You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
Just read a thread in the garden that got me thinking on this issue. What do you all think of the constitutional right to bear arms? There are a lot of crazies walking around out there who feel the need to pop people off whenever they feel like it. Every so often you hear of a sniper or someone walking into a crowded public place and just popping people off. Around here, guns are usually just used for hunting (I'm from a small rural area, I know). But it's very rare for someone with a firearm to just walk in somewhere and shoot the place up. I think part of it has to do with the perception of spotting an individual holding a gun. Just this past week, a guy on our campus brought a pellet gun to school for a presentation where he reenacted a Monty Python skit. Anyway, the guy had permission to bring it and everything, but as soon as he was spotted, he was reported to the police and arrested. Just because he brought it into a public location. Do you guys down south react the same way, or when you see someone with a gun in public do you just turn the other way as it's a constitutional right for the person to have one? I know the right comes with limitations, but I'm unsure of the boundaries.
People argue that they need guns for protection. From who? Other people with guns? Newsflash: if guns weren't as easily accessible, these crazies with guns wouldn't have them to begin with. Then what do you need the gun for? Of course, society has been conditioned that guns are necessary for protection and nowadays it holds true; guns are pretty much necessary in a society that harbours guns. If not, you're left defenseless against those who do. But what if guns weren't around in the first place? The old adage goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." This is true. But don't you think a gun makes killing a lot easier? A gun allows a person to end another's life without physical contact. Hell, you don't even have to look at the person. Moreover, it's a lot more difficult for someone to go on a murderous rampage using a knife or anything else instead of a gun. Using a gun, one shot, that's it. You don't even have to see blood.
I think that people are interpreting the constitution way too literally and that they feel an obligation to carry a gun. What more, guns have been made pretty much a necessity as they are easily accessible to the wrong people. Is there any way to change that now? Maybe not. But I'm all up for suggestions if it means saving lives of innocent random people.
Any thoughts?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
First off, there aren't alot of crazies out there and shootings like this are anything but common (that's why the media gobbles it up). The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting. It's not even directly about self-protection. The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment that truly empowes society. It serves as the defacto clause should America's government become corrupt with tyranny.
Let's say that Bush really was a fascist bent on power (which is obviously false for so many reasons, but...) who had no intention of stepping down as President. What could you as an American citizen do? The military and police all serve as the enforcement for our government, so you can't say that they'd automatically protect you. The answer without private firearms is you could do absolutely nothing but bitch, and if you did that you'd be removed.
There is this OpEd floating around on the internet about 10 steps to fascism; as if there is a defined format or structure. It list all these vague tasks that must be undertook (or may have already happend if you like conspiracies) in order to install a fascist regime. It however doesn't mention the predecessor that all fascist regimes have enacted first - the confiscation and outlawing of all privately owned firearms.
A gun is a tool just like a hammer or pencil. Guns cause violence like spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat. Rather than enact feel good legislation, let's hold people accountable for their actions. The true danger to our society isn't guns, but moral relativst that refuse to make judgements which allow people to become thugs and criminals (read people who see no problem with single mother families). It's foolish and naieve to think that outlawing guns would make them go away. If we used the same logic that is advocated by gun grabbers, the war on drugs should be a total success correct? However the exact opposite is true and narcotics are stronger and more plentiful than prior to the war on drugs.
No one is obligated to carry a gun as you say. They do however have the right to. They also have the responsibility to exercise good judgement and know their limitations. Those that fail to do so should be penalized rather than blaming an inanimate object.
As you can tell, this is a mjaor issue for me. But I've spent enough time BSing, time to finish my mid-term.
R.F.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
Well, I'm not sure if you entirely got the gist of what I posted, so I'll respond in bits and pieces...
First off, there aren't alot of crazies out there and shootings like this are anything but common (that's why the media gobbles it up).
That's true, but don't you think this happening once is too much? I can recall 3 separate incidents that happened within the past year without looking up any facts about them. But the bottom line is that they were all senseless crimes against random people, when in the end the perpetrator took his own life.
The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting. It's not even directly about self-protection. The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment that truly empowes society. It serves as the defacto clause should America's government become corrupt with tyranny.
Let's say that Bush really was a fascist bent on power (which is obviously false for so many reasons, but...) who had no intention of stepping down as President. What could you as an American citizen do? The military and police all serve as the enforcement for our government, so you can't say that they'd automatically protect you. The answer without private firearms is you could do absolutely nothing but bitch, and if you did that you'd be removed.
Because the US is a fully functioning capitalist democracy with a history of leaders who are staunch supporters of democratic principles and freedom, I have no reason to assume such an event would occur. Of course, if it did, assassination of the leader by way of gun violence would probably lead to further turmoil and anarchy. If you kill the leader, who's left to lead?
There is this OpEd floating around on the internet about 10 steps to fascism; as if there is a defined format or structure. It list all these vague tasks that must be undertook (or may have already happend if you like conspiracies) in order to install a fascist regime. It however doesn't mention the predecessor that all fascist regimes have enacted first - the confiscation and outlawing of all privately owned firearms.
Of course, that certainly isn't the answer. There are always criminals who will not turn over their weapons, first of all, which could lead to further crime and senseless acts committed by these people. Second, we have gun collectors and hunters who have every right to hold a gun (well, maybe not Cheney).
A gun is a tool just like a hammer or pencil. Guns cause violence like spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat.
Couldn't agree with you more there. My point isn't that guns lead to murder. It's that the perception of carrying a gun in a public place is perfectly fine. Of course, it's still valid that guns take the personal aspect out of murder to an extent. Would Rosie be as fat if there were no spoons? Maybe... she wouldn't be able to eat ice cream, pudding, and cocoa puffs.
Rather than enact feel good legislation, let's hold people accountable for their actions. The true danger to our society isn't guns, but moral relativst that refuse to make judgements which allow people to become thugs and criminals (read people who see no problem with single mother families). It's foolish and naieve to think that outlawing guns would make them go away. If we used the same logic that is advocated by gun grabbers, the war on drugs should be a total success correct? However the exact opposite is true and narcotics are stronger and more plentiful than prior to the war on drugs.
Again, outlawing guns is not the answer. We need to hold people accountable for their actions. But how do we hold a suicidal person accountable for taking a dozen other people with him? There's nothing we can do. The person is gone, as he wished, and brought a bunch of innocent people with him. What's the answer? I'm not really sure. The only thing I can think of is preventative action. Maybe make it a little more difficult to access firearms, especially if you're unstable?
No one is obligated to carry a gun as you say. They do however have the right to. They also have the responsibility to exercise good judgement and know their limitations. Those that fail to do so should be penalized rather than blaming an inanimate object.
As you can tell, this is a mjaor issue for me.
I understand. But some people are incapable of exercising good judgment. How can these people access firearms? How can we penalize someone after he's dead? There's no other way around it than to have stuff like this continue.
I know this is a major issue for you. If you remember I defended you a few times at HTGTH when talks of guns and hunting came up. I grew up in a small town where everyone had guns. We all had them. But we knew to exercise good judgment and maintained the notion of using guns only as tools. Of course, if a guy walked up the street carrying a gun, we assumed he was on his way on a hunting trip. However, if we saw the person enter a mall or school carrying a gun, it would be an entirely different scenario. Even if it's innocent, people feel uneasy and wonder the reason for carrying a gun inside.
But I've spent enough time BSing, time to finish my mid-term.
R.F.
I know the feeling. I'm smack-dab in the middle of exams myself.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
This debate comes up each time there's a mass killing. Only time it doesn't come up is when the mass killings are done with knives or any other weapon besides a gun. For example, if a nutjob walks into a preschool, does it really fucking matter whether he blows their heads off or slits their throats?? They're still dead. I don't think dead kids with bullet holes are going to be wishing they had been stabbed in the heart instead.
Flagg makes an excellent point on why we are allowed to have guns. You cant allow a few wackos to take that right away. That guy could have killed the same amount of people in that mall with a knife as he did with a gun. Should we outlaw knives?? A fork can be used to kill someone as well. Wanna outlaw forks? How about pillows? Should we ban those since people can be smothered to death with them?
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
If the arm you have the right to bear is a musket, fine. I understand that it's tough to accept now, and I think more restrictions should be placed on gun liscences. But attacking the 2nd amendment right now is not a way to get the country together, and lack of unity is our biggest problem. Has been since Jacksonian Democracy took root.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
James, I appreciate your point, but you can run away from someone who has a knife. Try running away from a bullet. Not gonna happen. When is the last mass killing by a knife-wielding criminal anyhow? And CC has a great point. The only "arms" when the the right to bear arms was around were muskets: Hardly the mass-killing assault rifles or quick-action shotguns or concealable handguns we have now.
And, Mr. Flagg, I do take responsibility for my own actions. How does that apply to gun laws? It doesn't.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
James, I appreciate your point, but you can run away from someone who has a knife. Try running away from a bullet. Not gonna happen. When is the last mass killing by a knife-wielding criminal anyhow? And CC has a great point. The only "arms" when the the right to bear arms was around were muskets: Hardly the mass-killing assault rifles or quick-action shotguns or concealable handguns we have now.
And, Mr. Flagg, I do take responsibility for my own actions. How does that apply to gun laws? It doesn't.
What happened? Oh well, quoted myself.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
If the arm you have the right to bear is a musket, fine. I understand that it's tough to accept now, and I think more restrictions should be placed on gun liscences. But attacking the 2nd amendment right now is not a way to get the country together, and lack of unity is our biggest problem. Has been since Jacksonian Democracy took root.
So then the internet, radio and television aren't protected forms of speech because they didn't exist at the time? The Musket was the most advanced firearm existent - it also served as the best form of defense. If the medium in which ideas are discussed has evolved and is still protected, why wouldn't that same standard apply to firearms?
Honestly how many of you are even familiar with firearms? And by familiar I mean understand how they operate, how held one and even fired one? For most people a gun is this foreign object that holds almost mythical status. If someone was teaching a class on Math, don't you think they should at least know a thing or two about the subject? If the media is this biased entity that feeds us lies or half truths, why would you all of a sudden by into their horror stories about firearms?
Big Bri. By taking responsibility for our actions we don't blame the system or others for our decisions. We don't let people out of jail because we feel they were dealt a bad hand. If you accept responsibility for yourself, you're not dependent on others to provide your security and protection. While Police are great at what they do, they always come after the crime, rarely during.
The background check system we have in place is great. I even agree to preventing those found mentally unstable to be added to the list. But why should a law abiding American with no criminal or mental history be prohibited from buying a firearm? Just because a firearm could be used to harm someone doesn't mean it will. Much more car accidents occur than gun violence, but we don't ban cars.
For those that advocate we outlaw firearms, simply look at what has happened to the property crime rates in both England and Austrailia after their gun grabs. Only when Bush instituted stiffer penalties and prosecution of gun offenders did crime come down.
Just because you're scared and don't understand something doesn't mean you should try to make it go away.
