Debate and Discussion

Right to bear ARMS
GinckPress at 4:05PM, May 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 28
joined: 7-25-2006
Sorry it took me so long to reply.

isukun
A pistol is equal to nothing if you're going up against the US military. How many troops in Iraq do you think were killed with pistols?

At least one, that I'm aware of; a soldier was in line with Iraqi civilians to get a soda from a vending machine when somebody came up from behind him and shot him in the back of the head. Last I heard the shooter was never identified.

isukun
It's not the quantity that is the issue, it's the fact that owning small arms serves no purpose other than for one civilian to kill another civilian. There are plenty of handguns out there. In fact, the US is known for having one of the highest percentages of handgun ownership in the world. Strange enough, there are several countries with stricter gun control which are better are protecting people's civil liberties than the US, supposed home of the free.

The purpose to the right of owning a handgun is to protect yourself, your property, and your loved ones from criminally minded human beings since A) guns will exist for as long as human civilization continues to exist as it does, and B) there will always be a percentage of criminally minded human beings in any and all human societies.

The difference between the U.S. and other countries only illustrates how the U.S. allows some rights while restricting others, while the other countries restrict and allow their own respective rights.


isukun
I certainly hope you never get elected into any offices. Not everybody, even among those without a criminal record, should have that right. I personally know several people who I would never let buy a gun.

By what standard and authority are you judging those individuals? I'm being rhetorical there. Do you remember the precept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Certainly it has it's weaknesses, but I think it's far better for 10 guilty men to be set free due to lack of evidence than for 1 innocent man to be criminally punished just because of a case of mistaken identity, or social unpopularity. When you start prejudging, and subsequently punishing, individuals out of fear of what they might do, as opposed to what their actual history is you start treading into Salem Witch Trial territory. Now these individuals you mention may very well have a history of criminal violence, in that case I would agree that they have permanently forfeited their right to a firearm, but if they don't, and you're merely just intimidated by them, then there is no objective reason to take their rights away.

isukun
If you don't wish to own a gun, that is your choice. Peaceful and honest citizens should not have to give up any of their rights just because others choose not to exercise them /quote

And what about the rest of us? What about our right to peace of mind? I feel my rights as a human being are being violated any time I come in contact with a person with a gun. I cannot act or do as I please in their presence. That isn't freedom.

Peace Of Mind, is merely a State of MIND, and is far too immaterial and subjective to ever be considered a regulatable right, hence ultimately is the responsibility of the individual whose Peace Of Mind is in question. If somebody is too scared to move or act confidently while being in the pressence of somebody who is merely carrying a gun, then they have more problems than just the gun.

It's not that your human rights would be violated, you simply feel the disadvantage you are at because somebody has a weapon, while you don't - a disadvantage for which you ( and the laws preventing you, a law-abiding citizen, from carrying one ) would be responsible for. Now, if they use the weapon to threaten you, to impose a restriction on your freedom of movement, then your rights would be violated ( assuming that you yourself have done nothing to physically threaten their own well being, freedom of movement, property, or loved ones, which would have been justifiable cause for him to threaten you ). Honestly, is a police officer violating your rights by having a glock attached to his belt when he's talking to you? Answering with “but he's a police officer so it's okay” is not acceptable; we've had too many incidents of police brutality for that.

A different set of circumstances would be if somebody entered your own personal property, upon which you expressly forbid personal weapons. On your property, you have every right to decide who stays or leaves and demand accordingly. If someone is carrying a personal weapon, you have every right to demand that they leave and do what is necessary to remove them from your property. As long as you don't impede on their right to live, the property they possess on their person, or their freedom to leave your property, you may impose what you will. If they physically threaten you, your loved ones, and/or your propertery, then their rights are forfeit. Now, a moral individual would do what they can to resolve the situation without anybody being seriously injured, but if it comes down to it, then it comes down to it. In all likelyhood the cops are not going to get there in time.


isukun
A government collapse will most likely not happen within our lifetimes, but it very well might, and IF it does, those of us who are armed will be that much more capable of protecting ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.

Because anarchy is the preferred solution in cases of economic decline. I mean it worked so well during the Great Depression. In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm. Guns didn't help store clerks during the Great Depression. If anything, the more guns you have, the more likely people with ill intentions are to get and use them.

I didn't mean to imply that anarchy is a solution that I would like to see, only that if it were to occur, I'd rather have a handgun than not have a handgun to protect myself against said ill-intending people. Remember the L.A. Riots? I remember news footage being shot from a helicopter as these thugs drug a truck-driver out of his semi and started beating him to death. I remember private footage of thugs pissing on the face of man that they had just beaten into near unconciousness. Had I been in the vicinity of either of those incidences I would have shot those motherfuckers with almost no remorse. But most likely, had I been in L.A., I would have stayed in my home, and had anybody tried to break into my house while I was there, I would have shot them in defence of myself and my property, and been fully justified in doing so. There are not enough cops to protect every home in situations like that, nor should there ever be. Nothing that happened to Rodney King justified the disgusting hateful behaviour of all those thuggish people, no matter what their race may be.

I don't believe the U.S. fell into an actual state of anarchy during the Great Depression, merely a state of poverty - it's noteable that the Great Depression, and all other Boom-Bust cycles since, has been traced to artificial regulation of the economy, by both the Central Government and the Federal Reserve Bank ( despite the ‘federal’ in it's name, it's privately owned ); yet another example of government incompetence and how it can't be depended upon to protect our rights, only to punish those who violate them.

isukun
I agree with Subcultured that the best means of changing the government is through a peaceful, orderly process; but history shows that doesn't always happen.


And recent history shows that revolution is often a long and bloody process and more often than not, the people lose. Most countries which are “liberated” these days require assistance from other countries with stronger militaries.

Again, I'm not trying to promote bloody revolution, but if it happens, I want my own gun.

On a side note: it's a good day to be a Texan. Governor Perry took the first step with his announcement that the State legistlature needs to start debating getting rid of those idiotic “weapon-free” zones so that licenced law-abiding citezens can go anywhere open to the public with their weapons on them. Seriously, those things were a joke - all they did was keep the lawful gun-carriers out of the restaurants or what have you, and the criminals would just ignore those stupid signs, that is what makes them criminals after all.

In light of the recent shooting in Kansas City, it amazes me that corporate retailers like Target haven't trained and armed their employees. Well no, not really, why would they spend the money on something like that?

J.
www.planetaeruen.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:36PM
Mistchiff at 6:58PM, May 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 19
joined: 3-20-2007
Because those peasant dudes didn't have any means to even the score .
That is the endgame of “gun control”

thats prolly the stupidest shit ive ever heard.

the cops prolly will kill you just becasue you look at them weird..

most likely its in USA so your prolly right.



last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
subcultured at 7:06PM, May 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
Someone
it's a good day to be a Texan. Governor Perry took the first step with his announcement that the State legistlature needs to start debating getting rid of those idiotic “weapon-free” zones so that licenced law-abiding citezens can go anywhere open to the public with their weapons on them. Seriously, those things were a joke - all they did was keep the lawful gun-carriers out of the restaurants or what have you, and the criminals would just ignore those stupid signs, that is what makes them criminals after all.

well, now. back to the old west with shoot outs in every corner again.
that must be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

get ready for gun homicide to rise exponentially when that happens.

Someone
I am argueing that EVERYBODY ( that hasn't been convicted of criminal violence ) should have the right to own a gun,

well, the constitution doesn't say “right to bear arms, except if you have a record of violence”. so right there you're already changing the constitution. so why not change it to be more stricter? only those of mission of peace and order carry guns.

how can i know that the guy next to me is stable? especially with a gun in his pocket. and if he is unstable, do you think me carrying my own gun is gonna stop him from killing me?

i mean people who kill are almost beyond reason, aren't they?
once they come to the conclusion to kill someone and they have thier gun on you, all it takes is a few seconds to pull the trigger on you and then themselves.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
GinckPress at 8:35PM, May 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 28
joined: 7-25-2006
subcultured
Someone
it's a good day to be a Texan. Governor Perry took the first step with his announcement that the State legistlature needs to start debating getting rid of those idiotic “weapon-free” zones so that licenced law-abiding citezens can go anywhere open to the public with their weapons on them. Seriously, those things were a joke - all they did was keep the lawful gun-carriers out of the restaurants or what have you, and the criminals would just ignore those stupid signs, that is what makes them criminals after all.

well, now. back to the old west with shoot outs in every corner again.
that must be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

get ready for gun homicide to rise exponentially when that happens.

It's already legal for people to be licenced to conceal and carry here in Texas, and we don't have the “wild west” here now. What would be different is that what the Governor is implying is that those same people who are already licenced to conceal and carry would be able to bring them into the public establishments that currently choose to be a part of the “Weapon Free” zones. Which are really just places with signs that say “come rob us because we don't allow lawful citizens who lawfully carry guns in here to assist us”.

Our murder/population rate in 1985 was 0.000052% ( I'm pretty sure that was before our conceal and care law was passed ); in 2005 it was 0.000006%, that's about 1/9 what it was 20 years earlier.

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

( I got the percentages by dividing murders by population. )

Of course Texas was Number 16 in ‘05 on their murder rate; BUT New Hampshire, the Freedom State, has incredibly lax gun laws, more so than Texas, yet they were ranked Number 48 in 2005. California’s a bit worse than we are at #12, and I would think their gun laws to be pretty strong considering how liberal that state is purported to be. That tells me that there's a lot more to an increased murder rate than just how accessible guns are to the people. Oh and the capital of all murder in this country is none other than Washington, D.C..

I find it kind of interesting how Alaska is the rape-capital of the USA. I'm glad I don't live in the Rape-State. What a crappy stigma.

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html


subcultured
well, the constitution doesn't say “right to bear arms, except if you have a record of violence”. so right there you're already changing the constitution. so why not change it to be more stricter? only those of mission of peace and order carry guns.

It doesn't have to say that, because it's considered to be common sense that if you violate another person's rights, you forfeit your own. The Founders left details like that up to the individual States.

subcultured
how can i know that the guy next to me is stable? especially with a gun in his pocket. and if he is unstable, do you think me carrying my own gun is gonna stop him from killing me?

Innocent until proven guilty. Learn how to use a gun, take a class on the law in regards to your local and self defence. Be responsible for your own well being.

subcultured
i mean people who kill are beyond reason, aren't they?

Depends on the motive. Are they killing at random? Are they killing to survive? Are they killing due to orders? You automatically assume/suspect that somebody that just because somebody is carrying a gun that they are unreasoning killers, and THAT is a fallacy.
www.planetaeruen.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:36PM
isukun at 9:20PM, May 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
At least one, that I'm aware of; a soldier was in line with Iraqi civilians to get a soda from a vending machine when somebody came up from behind him and shot him in the back of the head.

One whole case? Versus how many sniper shootings, mortars, machine guns, and explosives? Hell, I'd be willing to bet more Americans have died by beheading in Iraq than by pistol fire.

The difference between the U.S. and other countries only illustrates how the U.S. allows some rights while restricting others, while the other countries restrict and allow their own respective rights.

This statement doesn't do much to support your position. If countries exist which protect the same rights and the democratic process, but restrict guns and have far less violence, how does that help prove guns are necessary? If anything, easy access to guns creates a gun culture like the one in the US. Culture based on fear is not more free. After all, fear is the real tool of oppressors.

By what standard and authority are you judging those individuals?

By the fact that they are my friends and have told me directly they are not responsible enough to own a firearm. Luckily, they are responsible enough to admit this. Not everyone is.

When you start prejudging, and subsequently punishing, individuals out of fear of what they might do, as opposed to what their actual history is you start treading into Salem Witch Trial territory.

Which is precisely what you do when you own a gun for self defense.


Now these individuals you mention may very well have a history of criminal violence, in that case I would agree that they have permanently forfeited their right to a firearm, but if they don't, and you're merely just intimidated by them, then there is no objective reason to take their rights away.
People don't need a history of criminal activity to kill someone. People have to start somewhere, after all.

If somebody is too scared to move or act confidently while being in the pressence of somebody who is merely carrying a gun, then they have more problems than just the gun.

Not really. When the only factor that has changed is the fact that the other person has a DEADLY WEAPON on them, then the problem most definitely is the gun. After all, what is more frightening for a person, a stranger, or a stranger with a gun? People tend to fear situations where they have little or no power. I'm a big guy and I've seen women walk faster or reach into their handbags at night if I walk by and the streets are sparsely populated. It's a natural reaction.

I don't believe the U.S. fell into an actual state of anarchy during the Great Depression, merely a state of poverty

There were riots due to the market crash.

Nothing that happened to Rodney King justified the disgusting hateful behaviour of all those thuggish people, no matter what their race may be.

Seems you're on the wrong side of that one since Rodney King was a blatant example of authority abusing the people. King was a symbol of a greater problem.

Our murder/population rate in 1985 was 0.000052% ( I'm pretty sure that was before our conceal and care law was passed ); in 2005 it was 0.000006%, that's about 1/9 what it was 20 years earlier.

Crime in general was more common in the 80's. What is of more interest is the fact that Texas accounts for 8% of the country's population, but 12% of its murders, plus there was no drastic drop in the rate of violent crimes like there was in the murder rate.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved