2. Guns take the thrill, skill and desire out of killing. Any two year-old can fire a gun (aimlessly sure, but all the same). Bang. Dead. Simple. No danger, nothing.
3. I belielieve less killing would occur if people were forced to fight hand to hand. Armies, gangs, jealous lovers, etc.
4. There is no discernable difference morally (besides payload) between nuclear weapons and handguns. The debate never seems to take into account the senselessnes of all weapons.
5. The 2nd Amendment provides no moral protection as it is simply a law,
6. Legally, it doesn't protect ammunition.
7. Legally, it doesn't protect all personal ownership. In the loosest interpretation it protects simple possession. a. People often neglect the "well regulated" portion of the amendment. Logically this is self-defeating when trying to prevent tyranny (guns keep checks on government, government sets laws for guns). Ultimately if we wanted a government responsive to the people we'd need them to have fewer checks on our ability to resist. All the same, the words are there. Regulations are allowed. b. "Militia" shows framers intent. The purpose of the amendment was for national security. In this day however, we have the longest unguarded border in the world. We have a National Guard for local response and protection. Civilian militias are not "well-regulated" nor do they ensure a "free State". They pose more of a threat than a help.
8. All that being said: In no way shape or form should guns be taken away from people or regulated by a government. It's not the government's place and it is morally dubious. I don't support it at all.
"next time one of your best friends is shot in a gun-in-the-home incident, come talk to me about not using your emotions when thinking about gun control." I'd probably go to the parents, as odds are they are complete jackasses for leaving a loaded weapon where an uneducated kid could get at it.
The problem with people supposting gun control is indeed that they respond to emotion over facts, reason, ect.
"Even if I were being assaulted with a knife, I would much rather rely on standard self-defense than using a gun, " Why? A firearm is the most effective means.
"I continue to maintain that "gun control" is not about getting rid of all guns, but about controlling gun use and ownership, once again as implied by the term "gun control." " This is usually the original intent. However, it is inevitably corrupted.
"Obviously people are assaulting people--but why arm them? Why allow for military-style weapons to be in the hands of the public (such as the Bushmaster .223 used by the DC area snipers)? " 1)You can't keep these people from being armed. 2)The Bushmadter is hardly an assult rife. Hell, the so called "assault rifle features" (pistol grip, high-cap magazine, bayonet lug) would hardly have been applicable in the shootings, as only a single shot was fired per target, the attackers were never close enough to baynet somebody to death, and firing from the hip-which is the primary reason gun grabbers hate pistol grips-is very innacurate.
"I think there are significantly more civilized ways to keep one's person... safe, " Such as extra vaseline?
"These are things we do as a society for the public good over our individual liberties." Bah. Society is nothing but an group of individuals.The better things are for the individual, the better things are for society.
taking emotions out of the question would be the worst thing you can do when thinking about such things as gun control!! without emotions, we would not be human, we would be robots, and it wouldnt matter whether or not we went around shooting each other. next time one of your best friends is shot in a gun-in-the-home incident, come talk to me about not using your emotions when thinking about gun control.
That's quite a cop-out. I find it more irrational to base one's beliefs on gun control on emotions and to buy into politcally correct bs such as the 'assault weapon' classification.
quote: Why allow for military-style weapons to be in the hands of the public (such as the Bushmaster .223 used by the DC area snipers)?
Because they are effective weapons, not only for the stated 2nd amendment purposes, but for defense against armed intruders and varmint hunting. As for your snippet about the DC shooters, if you review your history you'll find that assasins always find effective weapons.
quote:Let me ignore for now your very thinly veiled incinuation that only black people (G-dawg and his homies) would be breaking into my house at 3 o'clock in the morning.
I was not 'incinuating' (sic) anything, merely providing a toungue in cheek example. You would find fault in any such example regardless of race, etc.
To think that the ultimate goal ofr gun control is not prohibition is naive, and to believe that the current government situation does not exceed the tyranny that spawned the revolutionary war is an oversight.
Yes, Jookly, I hate guns. I've fired a number of guns...I am from Texas, after all. I've been hunting, I've taken target shooting, and a friend of mine got a pistol that we used to shoot at cans. I hated each and every time I was around a gun and I hated it that my father kept his hunting rifles in the house and that my friend owned a pistol (he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, that one) and that I was forced against my will to take target shooting at camp when I was twelve years old.
Even if I were being assaulted with a knife, I would much rather rely on standard self-defense than using a gun, but I suppose in those heightened circumstances if I had a gun on me (and I can't imagine why I would), yes, I would use it to defend myself. But I don't think I would find it "nice to shoot them," as you so enthusiastically worded it, Jookly.
I continue to maintain that "gun control" is not about getting rid of all guns, but about controlling gun use and ownership, once again as implied by the term "gun control." Though you say it has led in other countries to total bans on guns, if gun control leads to the prohibition of guns in this country, I obvioulsy would not be for that, as I have stated. I believe that prohibitions in general are ineffectual and indeed often do more harm than good.
There is indeed such a thing as an assault weapons. It is a term used (in congressional and legislative debate and discussion most often) to describe automatic or semi-automatic military-style weapons. I obviously don't believe that guns, of their own volition, assault people. Obviously people are assaulting people--but why arm them? Why allow for military-style weapons to be in the hands of the public (such as the Bushmaster .223 used by the DC area snipers)?
Oh, I remember. To defend ourselves against our tyrannical government--I'm sure we'll all be taking to the streets any day now to defend ourselves from--George Bush? Are you kidding? I'm not saying we should put a blind trust in our government, but if you honestly think that we're going into an armed revolution against the United States government anytime soon, you have bigger issues to deal with than your belief that guns are the answer. I guess my concern is that you feel as though we may soon need weapons which would compete with a modern army.
I hate lots of inanimate things, so there's no point in trying to make me feel like an idiot for hating guns. I also hate (in no particular order) green peas, sour milk, cold rainy days, wet jeans, the sliding glass door to my apartment, and a number of other things, all of which were inanimate the last time I checked.
I realize what the Bill of Rights does, thank you. It does not "merely set forth rights that the government may not regulate," though certainly at least Amendments 1 and 2 do so. It doesn't prohibit regulation on many things, but sets limits for the amount of regulation. And I never claimed that the Bill of Rights gave supporting explanation for the Amendments, but the framer's personal writings (which are extensive and I suggest you read them) clearly indicate that the Bill of Rights were written in a time of immense paranoia that the new central government would become as tyrannical as mother England. The Bill of Rights is a direct reflection of the time in which it was written and should be interpreted as such. Hence, we shouldn't assume that quills and manual presses are all they were referring to, just as we shouldn't assume they meant for us to keep military-grade weaponry on the streets and in our homes--we should simply assume they wanted to guarantee us free speech and the right to bear arms.
And once again, I'm all for the right to bear and keep arms. I think it's crazy to want to because I think there are significantly more civilized ways to keep one's person and property safe, but I won't begrudge them their right. But to say that the second amendment preculdes any regulation on guns by the government is absurd. I think "bear and keep" makes it clear enough that the government has no right to take your weapons (if they are legally obtained), but certainly isn't prohibited from regulating them, as we regulate the media, the extent to which freedom of religion is practicable, and require certain permissions to be granted for peaceable assembly. These are things we do as a society for the public good over our individual liberties.
Let me ignore for now your very thinly veiled incinuation that only black people (G-dawg and his homies) would be breaking into my house at 3 o'clock in the morning.
quote: The point of gun control is not to get rid of all guns
In all instances so far, gun control has progressed to gun illegalization, whether you're talking about China, Australia, Britain, or Nazi Germany.
quote:And for the most part, the guns being discussed in the "Gun Control" debate are assault weapons that are on the streets.
There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That is a scary little term designeed to scare people like you into banning them. Any rifle suddenly becomes an "assault weapon" when a pistol grip is put onto it. Is ergonomics a deadly art ? Weapons don't assault anyone, people do. Furthermore, at the suggestion of various individuals, these are now to be reffered to as "Homeland Defense Tools"
quote:I hate guns. I think they're horrible.
Regardless of your spite or ill will towards inanimate pieces of steel, they are still very useful, as posts here show.
quote: it is to bear arms against a tyrannical government in a time of war.
An 'assult weapon' would be ideal for this. It would be very hard, if not impossible, for civillians armed with bolt action rifles and single shot shotguns to do anythingn but die in a battle against a modern army.
quote:And situated in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, it becomes even more abundantly clear that the intent was to allow for the people to "keep and bear arms" in defense of a "free state," not in defense of personal property.
The bill of rights merely sets forth rights that the government may not regulate, it does not provide reasons, etc. It doesnt tell us that the first amendment only applies to manual printing presses and quill pens, now does it ?
quote: This is why I've always had trouble with people hiding behind the second amendment in defense of their weaponry; I think they're looney for wanting guns in their homes in the first place, but even loonier for so ridiculously misinterpreting the Bill of Rights.
It is far from looney and certainly an unalienable right of the citizenry to expect life, liberty, and property. Defending these rights again whomever is attempting to infringe upon them, be it G-dawg who is breaking down your door at three in the morning with his homies, or some weirdo making laws.
quote:But if people want guns in their homes "to bear and keep arms", it is their right. But boy howdy, to take them from your home (except in legal times and places for hunting game) ought to be severely punishable.
Asinine statement; quite a few assaults, etc, occur OUTSIDE the home, as you may have seen on your local news station. I dont see why people are so fixated on prohibiting possesion of things, be it firearms or substances. If nobody is being harmed, what is the problem ?
It shouldn't be illegal to be prepared for defense, it should be illegal to actually hurt somebody. Unfortunately for us, criminals dont care about either law and will continue to carry weapons and attack law abiding citizens. Disarming these citizens and making them victims because you are scared and hateful of firearms is clearly not the answer.
The point of gun control is not to get rid of all guns...hence, we refer to it as the "Gun Control" debate and not the "Getting Rid of All the Guns" debate.
And for the most part, the guns being discussed in the "Gun Control" debate are assault weapons that are on the streets. I hate guns. I think they're horrible. But I agree that we can't reasonably just get rid of all guns...in fact, very few people argue that we should get rid of all guns.
The second amendment does guarantee us the right to bear arms, but the framers' intent is fairly well agreed upon by Constitutional historians; it is to bear arms against a tyrannical government in a time of war. And situated in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, it becomes even more abundantly clear that the intent was to allow for the people to "keep and bear arms" in defense of a "free state," not in defense of personal property. The Bill of Rights speaks specifically to issues involving freedom from a tyrannical government--fair trial, free speech, safeguard against illegal search and seizure, bearing arms, etc...these are freedoms to be exercised in defense of one's life and property from the government, not from one another. It seems absurd to think that the right to bear arms would include any intent by the framers' for the people to bear arms against one another. This is why I've always had trouble with people hiding behind the second amendment in defense of their weaponry; I think they're looney for wanting guns in their homes in the first place, but even loonier for so ridiculously misinterpreting the Bill of Rights.
But if people want guns in their homes "to bear and keep arms", it is their right. But boy howdy, to take them from your home (except in legal times and places for hunting game) ought to be severely punishable.
quote:. I believe in gun control, but that doesn't automatically mean I want to get rid of all guns, okay?
That is, in the end, the point of gun control. When some gun control is installed, and doesn't work (inevitably), many of the people will want more, you guessed it, gun control. More measures will be taken, crime rates will rise, the population will be terrified, and demand government protection. The government will, you know it, put extreme restrictions on all weapons in place. And, since all criminals obey the laws, the crime rates will go down. (Note: narf!)
The Nazi Germany example works fine. Granted, the countries are very distant in terms of economy, culture, ect, but that doesn't mean much. Any country, no matter how well it's doing, can go to hell.
Oh, and I really am annoyed when you people ascribe positions to me that I don't hold. I believe in gun control, but that doesn't automatically mean I want to get rid of all guns, okay? So please stop it. I know it helps you guys make your case, but if you can't do it without resorting to underhanded tactics like that, maybe you should consider that maybe you're wrong.
Umm...the average German family during the 1930s was totally broke--the country was in ruins. Even though the economy isn't red hot right now, it still beats the hell out of post-WWI Germany. So it's not really a legit analogy.
Refresh my memory....where did I say you didn't know what happened during the Holocaust? I was making a comparisan between the average German family in the late 1930s, and average North American family in the early 2000s. You seemed to make an excellent example, what with your unwavering trust of the government.
Mags, you will find that if you keep this line of discussion up, you will be thoroughly trounced. There have been several cgun control topics here, if you feel like digging them up. Otherwise, let me give you a quick summary of the points we adressed:
A. 1.Criminals Break Laws 2.Law abiding citizens abide by laws 3.Making firearms illegal would disarm law abiding citizens and not affect criminals --Cases in point include britain and australia, where, when firearms for private use were banned, crime rates in the areas of home invasion, etc, spiked --Case in point #2rugs are illegal, but one can get ahold of the adulterant of ones choice at streetcorners worldwide
B. 1.There are VERY FEW firearms accidents 2.Most of the 'children' cited in gun death reports (children being defined by those reports as anyone under 21) were gang members and other criminals busy killing each other, and who would kill each other with or without firearms, its illegal either way and the law is NOT a detterent 3.Firearms are the most effective home and self defense weapons practically useable and available. 4.There are (according to the study most widely acknowledged, although likely lower than the actual number) approximately 2.5 million instances of firearms used for defense anually in the US.
In summary: 1.Criminals will break laws, therefore only law abiding citizens are harmed by gun control laws. 2.An enormous amount more people defend themselves with firearms than are accosted with one.
it is ludirous for you to compared today's US gov't to that of Nazi Germany...I am offended you assume I don't understand what happened during the Holocaust...I happen to be a religion teacher now. My arguement is that there are WAY too many draw backs to allowing guns in homes, such as family members mistakenly killing their mom, son, sibling...Are you really actually afraid the US gov't is going to throw a coup d'etat? I mean, their is a difference between barring guns because you are fighting the Revolutionary War (see US History text book)and barring weapons for sport...
Damn, are you so paranoid Joey. You actually think the US government is going to try to form a dictatorship???? Please explain this theory to me, I'm dying to be enlightened...a-boo
Topics 
rugs are illegal, but one can get ahold of the adulterant of ones choice at streetcorners worldwide
