that even when it's long past justified and that some small sectors of society abuse their puposes notwithstanding.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
The "right to bear arms" was instituted in 1776 at a time when 'arms' meant muskets. So the constitution gives us the right to bear muskets. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not so sure about AK-47s, though.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
I agree Benjamin by the time you got that Musket loaded you would have forgotten what the problem was.
[QUOTE]The "right to bear arms" was instituted in 1776 at a time when 'arms' meant muskets. So the constitution gives us the right to bear muskets. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not so sure about AK-47s, though.
ACC :yh_clap:yh_clap
[QUOTE]Guns are necessary tools to prevent the government from overstepping their boundaries -- the fact that we don't use them for that even when it's long past justified and that some small sectors of society abuse their puposes notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The "right to bear arms" was instituted in 1776 at a time when 'arms' meant muskets. So the constitution gives us the right to bear muskets. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not so sure about AK-47s, though.
ACC :yh_clap:yh_clap
[QUOTE]Guns are necessary tools to prevent the government from overstepping their boundaries -- the fact that we don't use them for that even when it's long past justified and that some small sectors of society abuse their puposes notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Thanks, Carla.
Good to see you again, Ben! :-6
Good to see you again, Ben! :-6
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;751757 wrote: Guns are necessary tools to prevent the government from overstepping their boundaries -- the fact that we don't use them for that even when it's long past justified and that some small sectors of society abuse their puposes notwithstanding.
So if, say, a quarter of the population did not agree with what the government were doing you are in favour of armed insurrection?
The Branch Davidian felt that the government were overstepping their boundaries - do you feel that their response was justified?
At what point do you decide that the abuse of the purpose of the right to bear arms is more harmful to society than the "right" that you do not use?
So if, say, a quarter of the population did not agree with what the government were doing you are in favour of armed insurrection?
The Branch Davidian felt that the government were overstepping their boundaries - do you feel that their response was justified?
At what point do you decide that the abuse of the purpose of the right to bear arms is more harmful to society than the "right" that you do not use?
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Benjamin;751791 wrote: The "right to bear arms" was instituted in 1776 at a time when 'arms' meant muskets. So the constitution gives us the right to bear muskets. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not so sure about AK-47s, though.
Whoa - welcome back
A damn'd good point you make as well.
Whoa - welcome back
A damn'd good point you make as well.
-
History buff
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:11 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
There is currently a case before the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from no other than the DC circuit Court of Appeals, in which they will decide whether the 2ND Amendment is applicable to the states, that is whether the right to bear arms is an "individual" right and not just a collective militia right.
When the Bill of Rights became effective in 1791, it ONLY applied to the federal government. During the early 1920's and on the SC began to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. So before the time an amendment was incorporated, a state could not violate it, because they were not binding on the states.
The 14th AM, ratified in 1868, did NOT "automatically" make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The 8th Amendment's provision of excessive bail is still not applicable to the states.
The 7th is also not binding on the states, nor is the 3rd, quartering soldiers. The constitution also does mandate grand jury indictments by the states under the 5th AM:
5th:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury......
The DC COA and the 5th Circuit are the only 2, I believe, which have made the 2nd AM applicable to the states as an individual right.
Although most state constitution's have similar right to bear provisions/AM's, the right under the 2nd has never been ultimately decided by the USSC. This case, Heller, will no doubt lay it to rest once and for all.
When the Bill of Rights became effective in 1791, it ONLY applied to the federal government. During the early 1920's and on the SC began to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. So before the time an amendment was incorporated, a state could not violate it, because they were not binding on the states.
The 14th AM, ratified in 1868, did NOT "automatically" make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The 8th Amendment's provision of excessive bail is still not applicable to the states.
The 7th is also not binding on the states, nor is the 3rd, quartering soldiers. The constitution also does mandate grand jury indictments by the states under the 5th AM:
5th:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury......
The DC COA and the 5th Circuit are the only 2, I believe, which have made the 2nd AM applicable to the states as an individual right.
Although most state constitution's have similar right to bear provisions/AM's, the right under the 2nd has never been ultimately decided by the USSC. This case, Heller, will no doubt lay it to rest once and for all.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
History buff;753095 wrote: There is currently a case before the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from no other than the DC circuit Court of Appeals, in which they will decide whether the 2ND Amendment is applicable to the states, that is whether the right to bear arms is an "individual" right and not just a collective militia right.
When the Bill of Rights became effective in 1791, it ONLY applied to the federal government. During the early 1920's and on the SC began to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. So before the time an amendment was incorporated, a state could not violate it, because they were not binding on the states.
The 14th AM, ratified in 1868, did NOT "automatically" make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The 8th Amendment's provision of excessive bail is still not applicable to the states.
The 7th is also not binding on the states, nor is the 3rd, quartering soldiers. The constitution also does mandate grand jury indictments by the states under the 5th AM:
5th:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury......
The DC COA and the 5th Circuit are the only 2, I believe, which have made the 2nd AM applicable to the states as an individual right.
Although most state constitution's have similar right to bear provisions/AM's, the right under the 2nd has never been ultimately decided by the USSC. This case, Heller, will no doubt lay it to rest once and for all.
There's two distinct questions here, whether the right to bear arms is backed up by the law is one matter but, to me, the more interesting question is whether it is ethical and whether such a law should be allowed to stand.
When the Bill of Rights became effective in 1791, it ONLY applied to the federal government. During the early 1920's and on the SC began to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. So before the time an amendment was incorporated, a state could not violate it, because they were not binding on the states.
The 14th AM, ratified in 1868, did NOT "automatically" make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The 8th Amendment's provision of excessive bail is still not applicable to the states.
The 7th is also not binding on the states, nor is the 3rd, quartering soldiers. The constitution also does mandate grand jury indictments by the states under the 5th AM:
5th:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury......
The DC COA and the 5th Circuit are the only 2, I believe, which have made the 2nd AM applicable to the states as an individual right.
Although most state constitution's have similar right to bear provisions/AM's, the right under the 2nd has never been ultimately decided by the USSC. This case, Heller, will no doubt lay it to rest once and for all.
There's two distinct questions here, whether the right to bear arms is backed up by the law is one matter but, to me, the more interesting question is whether it is ethical and whether such a law should be allowed to stand.
-
almostfamous
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
As bad as I hate guns, sometimes they are necessary in order to survive. Be it home invasion, etc. I know several people that have their permits and carry their gun pretty much everywhere they go. They've probably never had to shoot them in order to protect their own but would if it came down to it.
Am I glad that the "right to bear arms" is in existence? NO. In one instance, like spot said, it gives the opportunity for suicide. I've known several people/friends that have decided to take their life in their own hands. Most died, but some lived and hopefully learned a lesson. Some did it for attention, i.e., shooting themself in the chest in the middle of a club, and lived. It was over his ex and did it get her attention? Yeah, but not positive attention and from then on and to this day, he's known as the former cop who shot hisself up in the club. Not as the father to his children, not as the husband of soinso, not as the guy that turned his life around after an immense act of stupidity. He shot hisself in a damn club. For attention.
Living in Memphis, guns were everywhere. It was a city of survival and I almost didn't survive it. I saw things that will be permanently embedded in my brain. But, I can say matter of factly that the guns I saw there weren't carried with an attached permit. There... drugs, political corruption, and so forth made it a means of survival. I wasn't an angel myself but "I did what it took to survive."
If there were intriquit lines of communication and abundant help for those trying to survive and who really don't want to live that way anymore, Memphis, itself, would be a safer "home."
K, I think I just talked in circles but whatev
Am I glad that the "right to bear arms" is in existence? NO. In one instance, like spot said, it gives the opportunity for suicide. I've known several people/friends that have decided to take their life in their own hands. Most died, but some lived and hopefully learned a lesson. Some did it for attention, i.e., shooting themself in the chest in the middle of a club, and lived. It was over his ex and did it get her attention? Yeah, but not positive attention and from then on and to this day, he's known as the former cop who shot hisself up in the club. Not as the father to his children, not as the husband of soinso, not as the guy that turned his life around after an immense act of stupidity. He shot hisself in a damn club. For attention.
Living in Memphis, guns were everywhere. It was a city of survival and I almost didn't survive it. I saw things that will be permanently embedded in my brain. But, I can say matter of factly that the guns I saw there weren't carried with an attached permit. There... drugs, political corruption, and so forth made it a means of survival. I wasn't an angel myself but "I did what it took to survive."
If there were intriquit lines of communication and abundant help for those trying to survive and who really don't want to live that way anymore, Memphis, itself, would be a safer "home."
K, I think I just talked in circles but whatev
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;752949 wrote: So if, say, a quarter of the population did not agree with what the government were doing you are in favour of armed insurrection?*sniff sniff* I smells a trap. :sneaky:
Pretty broad term - "did not agree with what the government were doing"
I would support armed insurrection even if only thee and me thought it necessary. If I didn't think it was necessary I don't think I would be in favour.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The Branch Davidian felt that the government were overstepping their boundaries - do you feel that their response was justified?I think the gov't response was completely unjustified and waaaay overstepping.
Bryn Mawr wrote: At what point do you decide that the abuse of the purpose of the right to bear arms is more harmful to society than the "right" that you do not use?There is never, ever, ever justification to take a right away from the populace, only from those who abuse a right -- and very rarely justified even then.
Pretty broad term - "did not agree with what the government were doing"
I would support armed insurrection even if only thee and me thought it necessary. If I didn't think it was necessary I don't think I would be in favour.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The Branch Davidian felt that the government were overstepping their boundaries - do you feel that their response was justified?I think the gov't response was completely unjustified and waaaay overstepping.
Bryn Mawr wrote: At what point do you decide that the abuse of the purpose of the right to bear arms is more harmful to society than the "right" that you do not use?There is never, ever, ever justification to take a right away from the populace, only from those who abuse a right -- and very rarely justified even then.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;753250 wrote: There's two distinct questions here, whether the right to bear arms is backed up by the law is one matter but, to me, the more interesting question is whether it is ethical and whether such a law should be allowed to stand.
ETHICAL??!?!?!
How is allowing individuals an opportunity to protect themselves should the gov't become tyranical anything other than ethical?
ETHICAL??!?!?!
How is allowing individuals an opportunity to protect themselves should the gov't become tyranical anything other than ethical?
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
spot;751673 wrote: An anonymous list in Thank God CBS didn't shut him up!:) beginning "Right on" carries a paragraph on the right to bear arms and asserts thatHere we go then - the "Guns don't kill people, people do" territory.
Guns make killing people easier. People - military, paramilitary or civilian - who would otherwise not kill become killers because they have access to a gun.
The majority instance of killing by gun in a civilian context is suicide, not murder or accident. The most commonly used method of suicide in the United States is firearms. In the UK, where access to firearms is difficult and inconvenient, shooting forms an insignificant proportion of suicides. Ready access to guns makes impulse-suicide far more available in the US and the rate of suicide is noticeably higher.
Either for suicide or for murder the easy accessibility to guns makes killing a simpler proposition. What would otherwise be difficult becomes easy. Killing someone with a baseball bat is, as the list says, possible, but it's nowhere near as common. It might be more satisfying but it takes a lot more effort and the result's a lot less certain.
Yes, guilty as supposed spot, my access to a gun makes it easier to kill a intruder that wishes to do harm to me or my family easier............ GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gotta problem with that?
If so........ Enter my house at night....uninvited....!!!!!!!!!!
And I will show you a problem.......... Yours not mine!!!!!!!!
Guns make killing people easier. People - military, paramilitary or civilian - who would otherwise not kill become killers because they have access to a gun.
The majority instance of killing by gun in a civilian context is suicide, not murder or accident. The most commonly used method of suicide in the United States is firearms. In the UK, where access to firearms is difficult and inconvenient, shooting forms an insignificant proportion of suicides. Ready access to guns makes impulse-suicide far more available in the US and the rate of suicide is noticeably higher.
Either for suicide or for murder the easy accessibility to guns makes killing a simpler proposition. What would otherwise be difficult becomes easy. Killing someone with a baseball bat is, as the list says, possible, but it's nowhere near as common. It might be more satisfying but it takes a lot more effort and the result's a lot less certain.
Yes, guilty as supposed spot, my access to a gun makes it easier to kill a intruder that wishes to do harm to me or my family easier............ GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gotta problem with that?
If so........ Enter my house at night....uninvited....!!!!!!!!!!
And I will show you a problem.......... Yours not mine!!!!!!!!
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;753463 wrote: ETHICAL??!?!?!
How is allowing individuals an opportunity to protect themselves should the gov't become tyranical anything other than ethical?
How is allowing individuals to own and carry weapons designed solely to kill other people possibly ethical?
If your governmental institutions are set up in such a way as to allow them to become a tyranny then change your form of government.
How is allowing individuals an opportunity to protect themselves should the gov't become tyranical anything other than ethical?
How is allowing individuals to own and carry weapons designed solely to kill other people possibly ethical?
If your governmental institutions are set up in such a way as to allow them to become a tyranny then change your form of government.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
With all due respect, why are the UK people always telling the US to just change their government if we don't like it, as if it's that easy? I hear this a lot so I wonder.
I think when the Constitution was written, even then the writers knew government was not to be trusted, thereby writing in the arms clause. We had already lived under England's rule and knew what that could do and knew a similar thing may happen to us again.
Bryn, how is it NOT ethical to possess guns in order to protect oneself when (if) government becomes tyrannical? I don't ask that just to turn your question around, I am seriously asking how it's unethical to protect oneself?
I think when the Constitution was written, even then the writers knew government was not to be trusted, thereby writing in the arms clause. We had already lived under England's rule and knew what that could do and knew a similar thing may happen to us again.
Bryn, how is it NOT ethical to possess guns in order to protect oneself when (if) government becomes tyrannical? I don't ask that just to turn your question around, I am seriously asking how it's unethical to protect oneself?
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
RedGlitter;753729 wrote: With all due respect, why are the UK people always telling the US to just change their government if we don't like it, as if it's that easy? I hear this a lot so I wonder.
I think when the Constitution was written, even then the writers knew government was not to be trusted, thereby writing in the arms clause. We had already lived under England's rule and knew what that could do and knew a similar thing may happen to us again.
Bryn, how is it NOT ethical to possess guns in order to protect oneself when (if) government becomes tyrannical? I don't ask that just to turn your question around, I am seriously asking how it's unethical to protect oneself?
The comment about changing the type of government was purely in response to the use of possible governmental tyranny as an excuse for arming the population - the one is not a suitable response to the other.
You've reverse my reversal of Acc's question and asked exactly the question I was responding to. Carrying guns is not a good way of protecting yourself - especially against governmental tyranny but also against other people armed with bigger guns. The way to a safer, more civilised, society is to remove guns from the equation completely. An armed society is one step away from anarchy IMHO - the safety of the general population is best ensured by the rule of law and effective, efficient policing.
I think when the Constitution was written, even then the writers knew government was not to be trusted, thereby writing in the arms clause. We had already lived under England's rule and knew what that could do and knew a similar thing may happen to us again.
Bryn, how is it NOT ethical to possess guns in order to protect oneself when (if) government becomes tyrannical? I don't ask that just to turn your question around, I am seriously asking how it's unethical to protect oneself?
The comment about changing the type of government was purely in response to the use of possible governmental tyranny as an excuse for arming the population - the one is not a suitable response to the other.
You've reverse my reversal of Acc's question and asked exactly the question I was responding to. Carrying guns is not a good way of protecting yourself - especially against governmental tyranny but also against other people armed with bigger guns. The way to a safer, more civilised, society is to remove guns from the equation completely. An armed society is one step away from anarchy IMHO - the safety of the general population is best ensured by the rule of law and effective, efficient policing.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn, in an ideal world I could agree with you, perhaps. But the guns are already out there. Collecting all the guns would be a futile effort. Even if the good people give theirs up, the criminals are still going to have them and then we'd be *really* balanced unfairly. I don't believe there will ever be an America without guns, as they are so entrenched in our belief system and personally, I don't want to see one. Like that saying about padlocks; "they keep the honest man out" well, I feel that way about guns. To me, guns ensure a more "polite" society. As far as changing the government, NO government can be trusted. Government is power and power over the Little People and you never know when they may go Waco on us and we'd need to fight back. Maybe they have bigger guns, but we'd still be able to do some damage.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
RedGlitter;753752 wrote: Bryn, in an ideal world I could agree with you, perhaps. But the guns are already out there. Collecting all the guns would be a futile effort. Even if the good people give theirs up, the criminals are still going to have them and then we'd be *really* balanced unfairly. I don't believe there will ever be an America without guns, as they are so entrenched in our belief system and personally, I don't want to see one. Like that saying about padlocks; "they keep the honest man out" well, I feel that way about guns. To me, guns ensure a more "polite" society. As far as changing the government, NO government can be trusted. Government is power and power over the Little People and you never know when they may go Waco on us and we'd need to fight back. Maybe they have bigger guns, but we'd still be able to do some damage.
A few points if I may?
You make the point that I was trying to make - no government can be trusted. The common citizen cannot fight the government with guns, that's a no contest, so the system must be set up with safeguards built in - an entrenched base of at least three power centres each jealously guarding their patch against the other and none powerful enough to overthrow the rest.
My comment about bigger guns was not aimed at the government but a the criminals and the nutters - you might be armed but they will have bigger guns than you. However much of an arms race you run, they will always be in a position to out gun you so guns are not a protection for the common citizen but a danger.
Over here, anyone found to have a gun is down for five years. No, it does not stop the criminals having them but it sure as hell slows them down and make it far easier to get them off the streets when they show themselves.
I agree that the gun culture is entrenched in the US - but that does not make it right.
A few points if I may?
You make the point that I was trying to make - no government can be trusted. The common citizen cannot fight the government with guns, that's a no contest, so the system must be set up with safeguards built in - an entrenched base of at least three power centres each jealously guarding their patch against the other and none powerful enough to overthrow the rest.
My comment about bigger guns was not aimed at the government but a the criminals and the nutters - you might be armed but they will have bigger guns than you. However much of an arms race you run, they will always be in a position to out gun you so guns are not a protection for the common citizen but a danger.
Over here, anyone found to have a gun is down for five years. No, it does not stop the criminals having them but it sure as hell slows them down and make it far easier to get them off the streets when they show themselves.
I agree that the gun culture is entrenched in the US - but that does not make it right.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
RedGlitter;753752 wrote: Bryn, in an ideal world I could agree with you, perhaps. But the guns are already out there. Collecting all the guns would be a futile effort. Even if the good people give theirs up, the criminals are still going to have them and then we'd be *really* balanced unfairly. I don't believe there will ever be an America without guns, as they are so entrenched in our belief system and personally, I don't want to see one. Like that saying about padlocks; "they keep the honest man out" well, I feel that way about guns. To me, guns ensure a more "polite" society. As far as changing the government, NO government can be trusted. Government is power and power over the Little People and you never know when they may go Waco on us and we'd need to fight back. Maybe they have bigger guns, but we'd still be able to do some damage.
I think you put it very well, RedGlitter. This, to me, expresses, in a nutshell, how the majority of Americans view gun ownership. It's historical and cultural and very unlikely to change. Other countries have their own ways of viewing government and citizenship. No less valid, in my opinion, but quite different, and mutually alien.
For this reason, I've always thought the many threads, in the many forums, on this subject are unlikely to get anywhere except to underline our differences and get people riled. How could they? We are all products of our own backgrounds, cultural and historic.
In Australia we've never had the right to bear arms, though a few people own guns, and shoot with clubs. Hunting is also not part of the Austalian psyche, though a few people do it. I very much doubt whether ordinary Aussies feel in any way deprived here. It's not something you normally think about at all. And you don't grieve over what you've never had. Getting shot is pretty unlikely too.
As a foreigner, I don't feel in a position to judge what Americans have chosen to do in their own country.
Personally, I like guns and enjoy target shooting.
I think you put it very well, RedGlitter. This, to me, expresses, in a nutshell, how the majority of Americans view gun ownership. It's historical and cultural and very unlikely to change. Other countries have their own ways of viewing government and citizenship. No less valid, in my opinion, but quite different, and mutually alien.
For this reason, I've always thought the many threads, in the many forums, on this subject are unlikely to get anywhere except to underline our differences and get people riled. How could they? We are all products of our own backgrounds, cultural and historic.
In Australia we've never had the right to bear arms, though a few people own guns, and shoot with clubs. Hunting is also not part of the Austalian psyche, though a few people do it. I very much doubt whether ordinary Aussies feel in any way deprived here. It's not something you normally think about at all. And you don't grieve over what you've never had. Getting shot is pretty unlikely too.
As a foreigner, I don't feel in a position to judge what Americans have chosen to do in their own country.
Personally, I like guns and enjoy target shooting.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;753784 wrote: I agree that the gun culture is entrenched in the US - but that does not make it right.
True. It is right for many other reasons, and it was right long before it was entrenched.
True. It is right for many other reasons, and it was right long before it was entrenched.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
fuzzy butt;753944 wrote: I have guns Pammy.
As do I, a double-barrel shotgun and a single-shot rifle (both used for sporting purposes). I have never seen any reason for anyone to own or carry a handgun or automatic weapon of any kind.
fuzzy butt;753944 wrote: But you're correct we've never had that right to shoot another human being, even in self defence
Nor have we. Thankfully.
As do I, a double-barrel shotgun and a single-shot rifle (both used for sporting purposes). I have never seen any reason for anyone to own or carry a handgun or automatic weapon of any kind.
fuzzy butt;753944 wrote: But you're correct we've never had that right to shoot another human being, even in self defence
Nor have we. Thankfully.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;753784 wrote: A few points if I may?
You make the point that I was trying to make - no government can be trusted. The common citizen cannot fight the government with guns, that's a no contest, so the system must be set up with safeguards built in - an entrenched base of at least three power centres each jealously guarding their patch against the other and none powerful enough to overthrow the rest.
Bryn, without me trying to derail the thread, could you please give an example of what you're saying about these three power centers? How that would be set up?
AussiePam;753850 wrote: I think you put it very well, RedGlitter. This, to me, expresses, in a nutshell, how the majority of Americans view gun ownership. It's historical and cultural and very unlikely to change. Other countries have their own ways of viewing government and citizenship. No less valid, in my opinion, but quite different, and mutually alien.
For this reason, I've always thought the many threads, in the many forums, on this subject are unlikely to get anywhere except to underline our differences and get people riled. How could they? We are all products of our own backgrounds, cultural and historic.
Thank you Pam. I agree with you, I don't see that we will ever resolve in discussion the gun argument. Personally guns scare the bejesus out of me. I don't like them, don't want to touch them, don't know how to use one. But I support the right of other citizens to have them. Twice now, a shotgun has saved my elderly aunt who lives way out in the sticks from malcontents wanting to do her harm. For every positive scenario, there may be a negative one as well, such as the schoolmate I knew who accidentally shot and killed his brother. If you have guns and human nature, accidents will happen. I accept that. I'd still rather err on the side of an armed citizenry than no arms at all. While I think it's fine for other countries who don't have guns like we do, when I hear you guys talk about it, I find it a little scary. I just don't think the US will ever be like one of those countries.
Accountable;753892 wrote: True. It is right for many other reasons, and it was right long before it was entrenched.
I have to agree, Accountable.
You make the point that I was trying to make - no government can be trusted. The common citizen cannot fight the government with guns, that's a no contest, so the system must be set up with safeguards built in - an entrenched base of at least three power centres each jealously guarding their patch against the other and none powerful enough to overthrow the rest.
Bryn, without me trying to derail the thread, could you please give an example of what you're saying about these three power centers? How that would be set up?
AussiePam;753850 wrote: I think you put it very well, RedGlitter. This, to me, expresses, in a nutshell, how the majority of Americans view gun ownership. It's historical and cultural and very unlikely to change. Other countries have their own ways of viewing government and citizenship. No less valid, in my opinion, but quite different, and mutually alien.
For this reason, I've always thought the many threads, in the many forums, on this subject are unlikely to get anywhere except to underline our differences and get people riled. How could they? We are all products of our own backgrounds, cultural and historic.
Thank you Pam. I agree with you, I don't see that we will ever resolve in discussion the gun argument. Personally guns scare the bejesus out of me. I don't like them, don't want to touch them, don't know how to use one. But I support the right of other citizens to have them. Twice now, a shotgun has saved my elderly aunt who lives way out in the sticks from malcontents wanting to do her harm. For every positive scenario, there may be a negative one as well, such as the schoolmate I knew who accidentally shot and killed his brother. If you have guns and human nature, accidents will happen. I accept that. I'd still rather err on the side of an armed citizenry than no arms at all. While I think it's fine for other countries who don't have guns like we do, when I hear you guys talk about it, I find it a little scary. I just don't think the US will ever be like one of those countries.
Accountable;753892 wrote: True. It is right for many other reasons, and it was right long before it was entrenched.
I have to agree, Accountable.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Guns don’t kill people… bullets do.
Let people keep the right to carry guns, but make bullets illegal. Then to defend themselves they can beet each other with their guns.
Let people keep the right to carry guns, but make bullets illegal. Then to defend themselves they can beet each other with their guns.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;753892 wrote: True. It is right for many other reasons, and it was right long before it was entrenched.
Whether it was right in a frontier country lacking effective rule of law is one matter but it has no bearing on whether it's right in a mature culture.
I can see no possible reason for a peaceful, law abiding citizen of a modern, civilised, country to carry a gun other than for hunting or competition use.
Whether it was right in a frontier country lacking effective rule of law is one matter but it has no bearing on whether it's right in a mature culture.
I can see no possible reason for a peaceful, law abiding citizen of a modern, civilised, country to carry a gun other than for hunting or competition use.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;754517 wrote: I can see no possible reason for a peaceful, law abiding citizen of a modern, civilised, country to carry a gun other than for hunting or competition use.And you see that as reason to outlaw the practice, simply because it's not useful at the moment?
Why don't you use similar reasoning for, say, speaking freely, religious practice, or other rights most citizens take for granted. Religious freedom was okay back in times of superstition, but now that science has disproved most religious dogma there's no reason to permit it today. So many use it to commit atrocities across the globe, we'd be better as a society by outlawing it.
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.
Why don't you use similar reasoning for, say, speaking freely, religious practice, or other rights most citizens take for granted. Religious freedom was okay back in times of superstition, but now that science has disproved most religious dogma there's no reason to permit it today. So many use it to commit atrocities across the globe, we'd be better as a society by outlawing it.
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;754520 wrote: And you see that as reason to outlaw the practice, simply because it's not useful at the moment?
Why don't you use similar reasoning for, say, speaking freely, religious practice, or other rights most citizens take for granted. Religious freedom was okay back in times of superstition, but now that science has disproved most religious dogma there's no reason to permit it today. So many use it to commit atrocities across the globe, we'd be better as a society by outlawing it.
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.
Not at the moment, ever.
If you wish to believe that science has disproved religion that is your opinion, it is certainly not mine.
Here's an idea - why don't you suggest a justifiable reason why a peaceable, law abiding citizen in a society under the rule of law wound need to carry a gun.
Why don't you use similar reasoning for, say, speaking freely, religious practice, or other rights most citizens take for granted. Religious freedom was okay back in times of superstition, but now that science has disproved most religious dogma there's no reason to permit it today. So many use it to commit atrocities across the globe, we'd be better as a society by outlawing it.
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.
Not at the moment, ever.
If you wish to believe that science has disproved religion that is your opinion, it is certainly not mine.
Here's an idea - why don't you suggest a justifiable reason why a peaceable, law abiding citizen in a society under the rule of law wound need to carry a gun.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
ARRRGH!! I got knocked off before my reply posted. I'll try to remember it.Bryn Mawr;754523 wrote: Not at the moment, ever.
If you wish to believe that science has disproved religion that is your opinion, it is certainly not mine.The reasoning is just as faulty when applied to bearing arms.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Here's an idea - why don't you suggest a justifiable reason why a peaceable, law abiding citizen in a society under the rule of law wound need to carry a gun.I don't argue for the need to carry a gun; I argue only for the right, should any law abiding citizen see the need. But here are three:
1. For the off chance that those who enforce our rule of law start abusing their stations, such as has happened many times throughout history.
2. Because sometimes law abiding citizens need to protect themselves in a land many times the size and population of the British Isles.
3. Because a law-abiding citizen wants to retain that right, and that simple possession cannot harm society, but prohibition can.
I can use this same line of reasoning to defend any right.
If you wish to believe that science has disproved religion that is your opinion, it is certainly not mine.The reasoning is just as faulty when applied to bearing arms.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Here's an idea - why don't you suggest a justifiable reason why a peaceable, law abiding citizen in a society under the rule of law wound need to carry a gun.I don't argue for the need to carry a gun; I argue only for the right, should any law abiding citizen see the need. But here are three:
1. For the off chance that those who enforce our rule of law start abusing their stations, such as has happened many times throughout history.
2. Because sometimes law abiding citizens need to protect themselves in a land many times the size and population of the British Isles.
3. Because a law-abiding citizen wants to retain that right, and that simple possession cannot harm society, but prohibition can.
I can use this same line of reasoning to defend any right.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;754527 wrote: ARRRGH!! I got knocked off before my reply posted. I'll try to remember it.The reasoning is just as faulty when applied to bearing arms.
I don't argue for the need to carry a gun; I argue only for the right, should any law abiding citizen see the need. But here are three:
1. For the off chance that those who enforce our rule of law start abusing their stations, such as has happened many times throughout history.
2. Because sometimes law abiding citizens need to protect themselves in a land many times the size and population of the British Isles.
3. Because a law-abiding citizen wants to retain that right, and that simple possession cannot harm society, but prohibition can.
I can use this same line of reasoning to defend any right.
1) I think I've covered this one (and Red, I will get back to your question ASAP) but the ones you need to worry about are not the government or the Judiciary but the army and your untrained townies with their popguns are not going to make them loose any sleep.
2) So much easier to defend yourself from a level playing field. So much easier to level the playing field if higher order weapons are arrest on sight.
3) Simple possession can and does harm society and carrying weapons of war is not a fundamental right.
I don't see why you stop at guns - why not the right to carry RPGs? In the final analysis, guns are designed for one purpose - to kill and no private citizen should have the nee or the right to kill his fellow citizen.
I don't argue for the need to carry a gun; I argue only for the right, should any law abiding citizen see the need. But here are three:
1. For the off chance that those who enforce our rule of law start abusing their stations, such as has happened many times throughout history.
2. Because sometimes law abiding citizens need to protect themselves in a land many times the size and population of the British Isles.
3. Because a law-abiding citizen wants to retain that right, and that simple possession cannot harm society, but prohibition can.
I can use this same line of reasoning to defend any right.
1) I think I've covered this one (and Red, I will get back to your question ASAP) but the ones you need to worry about are not the government or the Judiciary but the army and your untrained townies with their popguns are not going to make them loose any sleep.
2) So much easier to defend yourself from a level playing field. So much easier to level the playing field if higher order weapons are arrest on sight.
3) Simple possession can and does harm society and carrying weapons of war is not a fundamental right.
I don't see why you stop at guns - why not the right to carry RPGs? In the final analysis, guns are designed for one purpose - to kill and no private citizen should have the nee or the right to kill his fellow citizen.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
You've just given ... well no ... you haven't given anything close to reasons not to permit law-abiding citizens to bear arms if they so choose.
The closest attempt:
How does simple possession harm society?
Bryn Mawr wrote: I don't see why you stop at guns - why not the right to carry RPGs?I don't see any reason to restrict a law-abiding citizen from collecting any bit of paraphernalia he chooses. Hanging an RPG on the wall harms no one. Bryn Mawr wrote: In the final analysis, guns are designed for one purpose - to kill and no private citizen should have the nee or the right to kill his fellow citizen.I agree without reservation. What's that got to do with the right to bear arms?
The closest attempt:
How does simple possession harm society?
Bryn Mawr wrote: I don't see why you stop at guns - why not the right to carry RPGs?I don't see any reason to restrict a law-abiding citizen from collecting any bit of paraphernalia he chooses. Hanging an RPG on the wall harms no one. Bryn Mawr wrote: In the final analysis, guns are designed for one purpose - to kill and no private citizen should have the nee or the right to kill his fellow citizen.I agree without reservation. What's that got to do with the right to bear arms?
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;754536 wrote: You've just given ... well no ... you haven't given anything close to reasons not to permit law-abiding citizens to bear arms if they so choose.
The closest attempt:
How does simple possession harm society?
I don't see any reason to restrict a law-abiding citizen from collecting any bit of paraphernalia he chooses. Hanging an RPG on the wall harms no one.
I agree without reservation. What's that got to do with the right to bear arms?
Aren't you meant to be getting ready for school? :wah:
If guns are designed purely to kill people and you agree that no citizen should have the need or the right to kill their fellow citizen then why should they possible have the right to bear arms?
The closest attempt:
How does simple possession harm society?
I don't see any reason to restrict a law-abiding citizen from collecting any bit of paraphernalia he chooses. Hanging an RPG on the wall harms no one.
I agree without reservation. What's that got to do with the right to bear arms?
Aren't you meant to be getting ready for school? :wah:
If guns are designed purely to kill people and you agree that no citizen should have the need or the right to kill their fellow citizen then why should they possible have the right to bear arms?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Aren't you meant to be getting ready for school? :wah:
Yes! So will you please stop?!?!! :wah:
Look Bryn. I trust my fellow law-abiding citizens to continue to abide the law regardless of the presence of fire arms. You do not. That's fine. I don't own a weapon but I hold to my right to obtain one should I feel the need (my own personal definition of need). My view permits you to act as you please; your view prohibits me from doing so. Whose is the freer society?
How does simple possession harm society?
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;754540 wrote: Yes! So will you please stop?!?!! :wah:
Look Bryn. I trust my fellow law-abiding citizens to continue to abide the law regardless of the presence of fire arms. You do not. That's fine. I don't own a weapon but I hold to my right to obtain one should I feel the need (my own personal definition of need). My view permits you to act as you please; your view prohibits me from doing so. Whose is the freer society?
How does simple possession harm society?
It's way past my bedtime so you've got to let me go :p
Examine the concept that a person can carry any form of weapon, from an RPG upwards, and the authorities can do f-all about it until they catch him using it.
Then consider the situation where anyone found in possession of any form of firearm is going down for at least five years.
Where is society safer?
Look Bryn. I trust my fellow law-abiding citizens to continue to abide the law regardless of the presence of fire arms. You do not. That's fine. I don't own a weapon but I hold to my right to obtain one should I feel the need (my own personal definition of need). My view permits you to act as you please; your view prohibits me from doing so. Whose is the freer society?
How does simple possession harm society?
It's way past my bedtime so you've got to let me go :p
Examine the concept that a person can carry any form of weapon, from an RPG upwards, and the authorities can do f-all about it until they catch him using it.
Then consider the situation where anyone found in possession of any form of firearm is going down for at least five years.
Where is society safer?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;754548 wrote: It's way past my bedtime so you've got to let me go :p
Examine the concept that a person can carry any form of weapon, from an RPG upwards, and the authorities can do f-all about it until they catch him using it. (Acc: which would show him to be a criminal, not a law abiding citizen, and therefore not in our discussion)
Then consider the situation where anyone found in possession of any form of firearm is going down for at least five years.
Where is society safer?
Accountable;754520 wrote: [...]
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.Freedom is more important than government protection (so-called "safety").
How does simple possession harm society? You still haven't addressed this simple question.
Examine the concept that a person can carry any form of weapon, from an RPG upwards, and the authorities can do f-all about it until they catch him using it. (Acc: which would show him to be a criminal, not a law abiding citizen, and therefore not in our discussion)
Then consider the situation where anyone found in possession of any form of firearm is going down for at least five years.
Where is society safer?
Accountable;754520 wrote: [...]
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.Freedom is more important than government protection (so-called "safety").
How does simple possession harm society? You still haven't addressed this simple question.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
It's way past my bedtime so you've got to let me go :p
Examine the concept that a person can carry any form of weapon, from an RPG upwards, and the authorities can do f-all about it until they catch him using it. (Acc: which would show him to be a criminal, not a law abiding citizen, and therefore not in our discussion)
Then consider the situation where anyone found in possession of any form of firearm is going down for at least five years.
Where is society safer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
[...]
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.
Accountable;754552 wrote: Freedom is more important than government protection (so-called "safety").
How does simple possession harm society? You still haven't addressed this simple question.
In your previous post you stated that you were in favour of citizens being allowed RPGs and anything else that they wanted.
My comparison of the alternatives addresses your simple question quite simply.
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
It's way past my bedtime so you've got to let me go :p
Examine the concept that a person can carry any form of weapon, from an RPG upwards, and the authorities can do f-all about it until they catch him using it. (Acc: which would show him to be a criminal, not a law abiding citizen, and therefore not in our discussion)
Then consider the situation where anyone found in possession of any form of firearm is going down for at least five years.
Where is society safer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
[...]
Here's an idea: let's outlaw abuse rather than simple use or posession. This is how society presumes innocence. Sure the practice is marginally more dangerous, but substantially more free.
Accountable;754552 wrote: Freedom is more important than government protection (so-called "safety").
How does simple possession harm society? You still haven't addressed this simple question.
In your previous post you stated that you were in favour of citizens being allowed RPGs and anything else that they wanted.
My comparison of the alternatives addresses your simple question quite simply.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
You don't mention harm, only hint at suspicion.
-
drumbunny1
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;754517 wrote: Whether it was right in a frontier country lacking effective rule of law is one matter but it has no bearing on whether it's right in a mature culture.
I can see no possible reason for a peaceful, law abiding citizen of a modern, civilised, country to carry a gun other than for hunting or competition use.
I can...SELF DEFENSE....IMO the most important reason. The fact is, bad guys will always find a way to get guns...and innocent, law abiding citizens are the victims, I would rather be a victim with a gun then without one. How about that mall in Nebraska that was shot up just last month, how many people were killed? Now if someone was allowed to carry a gun on them in that mall, they could've put two in that guys skull and prevented innocent deaths. Ofcourse I don't like that whole scenario and I'd prefer to live in world without violence, but thats just not gonna happen in my lifetime
I can see no possible reason for a peaceful, law abiding citizen of a modern, civilised, country to carry a gun other than for hunting or competition use.
I can...SELF DEFENSE....IMO the most important reason. The fact is, bad guys will always find a way to get guns...and innocent, law abiding citizens are the victims, I would rather be a victim with a gun then without one. How about that mall in Nebraska that was shot up just last month, how many people were killed? Now if someone was allowed to carry a gun on them in that mall, they could've put two in that guys skull and prevented innocent deaths. Ofcourse I don't like that whole scenario and I'd prefer to live in world without violence, but thats just not gonna happen in my lifetime
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Accountable;754566 wrote: You don't mention harm, only hint at suspicion.
Not suspicion - I maintain that there is no possible reason for a peaceable, law abiding, citizen to carry weapons. Any person carrying a weapon is doing so with intent.
Not suspicion - I maintain that there is no possible reason for a peaceable, law abiding, citizen to carry weapons. Any person carrying a weapon is doing so with intent.
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
drumbunny1;754567 wrote: I can...SELF DEFENSE....IMO the most important reason. The fact is, bad guys will always find a way to get guns...and innocent, law abiding citizens are the victims, I would rather be a victim with a gun then without one. How about that mall in Nebraska that was shot up just last month, how many people were killed? Now if someone was allowed to carry a gun on them in that mall, they could've put two in that guys skull and prevented innocent deaths. Ofcourse I don't like that whole scenario and I'd prefer to live in world without violence, but thats just not gonna happen in my lifetime
Whatever weapon you carry round with you for self defence a nutter intent on killing will carry more. Short of an arms war where everyone carries Armageddon as routine your scenario does not work in the long term.
Whatever weapon you carry round with you for self defence a nutter intent on killing will carry more. Short of an arms war where everyone carries Armageddon as routine your scenario does not work in the long term.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Tag, DrumBunny. :driving:
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
:driving:Accountable;754576 wrote: Tag, DrumBunny.
Two one one now is it? :p
Two one one now is it? :p
-
History buff
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:11 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;754571 wrote: Not suspicion - I maintain that there is no possible reason for a peaceable, law abiding, citizen to carry weapons. Any person carrying a weapon is doing so with intent.
I don't know about England, but over 3/4 of the US States have passed carrying concealed weapons laws. As long as you qualify, such as a NON felon, age, etc. you have a right to apply for a license/permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Sure there is intent. Most apply for protective purposes. Even if one has a permit, they are not a guarantee to anyone to be mentally stable.
I don't know about England, but over 3/4 of the US States have passed carrying concealed weapons laws. As long as you qualify, such as a NON felon, age, etc. you have a right to apply for a license/permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Sure there is intent. Most apply for protective purposes. Even if one has a permit, they are not a guarantee to anyone to be mentally stable.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
Bryn Mawr;754571 wrote: Not suspicion - I maintain that there is no possible reason for a peaceable, law abiding, citizen to carry weapons. Any person carrying a weapon is doing so with intent.
It's that gun that helps guarantee peaceful law abiding citizens. The only intent should be self defense.
Bryn Mawr;754573 wrote: Whatever weapon you carry round with you for self defence a nutter intent on killing will carry more. Short of an arms war where everyone carries Armageddon as routine your scenario does not work in the long term.
If the nutter has a gun, whether bigger than mine or not, I certainly want to make sure I have something at my disposal.
i wish I recalled the vitals on this but quite a few years back in a restaurant here in the US, some weirdo opened fire on the diners. There was a young woman there barely past the age to carry, and she was eating there with her family. She shot him. I believe he died, can't remember. But how many more innocent people would have been shot or killed if she hadn't been there to take down the criminal?
It's that gun that helps guarantee peaceful law abiding citizens. The only intent should be self defense.
Bryn Mawr;754573 wrote: Whatever weapon you carry round with you for self defence a nutter intent on killing will carry more. Short of an arms war where everyone carries Armageddon as routine your scenario does not work in the long term.
If the nutter has a gun, whether bigger than mine or not, I certainly want to make sure I have something at my disposal.
i wish I recalled the vitals on this but quite a few years back in a restaurant here in the US, some weirdo opened fire on the diners. There was a young woman there barely past the age to carry, and she was eating there with her family. She shot him. I believe he died, can't remember. But how many more innocent people would have been shot or killed if she hadn't been there to take down the criminal?
-
almostfamous
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am
Discussing the Right On list: The right to bear arms.
mikeinie;754262 wrote: Guns don’t kill people… bullets do.
Let people keep the right to carry guns, but make bullets illegal. Then to defend themselves they can beet each other with their guns.
I say bring out the Taser Guns!!!!!!! you know, the ones that shoot from a certain distance .. not the crappy little handheld ones that can be swiftly removed from your grasp and turned immediately back on ya
Let people keep the right to carry guns, but make bullets illegal. Then to defend themselves they can beet each other with their guns.
I say bring out the Taser Guns!!!!!!!
you know, the ones that shoot from a certain distance .. not the crappy little handheld ones that can be swiftly removed from your grasp and turned immediately back on ya