BF2S Forums Serious Question about the 2nd Amendment

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Maybe the guy who is trying to rob you doesn't want to kill you, would you risk your life and the lives of your family just in case he does?

Serge, my friend, I just cant understand the way you look at the world sometimes.

Most people in the world think like me on this matter.

not in the world Ive seen.

So Serge...I made the point about Indians and self protection earlier...Chef's talking about self-defence.  It is EXACTLY what the 2nd A was created for.

You understand why this right is important to some people?  Property ownership laws are a bit different over here, which is why gun ownership is different too.  I can legally kill or injure someone on my property...if deadly force seemed appropriate.  It's covered under the Fourth Ammendment.

I don't own a gun.  I never will own a gun.  I go hunting sometimes and borrow a shotgun.  I live in Texas...I can go next door and ask "Can I borrow a cup a sugar and a 12 gauge?"  And most likely they have both....I'm not kidding...South Texas.

So it's a double edged sword for a burglar - 1) most houses have guns, and 2) because of #1, they will have a gun when they come in.

So I have a knife & a hockey stick...and wood floors.  So I'd wait in a corner until the cops came...and hope I don't have to kill someone because they went in the wrong room.

I believe that guns are merely easier to kill someone with...it doesn't "solve" the problem by not having them.  I also think its ridiculous that this is a major problem...as the odds of getting shot are ridiculously low.

If I was in Chef's neighborhood, I'd move...but you shouldn't have to move if you have a reason for staying.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Serge, my friend, I just cant understand the way you look at the world sometimes.

Most people in the world think like me on this matter.

not in the world Ive seen.

Most people in the World you've seen have guns?  How is it in Uranus?

Ok, after reading what you guys wrote here I came to several conclusions:

1-Most people in the US are not prepared to live without guns.

2-They praise their Right to Bear Arms as much as their Freedom of Speech or their Right to Vote.  Is this wrong?  No.  It's the way it is.  Period.

3-When they explained why they needed guns some of the them said they prefer their government being afraid of them, rather than them being afraid of their government.  A vast majority said they needed guns for self-protection or self-defence.  While I find the first part, the government part,  a bit naive and ridiculous, after reading your cases I totally understood the second part, the self-protection, or self-defence.  It seems that many people live in places where the police takes too long to respond and your only choice is to defend yourselves from a burglar or a thief entering your house.

4-I think the most appropriate thing to do in the case of the US is what the Congress did.  You can't ban guns in the US, at least right now.  But you can improve the controls.  What does this mean?  You need to be sure that the guy who is buying a firearm hasn't a mental disorder, or check his police record.  That's all.  I know this is supposed to be happening for a long time, but something must be wrong with the controls if the Congress had to pass this new law.  And then of course, the police needs to ensure that laws are respected, like not letting an asshole to carry a gun into a University.

5-So, when I asked about the 2nd Amendment I wasn't trying to take your rights away, I was trying to understand them, big difference.  Now, that you have explained your needs and motivations, I must concede that in some cases there's a need for a gun in the US.  This is a cultural issue and that's how your society evolved, and you can't change 240 years in one day.  And for the record I love guns.  I just don't own one.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-21 02:29:27)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Ok, after reading what you guys wrote here I came to several conclusions:

1-Most people in the US are not prepared to live without guns.

2-They praise their Right to Bear Arms as much as their Freedom of Speech or their Right to Vote.  Is this wrong?  No.  It's the way it is.  Period.

3-When they explained why they needed guns some of the them said they prefer their government being afraid of them, rather than them being afraid of their government.  A vast majority said they needed guns for self-protection or self-defence.  While I find the first part, the government part,  a bit naive and ridiculous, after reading your cases I totally understood the second part, the self-protection, or self-defence.  It seems that many people live in places where the police takes too long to respond and your only choice is to defend yourselves from a burglar or a thief entering your house.

4-I think the most appropriate thing to do in the case of the US is what the Congress did.  You can't ban guns in the US, at least right now.  But you can improve the controls.  What does this mean?  You need to be sure that the guy who is buying a firearm hasn't a mental disorder, or check his police record.  That's all.  I know this is supposed to be happening for a long time, but something must be wrong with the controls if the Congress had to pass this new law.  And then of course, the police needs to ensure that laws are respected, like not letting an asshole to carry a gun into a University.

5-So, when I asked about the 2nd Amendment I wasn't trying to take your rights away, I was trying to understand them, big difference.  Now, that you have explained your needs and motivations, I must concede that in some cases there's a need for a gun in the US.  This is a cultural issue and that's how your society evolved, and you can't change 240 years in one day.  And for the record I love guns.  I just don't own one.

you got it twisted thinking americans are obsessed with guns.  I would say you have a deeper obsession than do most Americans.  And thats not what i meant when I replied to you earlier.  Why dont you look at the quote of yours that I copied instead of taking what i said out of context.  quit being stupid.  fucking uranus, jesus.   Are you this sheltered?

It was a joke.

And where in hell in this conclusion it says Americans are obsessed with guns?

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-21 02:57:59)

gunslinger wrote:

..you got it twisted thinking americans are obsessed with guns.

so you are saying that the number of guns in circulation in the US has nothing to do with their popularity among americans ?

I remember a thread here in D&ST where people could post pictures of their gun collections, and my word, that was a lot of metal...

lowing wrote:

Serge, please do not get the impression that I have myself barricaded in my home with sandbags and my yard booby trapped with claymores and spring loaded pungy sticks. I am not living my life worrying about our govt. coming after us. I am merely pointing out that our govt. is set up where the people, collectively are more powerful than our govt. Our military would probably even turn on our govt. if our govt. tried to removed our constitutional rights and freedoms from us as a whole.

Not at all.  I just gave you guys the reason when it comes to self-protection.  I don't agree with this gun policy, but I understand you.

I just want to start by saying I believe our most treasured right is our right to free speech, but some would argue that.

I do agree with you on this matter.  The document was written in different times, and meant different things to different people.  However, that is why it has been reinterpreted to be more relevant.  The real question to ask is: Should people be allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves, or should they only be allowed to have them in there homes?

So you're saying peaceful protests don't make a difference?

Disapproval of a temporary law neither necessitates nor justifies armed rebellion.

FEOS wrote:

So you're saying peaceful protests don't make a difference?

Disapproval of a temporary law neither necessitates nor justifies armed rebellion.

well, what does if not the infringement of your civil rights ?

I know I am a bit of a pain in the ass here, sorry.

And how "temporary" that law is, remains to be seen. 6 years, and counting..

Do you really think they'll take it back, once the war on terror is won ? oh, wait....

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you're saying peaceful protests don't make a difference?

Disapproval of a temporary law neither necessitates nor justifies armed rebellion.

well, what does if not the infringement of your civil rights ?

I know I am a bit of a pain in the ass here, sorry.

And how "temporary" that law is, remains to be seen. 6 years, and counting..

Do you really think they'll take it back, once the war on terror is won ? oh, wait....

I am still trying to figure out what civil liberties I have lost. The abilty to EASILY interact with my terrorist friends maybe, the ability to speak freely about my terrorist activities or criminal behavior over my telephone? Sorry, I just don't feel the noose tightening quite as much as you must.

from the wikipedia article:

"Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional."

nothing to worry about, eh ?

And I am sorry to say that, especially the searches of property without a court order are reminiscent (sp?) of a police state. That is nothing I would want to see in any democracy.

And cf course, law-abiding citizens are affected. You are treated like criminals, although you're innocent. Isn't that exactly the kind of power abuse that the constitution and the bill of rights are supposed to protect you against ?

on a side note, from the same wikipedia article:

" Opponents of the Act, however, have been quite vocal in asserting that it was passed opportunistically after the September 11 terrorist attacks, believing there to have been little debate. They view the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was passed, even though Senators such as Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold proposed amendments to modify the final revision. The sheer magnitude of the Act itself was noted by Michael Moore in his movie/documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes of the movie, he records Senator Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the bill and John Conyers, Jr. as saying "We don't really read most of the bills. Do you know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Senator Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process"."

lol ?

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

well, what does if not the infringement of your civil rights ?

I know I am a bit of a pain in the ass here, sorry.

And how "temporary" that law is, remains to be seen. 6 years, and counting..

Do you really think they'll take it back, once the war on terror is won ? oh, wait....

I am still trying to figure out what civil liberties I have lost. The ability to EASILY interact with my terrorist friends maybe, the ability to speak freely about my terrorist activities or criminal behavior over my telephone? Sorry, I just don't feel the noose tightening quite as much as you must.

from the wikipedia article:

"Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional."

nothing to worry about, eh ?

And I am sorry to say that, especially the searches of property without a court order are reminiscent (sp?) of a police state. That is nothing I would want to see in any democracy.

And cf course, law-abiding citizens are affected. You are treated like criminals, although you're innocent. Isn't that exactly the kind of power abuse that the constitution and the bill of rights are supposed to protect you against ?

on a side note, from the same wikipedia article:

" Opponents of the Act, however, have been quite vocal in asserting that it was passed opportunistically after the September 11 terrorist attacks, believing there to have been little debate. They view the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was passed, even though Senators such as Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold proposed amendments to modify the final revision. The sheer magnitude of the Act itself was noted by Michael Moore in his movie/documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes of the movie, he records Senator Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the bill and John Conyers, Jr. as saying "We don't really read most of the bills. Do you know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Senator Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process"."

lol ?

Well, I have lived in the US before and after the Patriot Act and I can say with complete honesty the Gestapo has never broken down my door for any reason. My life has not changed one bit due to the Patriot Act. I am willing to bet neither has any other members life on this forum truth be known.

The cops have better things to do than harrass ordinary citizens who are not engaging in any activity deemed a threat to our national security.

I did hear however the Gestapo did break down doors in the Ghettos of Poland and most of Europe after they outlawed gun ownership of course.

B.Schuss wrote:

gunslinger wrote:

..you got it twisted thinking americans are obsessed with guns.

so you are saying that the number of guns in circulation in the US has nothing to do with their popularity among americans ?

I remember a thread here in D&ST where people could post pictures of their gun collections, and my word, that was a lot of metal...

out of the thousands of registered users on this forum, how many actually psted something up.  How many were American?