| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If The Bill of Rights is so sacrosanct, then why does it get violated, historically speaking, all the time?
Because people don't SAY they're violating it, they come up with an excuse to say that they're doing something else. Usually they have to paint the people who's rights they're violating as the blasphemers and themselves as the ones upholding mom and apple pie (Alien and sedition acts= the french,communists, hippies, and now left wing hippy communist socialists). You don't make a dictatorship by abolishing laws, you make them by ignoring them.
In short...
The bill of rights has never been violated.
We have always been at war with east Asia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Well, is is "just" legislation, even if it had a huge impact on the western world. To put it in the vicinity of holy texts spells trouble.
Yup.
Every modern nation has its founding myth, but the question is, how much influence has it today?
More than most religions honestly. You have to remember that our country was only founded 200 years ago, so it has a LOT more impact here than most places. There's a lot of history, mythology and reverence around it that some people take deliberate advantage of, thats before you consider the fact that we're still using the constitution they set up.
edit: And i don't think i have to go too far out on a limb to say we've got the makings for a really good story there. The ragtag bunch of misfits rising up against the evil empire is a really good story, and not THAT far from the truth as stories go.
In America they think 100 years is a long time. In Europe, they think 100 miles is a long distance.
|
As an interesting historical anecdote, after the fall of the Soviet Bloc nations, a former Soviet Minister of Defense was touring the lecture circuit in the US (I know, right?) and one of the statements he made was that while the USSR had come up with several plans to invade the USA, there was one obstacle none of their plans had been able to overcome.
There were literally hundreds millions of firearms in the USA, all of them in the hands of (by Soviet military standards) qualified users. How do you invade a country where there is (on average) one firearm per citizen, and fully a quarter of them know how to use them? They couldn't figure a way to conquer the US. Maybe they could wipe it from the map with nuclear weapons, but actual invasion and conquest was something they couldn't beat.
That's a large part of the reason the 2nd Amendment is, and always shall be, relevant, regardless of advancements in technology.
|
Thank god the idiot that shot her used a gun and not a bomb. If he had shown up and used a fertilizer truck bomb instead of the gun, a ton more people would have been hurt or killed.
Why stop at a fertilizer truck bomb fear.
We should give all of the mentally unstable people guns, lest they build nuclear weapons and destroy entire cities.
The logic is flawless.
Or, and this is an out there idea I know but stick with me, maybe when someone is believed to be dangerous by the people who are treating them, they could be able to restrict them purchasing firearms while also being notified if they attempt a purchase.
Wild idea I know, I mean it isn't like the Virginia Tech shooter and Loughner had been in treatment for a significant amount of time and were of great concern to those working with them.
|
|
Because people don't SAY they're violating it, they come up with an excuse to say that they're doing something else. Usually they have to paint the people who's rights they're violating as the blasphemers and themselves as the ones upholding mom and apple pie (Alien and sedition acts= the french,communists, hippies, and now left wing hippy communist socialists). You don't make a dictatorship by abolishing laws, you make them by ignoring them.
Why do you hate America?
EDIT: And when did you stop beating your wife.
|
|
I'd like to see a source for that. Or at least enough details, like names and/or dates, to be able to track it down.
Because it sounds like made up Red Dawn style propaganda.
I haven't been able to track down a source or citation, and I don't recall where I first heard it, so let's just put it down to "urban myth" and move on. :)
In America they think 100 years is a long time. In Europe, they think 100 miles is a long distance.
Yeah, there is much truth to this adage (my hometown has a recorded history dating back 1200 years - which is not unusual for german cities. But it is some 350 km away from my current residence, which is a big distance to me). It explains in part why the history of the US plays such a big role even today, and you have to consider the impact (along with the French revolution, which is surrounded by as much myth) it had on Europe and the western world. This impact reflected back and heightened the percieved importance of that history, I´d think.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the idea that making guns illegal would make them more likely to stop gun violence seems a illogical argument as well.
It isn't like we have facts and statistics showing the crime rate is significantly lower in those areas....
I actually believe people should be able to purchase firearms. I am in favor of concealed carry laws and even access to assault rifles. I've had at various times multiple assault rifles stored in my home.
But I also think reasonable certification for those types of things makes sense.
If you want to pick up a .22 for your kid so you all can go hunting while you teach him proper firearm safety I have no issue. If you decide when he is, say 16 or so to get a more powerful hunting rifle for him for christmas, great.
When we are talking about firearms that are only really practical for killing another human being, I don't think some level of licensing and certification is unreasonable.
And part of the certification process would include if a therapist working with you says "no" you don't get to legally buy a gun until you can get approval from a review board.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the idea that making guns illegal would make them more likely to stop gun violence seems a illogical argument as well. Think of the huge amounts of drugs that come across our borders. These are not small little shippements that come across at a time. The weapons made illegal would still be available to the said criminal types. All you are doing is taking the weapons from the law abiding citizens. I would like to see some statisical data on how many gun deaths are from legally owned guns by the legal owner of the gun. I think I remember reading some place this is not the case. But I have been wrong before I am certain someone here has access to some stats if they are out there.
Well, it might be anecdotal evidence, but Germany has strict gun laws and less overall gun crimes. Of course, banning guns won´t stop drug-gang criminals - but then, do you really believe having a gun will protect you from those types? It might have some impact because it would make it harder for petty criminals to obtain big guns, and it might help preventing killing sprees like the latest. Arguing that criminals won´t abide the laws and preventing legislation based on that argument is just beside the point - with a reasoning like that, you could as well say that murder should not be illegal anymore, because it does not prevent murderers from murdering their victims. No law has ever prevented a criminal from breaking it, but making it harder to break the laws by controlling the means might be a good idea, I think.
There are several processes in place. I know of no state where you can just get a firearm without some kind of a permit, meaning you acquired one from a court house or local police department. They do a background check before you get one. I had to have one, and wait a few days when I bought my pistol.Big exception to that rule.... Gun Shows.
To my knowledge, law wise, in this state, any time a firearm changes hands, a permit to purchase and a permit of ownership needs to be obtained. Gun shows are no exception, afaik.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although the ruling on the 2nd Amendment has been made (and I don't necessarily disagree with it), the text itself is far from clear to me, in terms of unlimited citizen access to all forms of weaponry ever devised. People are quick to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part that inexplicably inteposed itself before the right to bear arms.
I'm not saying that is, or even should be, a ban on firearm ownership -- only pointing out that it's not kosher to claim the 2nd Amedment clearly and uniquivocally states that every single U.S. citizen, no exceptions, is supposed to have serin gas, land mines, rocket launchers, and tactical nuclear weapons.
There are several processes in place. I know of no state where you can just get a firearm without some kind of a permit, meaning you acquired one from a court house or local police department. They do a background check before you get one. I had to have one, and wait a few days when I bought my pistol.
I once walked into a sporting goods store here in Texas, plunked down my credit card, signed on the dotted line that I promised I wasn't an axe murderer, and walked out 10 minutes later with a short-barrelled 12-gauge and enough shells to turn everyone in this thread into spaghetti sauce. There was no waiting period, and I needed no permit of any kind.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm in favor of gun ownership. Long arms in particular are part of American heritage, all the way back to muskets and blunderbusses. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of allowing access to all weaponry, and it doesn't mean that I think that some more restrictions on who can own them (e.g., mental patients) would be at all unreasonable.
I once walked into a sporting goods store here in Texas, plunked down my credit card, signed on the dotted line that I promised I wasn't an axe murderer, and walked out 10 minutes later with a short-barrelled 12-gauge and enough shells to turn everyone in this thread into spaghetti sauce. There was no waiting period, and I needed no permit of any kind.
Stories like these give me the creeps.
The other spree killing thread had a "civil discussion only" warning, so we needed one on a 18-month-old shooting that didn't have that warning?
Needed? Probably not. This thread is surprisingly civil so far, so no warning is needed either.
There used to be a loophole in gun shows where private sales made at a gun show didn't require background checks etc....but as far as I know those loopholes were in the process of being closed up.
It shouldn't, really. If you have military experience, aren't you required to own a firearm in Switzerland?
Stories like these give me the creeps.
Luckily, in my case, the firearm in question might as well not exist -- I'm not about to go out and kill anyone with it. I don't even shoot at targets; just keep it cleaned and in usable condition. I bought it only because a dealer moved in across the hall, and I worried about one of his junkie customers kicking in my door in the middle of the night and shooting me for his fix money.
There are several processes in place. I know of no state where you can just get a firearm without some kind of a permit, meaning you acquired one from a court house or local police department. They do a background check before you get one. I had to have one, and wait a few days when I bought my pistol.I once walked into a sporting goods store here in Texas, plunked down my credit card, signed on the dotted line that I promised I wasn't an axe murderer, and walked out 10 minutes later with a short-barrelled 12-gauge and enough shells to turn everyone in this thread into spaghetti sauce. There was no waiting period, and I needed no permit of any kind.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm in favor of gun ownership. Long arms in particular are part of American heritage, all the way back to muskets and blunderbusses. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of allowing access to all weaponry, and it doesn't mean that I think that some more restrictions on who can own them (e.g., mental patients) would be at all unreasonable.
Yeah I don't think "hunting rifles" which is what shotguns and most large caliber rifles are considered, are limited by legislation.
Was is a gas-powered semi-auto? My uncle has a semi-auto berreta 12 gauge. The thing is a monster!
Stories like these give me the creeps.Luckily, in my case, the firearm in question might as well not exist -- I'm not about to go out and kill anyone with it. I don't even shoot at targets; just keep it cleaned and in usable condition. I bought it only because a dealer moved in across the hall, and I worried about one of his junkie customers kicking in my door in the middle of the night and shooting me for his fix money.
You wouldn't kill him outright, either, would you? If he saw reason when you produced the shotgun and wanted to leave quietly you'd let 'em, right?
Owning a firearm for home defense doesn't mean you're just going to blow away any old tresspasser just because you can.
You wouldn't kill him outright, either, would you? If he saw reason when you produced the shotgun and wanted to leave quietly you'd let 'em, right? Owning a firearm for home defense doesn't mean you're just going to blow away any old tresspasser just because you can.
First I'd pump the gun loudly -- they say that's scarier to a burglar than a dog barking. And yell for whoever it is to stop kicking the door and get lost (only Spider-Man could get in by a window).
He still kicks in the door in and actively prevents us from leaving, or actually fires shots at us? At that point I would, with great reluctance, shoot him at close range as many times as needed. I hope to God it never comes to that.
Yeah, me neither. I hope to God I never have to take another person's life. But, if put in a position whether it's my family or the other guy, the other guy loses.
|
|
and walked out 10 minutes later with a short-barrelled 12-gauge
Since there are people in this thread that live outside the United States, I feel the need to clarify this...
The term "short-barreled" actually has a legal definition here in the United States (as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or BATFE)...
While Texas is a state that allows its residents to purchase items covered under the Nation Firearms Act of 1934 (which is what a true "short barreled" shot gun is), you still have to pay the Federal government $200, fill out your BATFE "Form 4" paperwork, and then wait at least 4 months for the government to send you your tax stamp (allowing you only then to go and pick up and take possession of said "short barreled" shot gun)...
For a shot gun, a short barrel is anything UNDER 18 inches. If you just walked into a gun store and walked out gun in hand, your shot gun was not one of these...
The term "short-barreled" actually has a legal definition here in the United States...
Thank you -- I wrote sloppily, and appreciate the clarification. I should have specified the "18.5-inch 'Security-length' barrel, intended for killing people, as opposed to the standard 28-inch-long 'field-length' barrel more typically used for hunting." Which means no $200 fee, and no wait time.
The difference between 18.5" and 18" is, of course, a difference of less than 3% of the total length -- compared to the > 33% difference between 28" and 18.5".
And the difference between 18" and 17.5" is an all expense paid vacation to "Club Fed"
Nobody is claiming the regs are all reasonable, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several processes in place. I know of no state where you can just get a firearm without some kind of a permit, meaning you acquired one from a court house or local police department. They do a background check before you get one. I had to have one, and wait a few days when I bought my pistol.I once walked into a sporting goods store here in Texas, plunked down my credit card, signed on the dotted line that I promised I wasn't an axe murderer, and walked out 10 minutes later with a short-barrelled 12-gauge and enough shells to turn everyone in this thread into spaghetti sauce. There was no waiting period, and I needed no permit of any kind.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm in favor of gun ownership. Long arms in particular are part of American heritage, all the way back to muskets and blunderbusses. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of allowing access to all weaponry, and it doesn't mean that I think that some more restrictions on who can own them (e.g., mental patients) would be at all unreasonable.
Many times i have walked into a gas station, plunked down my debit card and drove off with enough gas to burn down half my home town and still have enough in my ton of steel death machine to run through the local fair and hit dozens of people. No waiting. and i can grab a car anywhere whether i have a driving permit or not.
Weapons are all around us, many MUCH more efficient than guns are causing mass death
|
|
Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Otherwise you start arguing that the difference between 18" and 17.5" is negligible and then that 17.5" and 17" is as well and then 17" and 16.5" and so on and you have no regulation at all.
As much as i hate regulations i agree. For everything there must be an uncrossable line somewhere
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many times i have walked into a gas station, plunked down my debit card and drove off with enough gas to burn down half my home town and still have enough in my ton of steel death machine to run through the local fair and hit dozens of people. No waiting.
OK, quick quiz: do a car and gasoline have an economically-important use other than blowing people up? And does instant ownership of a semi-automatic pistol have an economically-important use other than shooting people? I'd submit that target shooting, penis envy (the big one here in TX), and even self-defense are uses, but not ones that are immediate enough to waive any attempt at sane assessment.
Remember, I'm all in favor of responsible firearm ownership; what I'm against is easy gun ownership for mental patients, and easy concealed carrying for people who aren't thinking too clearly at the moment. When everyone goes out on the town packing their pistola, there's suddenly a very fine line between a drunk and a murderer.
On the flip side, if you have to somehow get home, load your deer rifle, get back to the bar, and then walk in holding the thing and see if you can find the same fella who offended you before someone talks some sense into you, at least there's time built in for you to cool down or sober up a bit.
|
|
It is already illegal to carry when drinking in most areas, just as it is ilegal to drive. And the "mental patient" thing is a fine line, one that can easily screw innocent people out of rights. I know of one case of a man losing his guns because a doctor declared him suicidal for refusing to go to the hospital for testing because he wanted to get home to his farm, instead of taking care of his animals he was greeted by cops that took him in for suicide watch. Not right at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know of one case of a man losing his guns because a doctor declared him suicidal for refusing to go to the hospital for testing because he wanted to get home to his farm, instead of taking care of his animals he was greeted by cops that took him in for suicide watch. Not right at all.
I know of two cases of the top of my head in which deranged people perpetrated mass shootings because people were too afraid to infringe on their gun rights. Also not right at all.
There is no perfect solution; we just need to strike a reasonable balance between rights and reason. To my mind, the right to ownership of hunting rifles -- for anyone not under psychiatric assessment and/or violent felony charges -- should be pretty well unbreakable. That's as much a part of American heritage as apple pie and the 4th of July.
After that, though -- when we start getting into easily-concealable handguns, ownerhip by psychiatric patients or violent felons still under probation, or outright ownership of WMDs -- it makes sense to me to back off a bit and think carefully about cost-benefits.
|
|
Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around. Stop blaming the tool instead of the person. And the bulk of crimes are commited with stolen or black market guns, not the people that jump every hoop we already deal with at a gunstore. That said we already DO restrict sales like you want in most if not all states, what more do you want?
Again, try to understand this, (1) a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around. Stop blaming the tool instead of the person. And the bulk of crimes are commited with stolen or black market guns, not the people that jump every hoop we already deal with at a gunstore. (2) That said we already DO restrict sales like you want in most if not all states, what more do you want?
(1) See above. Please at least stop repeating points I've already addressed as if I never did so -- try to understand this: that gets really tiresome.
(2) I've already indicated that, in my state at least, the restrictions are infinitely looser than you'd have me believe -- I know, because I live here and have bought firearms here. For "most" -- if anyone in LA, AR, OK, or NM can simply cross the line into TX and avoid all those restrictions, they might as well not exist.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is arguing against you on that Andrew. They are saying that for things designed for no other reason to kill people, perhaps it should be a wee bit tougher to acquire them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is arguing against you on that Andrew. They are saying that for things designed for no other reason to kill people, perhaps it should be a wee bit tougher to acquire them.
Exactly. I've personally been put into danger by drunken "law-abiding citizens" who were legally carrying concealed semi-automatic pistols, so that's kind of a sore point for me.
Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around.
Um, also, there's this thing, Citizen R, it's called a driver's license, and, if you drive without one you can go to jail.
|
|
Nobody is arguing against you on that Andrew. They are saying that for things designed for no other reason to kill people, perhaps it should be a wee bit tougher to acquire them.Exactly. I've personally been put into danger by drunken "law-abiding citizens" who were legally carrying concealed semi-automatic pistols, so that's kind of a sore point for me.
Find out if it's legal to carry drunk in your state. This is like wanting to ban cars to be free of drunk drivers.
|
|
Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around.Um, also, there's this thing, Citizen R, it's called a driver's license, and, if you drive without one you can go to jail.
Same goes for carrying concealed weapons. But criminals don't care and drive and carry regardless. that should not be a reflection on law abiding people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is arguing against you on that Andrew. They are saying that for things designed for no other reason to kill people, perhaps it should be a wee bit tougher to acquire them.Exactly. I've personally been put into danger by drunken "law-abiding citizens" who were legally carrying concealed semi-automatic pistols, so that's kind of a sore point for me.
And i have seen lives saved by legal carriers. Different view i guess.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise, all it is good for is attacking people.Thats what it is built for in the first place - attacking living beings, with the intent to kill them. Perhaps that is why I don´t like the idea of everyone having the right to bear arms - it is basically a statement that "I can kill anybody anytime".
It is more of a guarantor of the right of self-defense. The right to bear arms acknowledges the reality that in any society there will be armed aggressors. A right to self-defense against armed aggression that does not include the right to bear arms is kind of pointless since unarmed resistance against armed aggression is unlikely to succeed.
As far as the argument about banning "assault rifles" because nobody needs military-grade weaponry--after all, we've come a long way from muskets, right?
In the Revolutionary War days, muskets were state-of-the-art military-grade weapons. Nobody used a musket to hunt--people used rifles for that. Muskets are smoothbore, which means they can be loaded faster, which means a higher sustained rate of fire, which is primarily useful when you're standing shoulder-to-shoulder in formation, pouring volumes of fire into the enemy. Rifles, OTOH, were more accurate, but with a slower rate of fire, and therefore ideal for hunting.
One's view of private ownership of military-grade personal arms probably says a lot about one's view of the state. If you think the state is your security blanket, you probably don't want any suspicious private citizens to have the ability to effectively resist the state. But if you see the seeds of a totalitarian police state like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia in even the most benign governments, you'd probably appreciate the ability to resist in kind when the jack-booted stormtroopers show up with "assault rifles."
I do think there is a certain line where weapons of mass destruction shouldn't be available for private use. I would just draw that line a little farther out than most people.
Canada does have high rates of gun ownership, but much lower than the US and it also has quite restrictive gun laws. Registration, licensing, almost no concealed carry.So, restrictive weapon laws won´t keep a criminal from using a gun in his crimes. But the liberal US gun laws do nothing to prevent those crimes, did they? In the Denver case, these laws made it alledgedly easier for the criminal to obtain them. I think that countries with restrictive weapon laws which are properly enforced have less gun injuries and killings than other countries.Not so. Switzerland, Canada, and Norway have guns everywhere, and not much gun violence. The reasons gun violence occurs revolve around economic and social matters that provide the motive to do such things in the first place. This is why a country with less economic and cultural tension than the US but a high rate of gun ownership can end up with a much lower gun crime rate than the US. We shoot each other because we have a lot of poverty and cultural upheaval, not because guns are available. Without guns, we'd just stab each other instead. Also, it should be noted that within the US, areas with more restrictive gun laws don't tend to have less gun crime than areas with more restrictive gun laws. This is because gun control has little effect on crime rates.
Canada still has a relatively high rate of gun ownership (as does, surprisingly, Australia), which is my point. They are there, but they aren't usually abused.