I went to your super-creepy "GunCite.com" and found, not surprisingly, that it is much like many other gun control debate sites, both for and against gun control. These sites take the Second Amendment and interpret it as they see fit in defense of their argument. And I agree, the Second Amendment can be interpreted in several compelling ways, which is why I'm in support of legal clarification, either way. The problem with gun legislation is that there hasn't been a Second Amendment ruling in the Supreme Court for seventy years...obvioulsy circumstances have changed significantly since then, and a ruling should be made accordingly. If they decide that the Second Amendment is about militias only, fine, end of discussion, handguns for civilian use are gone. And if they decide that "to keep and bear arms" means that individuals can have their own guns, that's fine too, put it in the law books and introduce functional legislation around that protection that will monitor and control the guns.
I carry neither a rape whistle nor mace (I've been maced once, it's an incredibly unpleasant experience), though living in a city, I probably should invest in some. And yes, that will be plenty for me, thank you. I really see no need to carry a firearm (although I know the streets of Canada can be pretty rough, so I understand your need for one).
Laws for better gun contols obvioulsy won't end crime...I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that they would. But if guns are better regulated, better monitored, and there is more of a process to attaining one, illegal weapons become more difficult/expensive/dangerous to attain. That's just simple economics, and I'm surprised that you don't recognize it as such. Yes, criminals will break the law...that's what makes them criminals; but why not make it more difficult and inconvenient for them to carry out their crimes with legislation that impedes the accessibility of weapons?
Just because a system of monitoring gun sales and regulating arms isn't "failsafe" doesn't mean it isn't beneficial. Lots of things aren't "failsafe," but I do them anyway. I lock my car doors, but my car has been broken into. I brush my teeth, but I get cavaties. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop locking my doors and brushing my teeth.
I also said that I would never own a gun because I don't like them. Then you tell me all the great things you can use a gun for. That's great! Own a gun! Use it for the many fun things on your list. I will choose not to own a gun. I don't even understand why you're arguing with me over my choice not to own a gun--are you trying to convince me to buy one? Do you work for Smith and Wesson? Leave it alone, dude.
When I said "Guns are involved in an astounding 100% of shooting deaths" it was quite obviously tongue-in-cheek, directed towards the claim that I had no facts or logic to back up my dislike of guns. And I uphold that guns being related to deaths is a large part of why I hate guns, be they legal or not.
I disagree that emotions aren't particularly useful in a debate. If you fail to relate to people's emotions you will just be transmitting information, not making connections with your audience, one of the most important elements of persuasion. I agree that emotions shouldn't be relied upon entirely, but I haven't done that. It also doesn't matter, as this isn't a debate, but a discussion forum. We aren't being graded here, and if my emotions shape my opinion, then I will express them, at little discredit to what I am saying.
As for Pearl Harbor, it was an attack launched purely for the sake of destroying the Pacific fleet, a pre-emptive strike which foresaw clearly (and catapulted forward) America's entry into the war. Japan didn't try to capture Hawaii because a) they didn't want it, and b) it was tactically impractical to even try it so far from the Japanese mainland. Drunken sailors and polynesians with rifles pointed out the windows had nothing to do with it. Why don't you pick up a book instead of making delusional and inaccurate assertions about American history, your grasp of which is painfully limited.
I think you should get your keyboard checked out..you "w", "r", "o", "n" "g" keys seem to be stuck on caps.
The Second Amendment isn't of concern to me, as it hardly pertains to Canadians, so I won't go into detail here but direct you to GunCite.com. Check the left hand column.
"I would never shoot an attacker, because I will never carry a gun! " ...I'm sure a can of seasoning or socially enlightened rape whistle will work just fine for you.
"Tougher gun control laws (bans on assault weapons for civilian use, tougher restrictions, better and more rigorous background checks) might keep some people from killing other people with guns. " Big news! Criminals don't obey the law! So, please explain to me, how will these gun control laws stop anything? Laws are not in place to stop anything, but to outline what is wrong, and worthy of punishment. They do not stop crimes, such as illegally obtaining drugs of firearms.
"Guns are involved in an astounding 100% of shooting deaths." Umm....Duh?
"a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting. A national registry would require that when guns are sold and resold, the seller and buyer submit paperwork to the government. Police then could trace a bullet or spent shell casing to the owner of a murder weapon. It would also enable the police to determine from whom and where an unlicensed gun owner obtained his firearm."" There are numeous ways the ballistics fingerprints of weapons can be altered. The whole concept is far from failsafe.
"I will never own a gun or have full understanding of why anyone would want to, no matter how much convincing." 1)Protection 2)Recreation 3)Resistance against a possible tyrannical government 4)Food 5)Competitive sport
Hell, thats more than you can do with a car.
"although I'm still confused as to why bringing emotion into the discussion was so bad in the first place" Emotion in place of facts or logic in a debate isn't particularly useful.
"And America has not survived because of our right to own weapons...it has survived in spite of it--once again, YOU ARE WRONG." Ever wonder why Japan didn't try to capture the Hawiian islands after the Pearl Harbour attack? The potential of rifles aimed out every window at their soldiers. I'd say guns helped the US there.
I still see no point in calling each other wrong...it does nothing. I do see a point in disagreeing and discussing those disagreements. But if calling one another wrong is how we're gonna play it, then lets play it.
Let me first talk about moral wrong, Dr. Strangelove. Mags is clearly upset about a situation that you call "irrelevent blather." Why does it matter if her opinions on gun control are based on her experience with what you refer to as a "crime of passion" (though a man going insane and killing his family hardly seems as though it would qualify as such)? People base their opinions on their experiences and if she knows of an experience such as the one she has described, how is it irrelevent? Such criticism is WRONG (though of course that is just my opinion, I'm only saying 'WRONG' because that seems to be the way this discussion is being handled).
You are also WRONG to call stabbings crimes of passion. "Crimes of Passion" refers to a fairly specific motive behind a crime usually involving jealousy or betrayal...simply snapping and killing folk is not a crime of passion in its original use (mid-19th Century Europe, when "crimes of passion" were all the rage as defense for aristocrats who were tired of their spouses or bored with their lovers). Just FYI, you are WRONG.
When I refer to paranoia, I am referring almost exclusively to Locutus who said, "to think that the ultimate goal of 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." I continue to maintain that these are the paranoid rantings of a disturbed individual...therefore, your assertion that "no one here is paranoid" is WRONG in my estimation.
You can't tell me what I would or would not do in a given "attack" situation. I can tell you one thing: I would never shoot an attacker, because I will never carry a gun! Solves that one. And in warding off an attack (sans artillery), I fully realize that I might inadvertently kill the attacker by other means...as I qualified in my previous statement, I would never be able to kill a person with a gun, but obviously if my attacker were to die by other means, I would still have to live with it--live with the memory of being attacked as well as with the memory of killing someone who may or may not have wanted to kill me...but I would much rather lose my purse than kill an over-zealous thug. So we are not disagreeing here...I might kill someone in those heightened circumstances, but not with a gun, which I wouldn't have with me. So you are not WRONG just INCOMPLETE in your reading of my previous post.
And my hatred of guns (as I have made clear) is far from absolute (view my post of January 21, 10:40 AM). Once again you are WRONG. My facts and logic are as follows: people with guns kill other people. Tougher gun control laws (bans on assault weapons for civilian use, tougher restrictions, better and more rigorous background checks) might keep some people from killing other people with guns. And here's a statistic: Guns are involved in an astounding 100% of shooting deaths.
I am not, and have never claimed to be, in favor of anything resembling a gun prohibition. What I am in favor of is a clear and legally binding definition of the language in the Second Amendment. The following comes from a USA Today article on the US Government Information website:
"The Second Amendment states that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' The NRA and millions of gun owners, focusing on the second clause, believe that the amendment guarantees adult Americans with clean records the absolute right to possess and even carry weapons. Gun-control proponents, emphasizing the first clause, argue that it guarantees the states only the right to control their militia units... [Recent court decisions would] would open the door to a national registry, a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting. A national registry would require that when guns are sold and resold, the seller and buyer submit paperwork to the government. Police then could trace a bullet or spent shell casing to the owner of a murder weapon. It would also enable the police to determine from whom and where an unlicensed gun owner obtained his firearm."
In a perfect world, I'd get rid of all guns everywhere, but that is impractical and impracticable. Instead, I support responsible gun ownership and stricter gun contol and monitoring. I will never own a gun or have full understanding of why anyone would want to, no matter how much convincing. I hope this is a good enough balance of logic and emotion--it is a combination of the two that makes us human (although I'm still confused as to why bringing emotion into the discussion was so bad in the first place). And America has not survived because of our right to own weapons...it has survived in spite of it--once again, YOU ARE WRONG.
quote:gee, ya know id go to his parents if i could, but it was his dad who shot him and his mom, then himself when he went temporarily insane...no gun, they probably would all still be alive. you like to make alot of righteous assumptions, dont you?
Wow, that's some great irrelevent blather there mags. Murder-sucides are crimes of passion. So are stabbings.
quote: I don't think it's a cop out for me to want to stop arguing with someone who is so clearly paranoid.
No it's not a cop out. The problem with your reasoning is that no one here is paranoid.
quote:I don't think under any circumstance I would have it in me to kill another human being with a gun. I've played over all kinds of scenarios in my head about this--getting raped, burglarized, attacked--I can't see me using a gun to kill someone else.
Brooke, there is a huge difference between the scenarios you play out in your head and the actual frantic moments when something terrible happens. Only a few people try and kill fellow humans when defending themselves. Most simply want to stop the attack, and if that involves killing the agressor, then you do it. In the end your instincts take over, and you will do anything to survive. Reason and morals mean little to all but the most diciplined. Ain't it great to be a falliable, primal human?
quote: But just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to call me wrong. I happen to believe in the collective good over the individual good...this is my right as well.
You can be wrong and we beleive you are wrong. It's your right to believe whatever you want, but at least defend you absolute hatred of guns and the idea of an armed society with facts and logic and not pure emotion. Because right now, i'm seeing very little of the former.
quote: 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.
While we could go on and on about the details of an armed rebellion in the US, I will say this: The US armed forces are composed of mainly patriotic and constitution loving individuals. They know they pledge to defend the US constituion, not the government. And with the whole American war machine based on a stable homeland, internal resistance and attacks could bring many attempt to control the land to a halt. And what can we do against the M1A1's and F-16's? There's a modern military proverb: You can bomb it, you can burn it, you can turn it into glass, but you still have to have infantry to hold the ground. And as long as the Americans have armed citizens, at the moment 80+ millions of them, no army in the world could conquor us. Not even our own. This has been a real and true reason that America survives today. There is no paranoia.
Mmmhmm. Knives can't kill people? That would be new to me. And human strength is thing of the past? A five year old can beat the crap out of his dad, overpower him? Yeah. Mmmhmm. Right.
gee, ya know id go to his parents if i could, but it was his dad who shot him and his mom, then himself when he went temporarily insane...no gun, they probably would all still be alive. you like to make alot of righteous assumptions, dont you?
I don't think it's a cop out for me to want to stop arguing with someone who is so clearly paranoid. I don't feel like wasting my time discussing the ways in which our current government exceeds the tyranny of the British monarchy during revolutionary times...it's lunacy. Furthermore, there is not a circumstance under which I will agree that guns shouldn't be regulated by our government.
Last time, for the record.
I don't think under any circumstance I would have it in me to kill another human being with a gun. I've played over all kinds of scenarios in my head about this--getting raped, burglarized, attacked--I can't see me using a gun to kill someone else. That is just me personally. Does that make me emotional? Maybe. I'm fine with that and see no reason why you are using that against me. Guns (or people carrying guns, however you want to put it) kill people and death is an emotional subject. To rid this discussion of emotion would be to rid it of its humanity, which in my opinion, is to rid the discussion of its value.
I don't understand the vaseline comment, nor do I really want to.
And as for your "the better things are for the individual, the better things are for society," comment...clearly you are a libretarian, which is great, I'm very happy for you. But just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to call me wrong. I happen to believe in the collective good over the individual good...this is my right as well.
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.
Topics 
