Hopefully very few people, if only for hunting. Are you seriously denying the danger that firearms engender?Stingray24 wrote:
So we'll just go ahead and let the government be the one to decide who deserves to own a weapon.Drakef wrote:
The presence of firearms during either an uprising against a totalitarian government or against a foreign invader will only worsen the potential, but highly unlikely situation. If it becomes a citizen's duty to overthrow the government, it will not be under one goal that all armed citizens will fight. There will be widespread panic and violence as different organizations battle for ideological supremacy. A chaotic situation will result, especially if there is an invader. The responsibilities of an armed populace wil not always be its result. Without proper authority, armed citizens will be a detriment to the nation under such duress.
Excellent point, JG1267JG. I need to make a list of people to karma tomorrow.
Firearms in the hands of responsible citizens do immeasurably more good than harm. Gun control in the name of "safety" is ridiculous. Accidental deaths related to firearms are so low they are hardly measurable compared to car accidents, disease, etc. Shall we ban cars because people die in accidents? I will keep my guns, thank you. I'll enjoy hunting and target practice while observing proper firearm safety rules. And I will blow anyone away who invades my home and threatens myself or my family.Drakef wrote:
Hopefully very few people, if only for hunting. Are you seriously denying the danger that firearms engender?Stingray24 wrote:
So we'll just go ahead and let the government be the one to decide who deserves to own a weapon.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-12-12 11:04:40)
Very good point.JG1567JG wrote:
What gets me is the word "People" in the second amendment. This same word ,"People", is used in the first amendment that protects freedom of speech. So in saying that the Second amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to bear arms you are saying that the first amendment doesn't guarantee and individual right to free speech.
Hmmm, I'm thinking that because they said for the security of a free state, they're referring to 'the state' as one of those in the union...not the 'state' as in the whole country from outside forces. obviously state militias could be used as they were long ago..but the US army and other branches of military are the primary forces for defending from outside aggressors.JG1567JG wrote:
To protect the United States from outside invaders and tyrannical government overthrow
Chef, I think you almost have it. However, I believe they were more concerned with protecting the country from foreign threats rather than preparing to overthrow a corrupt government at home. Many of the founding fathers had great faith in the American people's ability to work things out civilly when possible and only resort to violence when necessary. Most of them were involved in outfitting the various governments we had before getting it right with the Constitution. Through their eyes, replacing an ineffective government at home did not involve shooting the people in charge, but rather working out the problems and coming to a new solution.
Now the first four words of the amendment are also important: "A well regulated Militia". I don't believe they intended this to be used as an excuse for Joe Redneck to load up on guns and threaten to shoot anyone who steps on his property. We obviously have the right to bear arms, so where does this "regulated" militia come in? Are they speaking specifically about the military? Even if not, where does it say anything about defining the arms we may carry? If they ban guns, but allow everyone to carry a sword and a bowie knife everywhere, are they violating our rights? We'd still be bearing arms. If guns must be included, why not bombs? Try building or buying a fighter jet with air to air missiles and see what Uncle Sam has to say about it. Where do we draw the line? Arms does not exclusively mean guns.
Now the first four words of the amendment are also important: "A well regulated Militia". I don't believe they intended this to be used as an excuse for Joe Redneck to load up on guns and threaten to shoot anyone who steps on his property. We obviously have the right to bear arms, so where does this "regulated" militia come in? Are they speaking specifically about the military? Even if not, where does it say anything about defining the arms we may carry? If they ban guns, but allow everyone to carry a sword and a bowie knife everywhere, are they violating our rights? We'd still be bearing arms. If guns must be included, why not bombs? Try building or buying a fighter jet with air to air missiles and see what Uncle Sam has to say about it. Where do we draw the line? Arms does not exclusively mean guns.
Oh come on now. Where are you going to find a runway for a fighter jet? Let's stick to reality here. You've heard the saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight." It applies quite nicely here. We need weapons that can effectively match weapons of this day and age. A sword? Hmmmm, maybe if you're a martial arts expert with a katana.chittydog wrote:
. . . We obviously have the right to bear arms, so where does this "regulated" militia come in? Are they speaking specifically about the military? Even if not, where does it say anything about defining the arms we may carry? If they ban guns, but allow everyone to carry a sword and a bowie knife everywhere, are they violating our rights? We'd still be bearing arms. If guns must be included, why not bombs? Try building or buying a fighter jet with air to air missiles and see what Uncle Sam has to say about it. Where do we draw the line? Arms does not exclusively mean guns.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-12-12 11:08:47)
Fine, a bomb then. You can't even buy the ingredients for one. Why not?
Why? Mainly because most citizens are content to ward off threats to their person and property with a firearm. What the hell are you going to blow up to protect yourself? *booom* Dammit, the stupid dog set off the burglar trap in the back yard.chittydog wrote:
Fine, a bomb then. You can't even buy the ingredients for one. Why not?
You mention bringing a knife to a gun fight? Do you really think a shotgun and a .45 are matching weapons to what the military has? They can shoot around corners now. There's no way a civilian militia can stand up to a trained, outfitted military force. Look at Iraq. Even with all those IEDs and AK-47s, we've lost about 2000 soldiers and they've lost over half a million.
I'm not advocating taking away people's guns, I'm just asking where is the line drawn and who draws it.
I'm not advocating taking away people's guns, I'm just asking where is the line drawn and who draws it.
I've come to my opinion from a fair study of history, in school, in media, and from a consensus from people in general (and attorneys i work with who among other practice groups includes civil rights practice), and it seems obvious 'to me' that in the times of the revolution (177x and on), the federal army of the colonies was quite small and useless against brittish invasion and that each of the 13 states needed to beef up and have a well regulated militia as well...and for that, everyone needed to be able to be armed. However, because of the reason for this war (independence from tyrranical rule of the crown), it was established as a basic right to keep said militias to protect from this new US government from ever oppressing its people (read the declaration of independence..it mentions just that). All the ammendments are geared towards preserving the rights of the people FROM government corruption. They were sooo careful in writing this constitution because they wanted to think of all the ways possible to protect the people from their government becoming tyrranical.chittydog wrote:
Chef, I think you almost have it. However, I believe they were more concerned with protecting the country from foreign threats rather than preparing to overthrow a corrupt government at home. Many of the founding fathers had great faith in the American people's ability to work things out civilly when possible and only resort to violence when necessary. Most of them were involved in outfitting the various governments we had before getting it right with the Constitution. Through their eyes, replacing an ineffective government at home did not involve shooting the people in charge, but rather working out the problems and coming to a new solution.
Now the first four words of the amendment are also important: "A well regulated Militia". I don't believe they intended this to be used as an excuse for Joe Redneck to load up on guns and threaten to shoot anyone who steps on his property. We obviously have the right to bear arms, so where does this "regulated" militia come in? Are they speaking specifically about the military? Even if not, where does it say anything about defining the arms we may carry? If they ban guns, but allow everyone to carry a sword and a bowie knife everywhere, are they violating our rights? We'd still be bearing arms. If guns must be included, why not bombs? Try building or buying a fighter jet with air to air missiles and see what Uncle Sam has to say about it. Where do we draw the line? Arms does not exclusively mean guns.
For this cause, I've said the militia, as mentioned in #2, is primarily for state defense from the government (being an ammendment to the constitution), and because of that, it serves a second purpose of equal importance..to support the national military defending the country as a whole.
You know, it'd be nice if each state started to create an actual state dedicated militia..but it would still need to be presided over by the state governor..and we all know that governors would never stand against the federal government if needed. But then again...we do have Arnold in charge of the good people of california!
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-12-12 11:16:38)
A true statement. However, you are not evaluating how many citizens are indeed responsible, and I judge that comparably few people are reponsible. That does not mean that every one will have accidents or use them in an ill manner, but it does mean that there are accidents, as there are crimes. Especially with assault weapons, it only creates problems. Do you really need them? Many have them simply for the masculinity and cultural importance, while relatively few that are bought for defence are actually used for defence. In many cases, bringing firearms into a confrontation, even in one's own house, will produce negative effects.Stingray24 wrote:
Firearms in the hands of responsible citizens do immeasurably more good than harm.
Personally I see it like this.
The second amendment to the constitution offers the provisions for the people to form a militia if the need arises to defend themselves from either foreign or domestic oppressors.
I do NOT think it would have been in the intentions of the founding fathers to allow us to own anti-Material Rifles and assault weaponry, however:
A: People always refer to what the founding fathers would have wanted, assuming they of all people would know better, which just goes to the notion of their infallibility.
B: If you start outlawing one type of weapon, you set precedence to outlaw other types of weapons.
The second amendment to the constitution offers the provisions for the people to form a militia if the need arises to defend themselves from either foreign or domestic oppressors.
I do NOT think it would have been in the intentions of the founding fathers to allow us to own anti-Material Rifles and assault weaponry, however:
A: People always refer to what the founding fathers would have wanted, assuming they of all people would know better, which just goes to the notion of their infallibility.
B: If you start outlawing one type of weapon, you set precedence to outlaw other types of weapons.
Funny you say that, because the guns of their times were muzzle loaders...which are .50 cal today at least.usmarine2007 wrote:
The right to bear arms?
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."
Now, I know we cannot dig up the dead and ask these guys what they meant when they wrote this, but to me this does not mean "individual" rights to bear arms. Now the word militia is a little old obviously, but to me they are talking about a States rights, not each individual citizen. It is my opinion that this statement was not intended to guarantee the right for someone to keep a .50cal and loads of ammo in their house. Maybe I am reading it wrong?
Yep. So where then, should the limitations be? or is it a matter of money and telling the government to screw themselves if the state militias start having better weaponry tech than them? I can imagine California getting laser beam weaponry first thanks to the good people at lawrence livermore lab (which is surrounded by the hicks of Livermore who are all armed to the teeth).
EMP weaponry? EMP defense weaponry? What if? I know I'd like a little EMP protection over my state.
EMP weaponry? EMP defense weaponry? What if? I know I'd like a little EMP protection over my state.
How many drivers are responsible? Surely there are more accidents involving cars each year (that don't include drugs or alcohol as the reason for the crash) that result in deaths than from all gun related deaths. Are there not car thefts, which are crimes? Are there not robberies where the suspect uses a car to get away? Are cars such as Dodge Vipers, Ford Mustangs, Chevy Corvettes, etc., etc. owned to feel more masculine? Were cars not culturally important? Ford developed the first assmebly line that is used in creating many of the other things that people enjoy today. Do we not depend on our cars for defense? Seat belts, airbags, high strength frames, stronger alloys, traction control, plastics... all of these help to keep us but still there are accidents that cannot be prevented despite all of these safety improvements. Cars are also used "foolishly" such as in drag races that result in negative effects. So I ask you, why not get rid of cars? Do we really need them? Peolple have survived with thousands of years without them so we DON'T really need them. Why do we use them then? They make our lives easier as do guns. You know the benefits of a car so what are the benefits of a gun?Drakef wrote:
A true statement. However, you are not evaluating how many citizens are indeed responsible, and I judge that comparably few people are reponsible. That does not mean that every one will have accidents or use them in an ill manner, but it does mean that there are accidents, as there are crimes. Especially with assault weapons, it only creates problems. Do you really need them? Many have them simply for the masculinity and cultural importance, while relatively few that are bought for defence are actually used for defence. In many cases, bringing firearms into a confrontation, even in one's own house, will produce negative effects.
They provide a tool that is used to take game. They are a protective tool, and an intimidating tool. I doubt that you or anyone would go after someone that you know has a gun. You would not risk being killed to break into their house or in order to do physical harm to them. This also helps people that own guns to feel secure, knowing that if something were to happen they have physical protection.
There are negative effects to anything but that does not mean that something should be forgotten about and not used just because something bad COULD happen.
All good points bs6748, you're on the list for karma tomorrow.
Thank you on the first but you missed my point on the second I think.IRONCHEF wrote:
Very good point.JG1567JG wrote:
What gets me is the word "People" in the second amendment. This same word ,"People", is used in the first amendment that protects freedom of speech. So in saying that the Second amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to bear arms you are saying that the first amendment doesn't guarantee and individual right to free speech.Hmmm, I'm thinking that because they said for the security of a free state, they're referring to 'the state' as one of those in the union...not the 'state' as in the whole country from outside forces. obviously state militias could be used as they were long ago..but the US army and other branches of military are the primary forces for defending from outside aggressors.JG1567JG wrote:
To protect the United States from outside invaders and tyrannical government overthrow
What I am saying is "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" is the actual second amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state" is only the reason for the second amendment that our forefathers gave. This reason could be changed with what I said or something else but we still have the second amendment there.
As far as the word "state" I am undecided on what they ment but I do tend to believe that they ment a state in the union and not the U.S. as a whole, but still not sure.
Well, why the hell haven't you stormed the white house already?ATG wrote:
The militia needs to exist so that the people have a ability to combat tyranny and overthrow the government if needed.
this is going to get ugly i think........a guns are bad/no theyre not thread.....anyway, if your a responsible gun owner i dont think there are any problems.
to that nonsense about military weapons being better than civilian weapons....NO SHIT, its the fucking army.
ok and comparing americas civilian weapons to what the freaks over in iraq use to shoot at the us.....completely different.
they use ex soviet bloc weaponry. kalishnikovs and rpgs.
we have more civilian weapons here than they could ever hope to have. we have better weapons here.
you get a pickup truck and five of your homeys with firearms and you become some bad motherfuckers.
and last but not least, the people i practice with have class III licenses....that means machine guns....now multiply that for every city in this nation. tell me its not a deterrent if someone wanted to invade us.
to that nonsense about military weapons being better than civilian weapons....NO SHIT, its the fucking army.
ok and comparing americas civilian weapons to what the freaks over in iraq use to shoot at the us.....completely different.
they use ex soviet bloc weaponry. kalishnikovs and rpgs.
we have more civilian weapons here than they could ever hope to have. we have better weapons here.
you get a pickup truck and five of your homeys with firearms and you become some bad motherfuckers.
and last but not least, the people i practice with have class III licenses....that means machine guns....now multiply that for every city in this nation. tell me its not a deterrent if someone wanted to invade us.
You have the highest military budget in the world... when would you ever need to form a militia?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.
One statement that destroys that whole car argument.bs6749 wrote:
How many drivers are responsible? Surely there are more accidents involving cars each year (that don't include drugs or alcohol as the reason for the crash) that result in deaths than from all gun related deaths. Are there not car thefts, which are crimes? Are there not robberies where the suspect uses a car to get away? Are cars such as Dodge Vipers, Ford Mustangs, Chevy Corvettes, etc., etc. owned to feel more masculine? Were cars not culturally important? Ford developed the first assmebly line that is used in creating many of the other things that people enjoy today. Do we not depend on our cars for defense? Seat belts, airbags, high strength frames, stronger alloys, traction control, plastics... all of these help to keep us but still there are accidents that cannot be prevented despite all of these safety improvements. Cars are also used "foolishly" such as in drag races that result in negative effects. So I ask you, why not get rid of cars? Do we really need them? Peolple have survived with thousands of years without them so we DON'T really need them. Why do we use them then? They make our lives easier as do guns. You know the benefits of a car so what are the benefits of a gun?Drakef wrote:
A true statement. However, you are not evaluating how many citizens are indeed responsible, and I judge that comparably few people are reponsible. That does not mean that every one will have accidents or use them in an ill manner, but it does mean that there are accidents, as there are crimes. Especially with assault weapons, it only creates problems. Do you really need them? Many have them simply for the masculinity and cultural importance, while relatively few that are bought for defence are actually used for defence. In many cases, bringing firearms into a confrontation, even in one's own house, will produce negative effects.
They provide a tool that is used to take game. They are a protective tool, and an intimidating tool. I doubt that you or anyone would go after someone that you know has a gun. You would not risk being killed to break into their house or in order to do physical harm to them. This also helps people that own guns to feel secure, knowing that if something were to happen they have physical protection.
There are negative effects to anything but that does not mean that something should be forgotten about and not used just because something bad COULD happen.
Cars are nessecary to society, guns are not nessecary to society.
The Dems are in power of the military budget now. Anytime they need money they take it from the military.Vilham wrote:
You have the highest military budget in the world... when would you ever need to form a militia?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.
Our military budget is mostly spent on technology Im guessing and the Militia would be for manpower. We may have the largest military budget but we don't have the largest military as in manpower.
P.S. We already have militias and if need be we would form more.
It's not a deterrent.Parker wrote:
and last but not least, the people i practice with have class III licenses....that means machine guns....now multiply that for every city in this nation. tell me its not a deterrent if someone wanted to invade us.
I was intrigued by this statement, and decided to actually look up facts instead of making baseless guesses. Unfortunately the most recent trend graphs I could find on the CDC website are from 1968-1991, however they still show that your claim is not quite as correct as you make it out to be.bs6749 wrote:
Surely there are more accidents involving cars each year (that don't include drugs or alcohol as the reason for the crash) that result in deaths than from all gun related deaths.
In 1991 the gap between motor vehicle related deaths and firearm related deaths was only 5,219, and historically this was the smallest this gap had ever been.
It is presently 'early in the next decade' and although I am unable to find any official sources with current data on this subject the trend is such that firearm related deaths would most likely have overtaken vehicle related deaths by now.Firearm and Motor Vehicle Injury Mortality wrote:
Death rates for motor vehicles and for firearm injuries have been converging in recent years as a result of declines in the former and increases in the latter. If the trends observed from the late 1960's through 1991 continue, firearms will claim more lives than motor vehicles very early in the next decade.
Even if vehicle related deaths are still greater then firearm related ones, the numbers are so close that your statement is laughable.
Another interesting tidbit I learned from this is that in the states with the highest population, California, Texas, and New York respectively, each one has more deaths related to firearms than vehicles, which is exactly the opposite of what I would expect considering how many people drive cars on a daily basis (and how crazy drivers are in major cities like LA and NY!)
So, now that we have some facts, let's draw some conclusions based on those instead of spouting stuff like "cars kill people more than guns because I said so..."
Deaths Resulting from Firearm- and Motor-Vehicle-Related Injuries - - United States, 1968-1991
CDC National Center for Health Statistics