posted
Nuclear technology is still difficult enough that there's some hope of controlling it. You are right, though, that in the long run this won't be true. We need to realize that someday, in the not too distant future, nuclear technology is going to be in everyone's hands.
The same is true of biotech. As technology advances, it will always be the case that fewer and fewer people will have more and more power available to them until it finally gets to the point where any one person will be able to destroy the whole planet. How will we survive as a species then? It's certainly worth thinking about.
I don't think there will ever be any successful plane hijackings, post 9/11. I think if anyone tries to hijack a plane they will end up dead. The passengers will rise up and kill them. Is that what life will be like in the future? That anyone who tries to do something destructive will immediately be surrounded and overwhelmed by everyone in the area? That's one possibility. I'm not sure if it's such a great idea but it's an interesting thing to think about.
posted
On issues like this one, I think it is more illuminating to consider the whys tied to the origins of a particular viewpoint.
Why own a gun? In my personal experience, I've known many hunters who wouldn't use a firearm for anything other than this passed-down tradition of food-gathering. I've also known cityfolk (midwest cities included) who at some point or other felt out-of-sorts enough to think they needed to carry a handgun in their purse. Responsible individuals, to be sure. Licences, training. Hours spent at the shooting range. Still, from my POV, the origin of the need to own the gun wasn't as rational as the process undertaken to obtain one.
I don't think calling on the constitution is an end to this consideration. The constitution includes the capacity for amendments upon future changes and challenges to the society.
posted
I think the laws are on the wrong side of this issue.
There shouldn't be severe restrictions on gun ownership... but there should be a lot *more* severe punishments for crimes involving guns.
Those law abiding people who wish to own guns should be able to do so - provided they take some sort of course on gun safety and use. However, the penalties for using the gun for any unlawful act should be increased three to five fold.
It's a matter of freedom vs. responsibility. You should have the freedom to own a weapon, just as you have the freedom to drink alcohol or drive a car. However, you bear the responsibility for those actions. If you use the weapon in commission of a crime, or if you consume that alcohol and then operate a car or other heavy machinery, or if you drive a car recklessly... there should be significant penalties.
But keeping guns out of the hands of the general public is not the answer. Making a law that bans a gun is meaningless. The criminal is *already breaking the law* in commiting a crime, already showing that the law is not important to him or her. Making one more law isn't going to stop that criminal from procuring and using a gun.
Making the penalties for using that gun for that act so severe as to be prohibitive - that's a better deterrent.
quote: However, the penalties for using the gun for any unlawful act should be increased three to five fold.
Do you think that a person who legally obtains his firearm should be punished more severely than someone who stole it? That doesn't seem to send a very good message.
Or do you mean that all punishments should be several times what they are right now?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The criminal is *already breaking the law* in commiting a crime, already showing that the law is not important to him or her. Making one more law isn't going to stop that criminal from procuring and using a gun.
This standard argument only works if you assume that those who break the law are never caught.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could everyone please list their specific reasons for owning/wanting to own a gun ? Besides hunting, of course.
My reasons for NOT owning or not wanting to have a gun are: - I don't think I'd use it; as stated in a documentary I've seen: you can defend yourself in many ways, but doing it with a gun will make things more "final" (like in killing the other person). You can beat up the guy that attacked you with a bat, but in order to kill him you'd either have to be unlucky or a little nuts... With a gun, it's a different matter: in the heat of the moment, you only need to not think for an instant and aim at one of his vital points and that's it. Notice that I practiced karate and I'm pretty much aware of a human's vital points even for hand to hand combat, and while I've never been in a real fight I see my knowledge of this as giving me a great responsibility. But I've been trained to control my natural weapons and my impulses to use them, not showed them without *instructions*. - safety; it's kind of linked to the gravity of an accident involving a gun. Even if you know how to handle it, you cannot guarantee that it won't end up in the hands of someone who doesn't. I'm thinking of children especially.
(have to go now...) -
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only people I'd like to see with guns are those who don't want them.
Gun shows scare me.
I mean, if our society ever reverted to judicial combat, I might get a gun...
------------------------
I think there's a Constitutionally acceptable middle ground between the "ban guns" liberal idiots and the "any regulation is unconstitutional" conservative morons.
Strict background checks (including banning all convicted felons and those convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning guns), mandatory safety classes, waiting periods, and significantly raised penalties are all reasonable.
Seriously, it's not the 1700s anymore. We're not dueling for honor with single-shot pistols, nor are we in any danger of being invaded and left without adequate military support.
I love the Constitution, and it's principles can't be beat--but when trivial specifics become obsolete, we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The right to bear arms should be treated like any other law--it applies to a person until he/she shows they don't deserve it.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I love the Constitution, and it's principles can't be beat--but when trivial specifics become obsolete, we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The right to bear arms should be treated like any other law--it applies to a person until he/she shows they don't deserve it.
I've never taken the time to become passionate about this issue, but to play devil's advocate...
I love the Constitution, and its principles can't be beat -- but when trivial specifics become obsolete, we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The right to free speech should be treated like any other law -- it applies to a person until he/she shows he/she doesn't deserve it.
For example, those who've started riots with their speech should be denied freedom of it. They can cause deaths with their words, and civil unrest, potentially revolution -- this isn't the 1700's anymore. We're not debating changes in the Constitution (unless you're a rabid bigot) with the likes of Henry or Clay, nor are we really in danger of being oppressed by the British Empire.
To be fair, I realize limiting the prevalence of guns and the prevalence of free speech are two vastly different creatures -- but once we started restricting Constitutional amendments, when do we end?
And yeah, I realize that comes off as a slippery slope argument -- but it's not. If we can amend one right, we can amend another. And another. When do they become inalienable?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it legal to call in a hoax bomb threat? To slander? To say you're going to assassinate the president? Is assault legal?
I'd say we already have a couple restrictions on free speech.
Sure, the specifics don't work for both cases...but I don't think we have many rights that don't include some fine print.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it all comes down to personal responsibility. That's the backbone of a democracy. Unfortunately, laws multiply as irresponsible people do and we all suffer. The funny thing is that only the responsible people actually keep the laws, especially the gun control laws.
I have a gun and I started learning how to use it when I was 10 years old (under very close supervision!!). Over the years I've spent a lot of time practicing and becoming comfortable with it. I've thought carefully about the possible situations in which I might have to use it to protect myself or my family.
Unfortunately, it is illegal to even have it in my car in NC, so it stays "safely" at home. If I ever get mugged, raped, carjacked, etc., I'm going to blame both the person who does it, as well as the state that has such restrictive gun laws.
I know these aren't logical reasoned arguments, necessarily, just my personal opinions about a situation where I feel my freedom to protect myself has been limited.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
would you really be willing to USE your gun in those situations?
I mean, if someone were car-jacking me at gunpoint, I would just give them my car -- not shoot them. I don't think my car is worth a human life, even if it is a criminal's life.
I don't think I could live with myself in the aftermath of taking another human life.
Unless, of course, they were trying to kill my kids. I would shoot them in an instant if it meant their life or my kids' life.
But I don't own a gun because I never want to have to put myself in a position of deciding whether something is worth killing another person over.
quote:I never want to have to put myself in a position of deciding whether something is worth killing another person over.
Boy, I don't have that problem. I'm reminded of the episode of The Family Guy where Death is on the date with that girl who won't shut up, so he reaches across the table and touches her shoulder and she falls into her soup.
Man, I would be touching people left and right. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is sad that as a society, it seems like people value human life less and less all the time. Death and killing almost seem commonplace, and many people think murder in their minds.
I guess we could theorize on why this is (desensitization, etc.) yet we all also know the devastation that you feel when the death is someone close to you that you know and love.
Could you kill someone? Could you do it in good conscience? Could you live with yourself afterwards? If so, what is it that makes you feel like that life has no value?
quote:it seems like people value human life less and less all the time.
Considering the greater prevelance of law, the extended life expectancy, the fewer number of children per family, and a tighter society, I'd say society's value of an individual human life has EXPLODED in a postive direction.
Not that it's perfect, but at worst, it's the same.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll admit that I own a firearm. It's a .45 cal flintlock made by Baretta and honestly not a threat to anyone. I can just see my trying to use it for self defense "Wait right there while I go get some black powder, a bullet mold and lead, hmm pour in the black powder, ram in a patch of cloth and a bullet, hold on a sec more... okay, prime the pan, cock the weapon, shoulder.. wait, don't move.. kablam! Crap, missed ya, hold on a second more... sure, go get a glass of water, this'll take a minute..."
I do believe in the sanctity of the second ammendment and the right for citizens of the US to bear arms. I believe that a hunter has the right to own appropriate weapons (if you need a fully automatic AK-47 with a 30 round clip for deer hunting, perhaps this isn't your sport...) and I believe in the right of a person to own a handgun for self-protection, target shooting and hunting. I also believe in the rights of gun collectors, with proper licensing.
I do believe, also, in the need for full and immediate background checks for ALL gun purchases. A national register is not a difficult thing. Heck, they can do a background check for a job interview now in a matter of minutes, surely a gun purchase should and could require the same. I also believe that a drug test be required, or proof of a negative drug test within the last 30 days.
I also believe each gun should be required to be sold with a gun lock (or chamber wire for long arms) and that consumers be required to keep the gun lock on at all times except for their own usage. I believe that smart gun technologies (which have a mechanism that requires the firer to wear a ring that electronically prohibits firing if the ring is not worn) is a good idea.
It's scary for some, but I do believe firearms have their place. Like any tool, however, the proper and safe use is a must. No one in the US should be allowed to purchase or own (many guns are inherited) a firearm without first taking and passing a firearms safety course.
And then, there's the far, far end of the spectrum. You really, really don't need a submachine gun, or assault rifle (or even a look-alike which can be converted to full-auto with a mod kit), or an auto-firing shotgun. A pistol does not need a 15-round clip, and the general public does not need Black Talon or frangible ammunition.
It comes down to common sense, but there are folks at the fringe of the discussion who speak loudly but apply little brain power to the discussion.
posted
Now as I read the 2nd amendment, it seems to me that the purpose of it is not to let people shoot targets or go hunting. The purpose of it is to keep arms in the hands (amrs in the hands? lol) of the common citizenry in order to keep the government in check.
Is this a fair interpretation? If so, then shouldn't it specifically apply to modern firearms that are used as weapons -- assault rifles, sub-machine guns, etc.?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you feel the writers of the constitution felt that at some point the common citizenry would need to raise up arms against their own government?
Wow -- that just steps us back to the level of some third-world countries of un-rest. I hope we never come to that.
Let's distill it down to the basics. Ownership of a gun, can and does say, I am a sovereign of my own self. I can and will protect my life and property. I can and will provide food for my family if that need arises. I can and will protect myself from injustices.
To paraphrase Guevera, power comes from the barrel of a gun. It's true.
Is the Second Ammendment there to guarantee us the right to rise up against the government? Well, that is an aspect of it, but it's not the only one. To assume so is to put a very fine, minute definition on something that is much larger. It is oversimplification and does a disservice to our founding fathers, relating them to only the basest of thinking. Shame, there's much more to the issue than that.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you feel the writers of the constitution felt that at some point the common citizenry would need to raise up arms against their own government?
They absolutely thought that - they had just done it, hadn't they? And the founding document of that revolution made the normative case for doing so again, if needed.
Much of the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the government. They were keenly aware that governments can get out of hand, and that sometimes it gets to the point where you do have to raise up arms against it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, if I'm gonna take up arms against the US, I'd better have at least an M2 Bradley, preferably an M1A1 main battle tank.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The founding fathers had no idea what sort of weapons would be made possible by future technology. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete and needs changing.
True, they did not know what weapons would be around otday, but still it is neccesary as it was then, now. If we had a society of unarmed law abiding people in this country, then the law breakers would have no one to stop them, the guns are the greatest deterent to crime in this nation. In this country, on average the pizza man will arive at your house before the police will. Their is a book I think many many people on this thread should read, " More Guns, Less Crime "
posted
Oh and destineer, believe me if I were to take up arms against the government I would not want a tank, I would wish nothing more than an AR-15 with Acog sight, and an Springfield Armory 1911, quick, portable, urban warfare, and yes poertio thingie, we very well may need to take up arms against the government.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You probably ought to have some sort of portable anti-tank weapon as well, say a Dragon missile launcher. Not to mention a Stinger launcher for use against helicopter gunships.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Sheperdhess, would you really be willing to USE your gun in those situations?
To protect myself or my family, absolutely. I also understand that there are situations where its better just to let the criminal have what he wants. In fact, I was taught never to pull the weapon in the first place unless I was prepared to kill someone (otherwise, I'm more than likely to be killed myself).
Yes, it would be hard to live with myself if I had to kill someone, but it would be even harder if there was something I could have done to prevent an even worse tragedy, and I didn't. I value human life--I just happen to value the lives of those I love over the life of someone who wants to harm them.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people ask me if I was named after Porter Rockwell (my name IRL is Porter). They always seem dissapointed when I tell them no.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you think that a person who legally obtains his firearm should be punished more severely than someone who stole it? That doesn't seem to send a very good message.
Not sure what you mean here, or how you got that from my statement. What I'm saying is that using a gun in a crime should have a direct and significant effect on the punishment for that crime. Regardless of whether you attained the gun legally or illegally.
If you have a gun in your hand, and you are aiming it at someone, or even just flashing it around, while committing a crime, you are showing irresponsibility with the weapon and should be punished accordingly. In addition to greatly extended sentences without the possibility of parole, your use of a gun in a crime a *second* time should have even greater penalties.
And I don't care how you got it. If you are using it inappropriately, that shouldn't matter.
quote: This standard argument only works if you assume that those who break the law are never caught.
Destineer, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this statement. Please explain.
Why would this argument assume that? It seems that the counterargument assumes that all people who break the law are *never released*, or that all people who choose to break the law have been caught *already*. If your intent is to break the law by using a gun, would you really be stopped by someone telling you your owning a gun is illegal? No. Just like if you really want to drink alcohol, is a law saying you can't until you're 21 really going to stop you?
Locks keep honest people honest. Someone determined to break into your house will bypass the lock. Laws against gun ownership are a parallel case.
quote: Could everyone please list their specific reasons for owning/wanting to own a gun ? Besides hunting, of course.
Might as well list reasons for owning a katana. Or a flanged mace. Or a compound bow. Or a chia pet. Or a Kenny G album.
Should I really need to list a specific reason for buying something? I'm not sure what sort of precedent that sets.
I do not own a gun at present. However, growing up throughout my life, there were always two handguns in the house. My father was a police officer, it was part of his job. I was given a healthy respect for guns and other things that go "bang" (like fireworks), and have gone shooting at a private firing range in Pennsylvania on occassion.
It's fun. We buy a box of clay pigeons, and have fun making them explode into tiny bits. We set up reactive targets, and made them go "ping" when we hit them. We set up paper targets and check accuracy. All in all, the group of us has a great time.
And those trips are far more social, informative, and interesting than spending my money on some suped up game system or anything else.
If people are being responsible, there's no reason to limit their freedoms. Just because a small portion of the population is responsible doesn't mean you must limit the freedoms of everyone.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your intent is to break the law by using a gun, would you really be stopped by someone telling you your owning a gun is illegal?
No, but you could be stopped from using the gun if you were first arrested for owning the gun. That was my point.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought you all might enjoy this story my grandmother forwarded to me a few weeks ago. I apologize if you've already seen it.
Subject: Don't mess with Grandma!
An elderly Florida lady did her shopping, and upon returning to her car, discovered four males in the act of stealing her car. She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, screaming at the top of her voice, "I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!"
The four men didn't wait for a second invitation. They got out and ran like mad. The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into the back of the car and got into driver's seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition. She tried and tried, and then it dawned on her why.
A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four spaces farther down. She loaded her bags into the car and drove to the Police station.
The sergeant to whom she told the story couldn't stop laughing. He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car jacking by a mad, elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, with glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun. No charges were filed.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me that prohibiting something which (a) is not a habit-forming drug and (b) takes considerable industrial effort to construct would be much easier than prohibiting alcohol or marijuana.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Also, I'm pretty sure taking someone's gun away from them will have more of an adverse effect on your health than taking a beer away.
Especially the "cold dead hands" crowd.
And the actual standing american militias.
If the government actually tried to ban guns totally, to take them out of the hands of the people, I think you would see a *major* social uprising against that administration.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the United States government banned firearms from its citizens, I think a lot of people would consider the government as having been abolished and become enemies of the state.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't deny that the US gun culture, as it's often called, would make enforcement of a handgun ban difficult. All I'm saying is that the practical details of enforcing such a ban, at least in the absence of that sort of culture, would not be insurmountable. It's not impossible, in the sense that prohibition or the war on drugs were/are impossible.
posted
What about the "well regulated miliita..." portion of the Amendment? How does a "well regulated militia" synch with the thought that any regulation of this "right" is a bad thing? I don't remember the Founders being interested in arming their populace so that it could rise up against itself but to prevent a British-style occupation. They didn't have giant standing armies like we have now and the defense of this country rested in the hands of armed citizenry, ready to stand up and be counted if invaded.
This is fine with me. I think if anyone wants to own and bear arms, they should be a part of a nationally supported "well regulated militia" and THEY can be the ones sent overseas to defend our country. Heck, all that gun training could be put to good use, then!
posted
fil, that's *exactly* what they were doing. The prime thing they were going for was "freedom from tyranny" and all that good stuff - the idea that England, simply because it was ruling over the colonies, could do what it liked with them.
That idea didn't jive with American sensibilities. The people thought they should have a say - not just the government. And if the government got out of hand, then the people should have the right to change that government - by force, if necessary.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
The rights of the people were foremost - and the right to defend those rights was next in line. First amendment - you should be able to say adn worship what and how you want without the government hauling you away. Second amendment - if the government does get out of hand, you should have the means to overthrow it.
Just because the government has superior technology doesn't mean the people shouldn't have any. Who'd have thought a bunch of ragtag colonists could have defeated the English war machine?
Now, that said, I'm not looking to overthrow the government. But one of the keys to our freedom is the idea that we maintain the right to maintain arms and militias - in case the government attempts to take that freedom away.
The 2nd amendment shows remarkable foresight. It's the people who enjoy the freedoms it grants that are shortsighted. It provides the right to bear arms so as to maintain a regulated militia... well, the onus is on the people to maintain that militia. As it stands, most people see militias as being comprised of crackpot lunatics, and the ubiquity of such militias is gone.
But notice, it doesn't say "well regulated military" or "well regulated army"... the militias were meant to be run by the people, out from under the regulation and control of the government. Any attempt to deny the people the right to arm themselves and organize is counter to the letter and spirit of the bill of rights.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because the government has superior technology doesn't mean the people shouldn't have any. Who'd have thought a bunch of ragtag colonists could have defeated the English war machine?
And technology isn't everything. Who would have thought a group of pajama-clad, hut-dwelling folks in a backwater jungle nation would have won out over the US's superior firepower and technology?
Who would have thought that backwards colonies in Africa could throw off the yoke of European nations like France, Belgium and Portugal (Algeria, The Congo and Angola)?
Or that a small organization hiding out in the mountains of Afghanistan could first thwart the Soviet Union and then threaten to send the world into a series of wars and conflicts using nothing more than donated weapons, and ultimately box cutters?
The Second Ammendment is there as a not-to-subtle reminder to our government that its power is granted by the people and allowed to remain at the will of the populace.
It does not remark to the huge undertaking that it would entail, but does pay homage to the idea that as individuals we are sovereigns in our own right and have the right to access the necessary tools if we so deem it.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why it frustrates me to hear statements like "You don't need a machine-gun to hunt deer." The 2nd amendment was not designed to protect sport hunting. But the laws seep to keep getting further and further from the 2nd amendment. There are many types of firearms that an ordinary citizen cannot buy new legally. The purpose? To keep the populace from being as well armed as those in authority. That makes me sad.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Port, I've got to disagree with you there.
The reason some weaponry is not allowed for the general public is not to prevent them from using the weapons against the government, but instead to protect the public at large.
Take, for example, the ban on fully automatic weapons. It wasn't created because a few crazed militiamen were out there with Uzis. It was because the weapons were used (in the 1920s and later in the 1970s and 80s) in the commission of basic crimes. When the firearms were discharged, they became what was once called weapons of mass destruction... in other words, they sowed death and injury across large numbers of people.
It is illegal to saw-off the barrel of a shotgun for the same reason, because it creates an indiscriminate weapon. The same goes for explosives, flame throwers and the like.
Then you move to the ban on weapons that looked like assault rifles. It wasn't truly a ban on the look of a weapon, but moreso on the ammunition-carrying capabilities of the weapons. 30-round clips were readily available meaning that the gun offered a huge amount of shots before the user would have to reload. No justifiable reason could be found for allowing such ammo clips beyond the ability to be able to continually deal death and mayhem. Hence, they yanked such things from production (there are loopholes for priorly existing clips already in the marketplace).
You can, however, point back to the Gun Control act back in the mid-1960s that banned the sale of small, cheap handguns ("Saturday Night Specials") as an effort to take inexpensive weaponry from the hands of the poor. It's an easy one to make stick when arguing about the government trying to prevent unrest and armament of those in opposition. The truth, however, was that the legislation began from two distinct points, 1) the number of the cheap weapons used in violent crime (many times the weapons had been stolen) and 2) because of the shoddy manufacturing techniques on the two-bangers (some would only fire twice before breaking) they were actually a great danger to the users.
But it all comes back down to one very important distinction. It isn't the weapon, it is the person holding it. A weenie can go out and get an M-2HB .50 cal machine gun and a belt of ammo, layer on the protective gear, gird themself with a belt of hand-grenades and wade out into the streets thinking they have what it takes because they can churn out successful missions while playing Ghost Recon. A sufficiently trained police officer with a simple handgun can take that person down.
On the other hand, the renowned gunfighter Doc Holliday racked up most of his kills with a knife, rather than a pistol or shotgun.
What this rather lengthy post rolls around to in the end is that it isn't important that some legislation has been enacted for public safety, but that the basic right to own a firearm remains. It isn't about what type of weapon an American can choose to own, but that an American can own some form of weapon by which they defend themselves or their ideals with, should such a need arise. We can restrict the armory, but not the power each American truly wields.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that the purpose of limiting what firearms we can own was to prevent an uprising. But many of the laws today, such as the Brady Bill, keep an ordinary citizen from buying new the same firearm that the law enforcment (those in authority) carry every day.
quote: No justifiable reason could be found for allowing such ammo clips beyond the ability to be able to continually deal death
That is the whole point of firearms in the first place -- to kill.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't very reasonable and logical reasons for keeping such firepower out of the hands of the citizenry. But right or wrong, according to my reading, it goes against the spirit and letter of the constitution. But then again, IANAL, and never will be.
I didn't know about the legislation concerning Saturday night specials. Thanks for the info.
quote: It isn't about what type of weapon an American can choose to own, but that an American can own some form of weapon by which they defend themselves or their ideals with, should such a need arise. We can restrict the armory, but not the power each American truly wields.
This just doesn't make sense to me. You say we are supposed to be able to defend yourself and your ideals with firearms. Doesn't limiting the power of the firearms we can own limit our ability to use said firearms to defend ourselves and our ideals?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've said before, it isn't the capabilities of a firearm (rate of fire, range, concealability, ammo capacity, etc) that determines lethality to the target. Intent and skill determine that.
Box cutters were the weapons that brought about the fall of the World Trade Center. A pistol shot to the feet was what brought down the heavily armed and armored robbers in Los Angeles a decade ago. Lincoln survived the Civil War, but was brought down by a bullet from a cheap pistol fired with deadly intent.
Once again, it is not the type of weapon, but a weapon in and of itself wherein the last, final and terrible power exists. We walk a fine line around the Second Ammendment, curtailing it when we deem it necessary, but still holding to its basic premise. As long as that premise is upheld so is the intent and the possibility.
Please understand, I in no way am advocating the violent overthrow of our government, but simply debating on the semantics of an Ammendment.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, just to be clear on your point: we could rewrite the Second Amendment to make it clear that people are allowed to own box cutters in case they want to violently overthrow the government, and that would be fine?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm reminded of the episode of The Family Guy where Death is on the date with that girl who won't shut up, so he reaches across the table and touches her shoulder and she falls into her soup.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
