Alright, fourth time here we go. I got the idea just reading through the forum today. But this time I won't make a general yes/no question, but rahter a sliding scale where everyone places themselves individually.
Exacly how regulated should weapon ownership and weapon concealment be?
First of all, what are weapons in this case? I am referring to any firearms or explosives. Possibly also swords and other traditional weapons. Generally speaking, anything that has been made to kill people. And I don't care if you own a "hunting" rifle, that's still a firearm and just as capable of killing me as a pistol.
Weapons originated from war. To be able to kill the enem faster than they could kill you, you needed something more deadly, and thus firearms were invented. Same thing with melee weapons. They were more deadly than fists, thus they were invented.
Now, why would any nation give it's citizens the right to carry instruments to kill each other with? The purpose of society is to ensure the well-being of it's citizens, but how can that be accomplished when they all have the ability to shoot each other?
"But criminals have weapons, shouldn't we be allowed to have them too?"
This is essentially the same as:
"But criminals break into our houses, shouldn't we be allowed to break into theirs too?"
No, you should not. Giving lawful people something on the basis of criminals having it defies the purpose of restricting criminals. If criminals are allowed to direct the way of a society's future, they are essentially ruling it.
"But we can't defend ourselves by breaking into their houses, but we can defend ourselves by having a weapon."
But you also gain the ability to use a weapon in something besides self-defence.
Let me contrast with Sweden. For us, it is illegal to own any weapon unless you have a hunting license. That is extremely hard to get, and if you get it you are still subject to many regulations.
The police has guns, bu they are also restricted in their uses.
Do criminals have weapons? Some, but not many. Are they the type of crminals that are likely to break into your house and threaten your life? No, not at all.
They criminals who do have guns don't break into private homes. They are the ones robbing bank transports and the like.
Do we ever have any kids getting shot? No.
Do we ever have any school shootouts? No.
Do we ever have any accidents involving firearms? No, because we don't have them.
Now, if you do insist on having them, how should they be restricted? Giving them to anybody makes no sense what so ever. It would be the same as America allowing anyone to develop nukes.
"But God forbid! We can't let that happen"
Of course not. You are afraid that some of those nations would use them against you. So why aren't you afraid tha weapons will be used against you?
And what about control? Should any trailer trash be allowed to own guns? Having a gun gives you the power to kill another human being in the blink of an eye. How can we distribute such power to one and everybody without serious control and regulation?
And you should definately not be able to conceal it. Heck, if I were mentally able to kill people I would be able to walk up to anyone and shoot them. I'd be convicted, but would that save the victims life?
"It's in the Constitution!"
You know what, I dislike the Constitution strongly. What is it? A document written by people with faults over 200 years ago. Times change, nations change, the world changes, but the Constitution does not.
Oh sure, you can ament it, but what does that take? And how often has it been done, and how much does it change every time?
The writers, however much you patriots would like to doubt it, were humans too. They were not perfect, and could thus not have created a perfect government, or rules for it. And certainly not taking in the fact that what they designed is largely the same 200 years later.
Go ahead. I'll be attacked, spat on and possibly shot, but I can take that. Just don't flame. Support your statements.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I do belive in strong gun control, not banning, the majority of gun owners dont kill someone. A few people go out and make it bad for everyone. I believe in strong background checks to make sure the person is mentaly stable. But as much that is done to do background checks its still easy, with the right money to go out and buy a gun. This is the problem, illegaly sold guns dont have any background checks nor do they care what type of gun is being sold, or what its purpose might be.
Yes, the world is safer w/o any type of weapon, but if someone wanted to own a gun if they where banned it wouldnt be hard for them to do. Hell, if you wanted to you can buy an APC on ebay... APC
Yes, like everything else in the world, our Constatution is flawed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you ever meet a hafling and a hungry dragon you dont have to outrun the dragon, you only have to outrun the hafling.
I, personally think guns should be allowed everywhere
1 shopping places to prevent robbery
2 people's houses to prevent robbery
3 hunters to kill animals
4 army to kill people trying to kill us
i also think guns should be controled with a few of these laws
1 no highpowered rifles
2 background checks
3 liscence to own, but if your out regularly must be conceiled in a case
4 only able to shoot guns in a permitted area ie. woods(hunting), battlefeild or even skeet shooting ranges
so if you shoot somone out of self defense you get a fine like 1,000 bucks or somethin
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DIABLO = DEVIL its not supposed to be a nice game autostats are rediclous lack of pots is not welcome if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
as in hunting rifles and stuff?? cause my little .243 is small but thats all you need for hunting deer, although it does look like a sniper rifle right now
heck almost all major asault rifles are only .223 caliber
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you ever meet a hafling and a hungry dragon you dont have to outrun the dragon, you only have to outrun the hafling.
1. Why should people be allowed to bare arms?
A. There will always be people whom intend to do harm to others...whether to prove a point, belief, whatever. Now with people knowing this. They fear of their own security. Now for those whom decide the best way to protect themselves against those whom intend to do harm, by handling a gun...then so be it. That is what that individual believes in. Nothing really you can do about it. Now, since America is a decromatic government structure, the people have the power. If the majority of the people believe that the best way to protect themselves by baring arms, then the very rules change by majority vote. That is how democracy works. Now in america, if you wish to bare arms, you are required to obtain a licence. The materials that are handled while in the process of receiving that licences directs the person on properly handling and self defense use only.
Now if our government wishes to make a change were only local law enforcers are allowed to bare arms, the people must agree or nothing will get changed due to the basic principle of democracy. That is were, lies the problem.
2. Worrying about control of firearms.
A. That is why there are specific classes of education before recieving your licence to bare arms.
3. Should you able to conceal your weapons in public?
A. I believe that this is the worst mistake in a structured society. I believe that it is your duty as a citizen to inform others that you are baring a weapon for self defence. The ability or right to conceal weapons invokes others whom intend to do harm to have the "right" to conceal their weapons when they are up to no good.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
"It's in the Constitution!"
You know what, I dislike the Constitution strongly. What is it? A document written by people with faults over 200 years ago. Times change, nations change, the world changes, but the Constitution does not.
Oh sure, you can ament it, but what does that take? And how often has it been done, and how much does it change every time?
The writers, however much you patriots would like to doubt it, were humans too. They were not perfect, and could thus not have created a perfect government, or rules for it. And certainly not taking in the fact that what they designed is largely the same 200 years later.
Ok...now this where it gets thick. I do not attend to flame or spit in your face Phrozen because your fealings towards the Constitution is your opinion. I have mass respect for not being a follower on a topic. Now...yes the constitution is over 200 years old, made by humans that are not always right on their concept of a perfect government, because there isn't one besides Dictatorship and Communist (because it is so simple to construct). Now, the constitution is more considered a guide line for the courts to govern. The legislative part of democracy reforms and reconstructs the constitution to make a better, and the executive part of democracy (President) allows or not allows changes to the constitution. (Remember, he was elected by the people to represent our country)(Go ahead and laugh, because I hate Bush) So we do not follow the constitution word by word, more like a "root system" to our government "tree". So there you have my position on this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Those before me shall quiver in my wake as I unleash the fury within!
The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms. I believe the Founding Fathers instituted this into the Constitution because of the philosophy of men being innately evil, meaning that there will always be incriminators and wrong-doers and us citizens should have the right to protect ourselves from this persecution.
However, I believe (without doing any research) that U.S. has a lot of gun related crimes, which means that it's easy to obtain a gun illegally or even legally for that matter. I agree with others that the process for aquiring a firearm, should be a strict one, and if you were to misuse it there should be heavy penalties.
As we all know, it only takes a minority to fuck it up for the majority. EX. a person brings a bomb to a ball game and hid it in his backpack. now everytime we wanna go to see a ball game we have to leave our back packs in the car.
I think firearms should be allowed, but limited to special pistols only. It gives the people the ability to shoot others? A lot of "others", such as in "men vs. women", "adults vs. children", "strong vs. weak", and other groups already can harm others because they are stronger physically. Men have the ability to rape women, I say, without any firearm, just because is. With firearms, they are evened out - everybody has the same gun. Obviously, some people shoot better than others, of course.
Don't make the acquired process easy or stupid (is that even possible in this country anymore?). Mental test must be, and a good psychologist can setup one. Though it's hard to get a good psychologist, I guess.
No bombs in backpacks, I don't see what explosives have to do with self-protection.
Speaking of concealment, I'm not exactly sure here. I suppose it's better not to have them concealed, and in the end if everybody has a firearm, it makes no sense to hide them.
in NYC people arent allowed to have guns, but criminals get their hands on them anyways. how are people supposed to feel safe if they cant get weapons because its against the law but criminals still get them because they dont care about the law?
i believe strongly that if someone is breaking into my house with the intent of causing harm to my family and steal my things i have more than the right to exercise force to remove him, deadly force if necessary.
of course im all for women feeling safe, and for that she needs a knife and wits. if a man is trying to rape her she pulls out the knife during the struggle and remove him of his assault. that is the simplest way to do it.
"It's in the Constitution!"
You know what, I dislike the Constitution strongly. What is it? A document written by people with faults over 200 years ago. Times change, nations change, the world changes, but the Constitution does not.
Oh sure, you can ament it, but what does that take? And how often has it been done, and how much does it change every time?
The writers, however much you patriots would like to doubt it, were humans too. They were not perfect, and could thus not have created a perfect government, or rules for it. And certainly not taking in the fact that what they designed is largely the same 200 years later.
yep, they were flawed. everyone is flawed. the constitution was flawed too, that is why they allowed changes to it. tell me one document that is perfect. tell me of one document that is better than the constitution. exactly, because as flawed as it is, it is still better than most other documents.
however, those men were geniuses, because they designed it so that it could apply as universally as possible. and changes to it allows it to adapt to newer times. im not saying its perfect, but its the closer to perfection than any other document i know of.
im against gun control, because bad people are going to find ways to get them anyways. not only that, but it gives the government more powerful. why would you want to give the government so much power? the right to protect yourself!!! yes, stupid people shouldnt have them, but that goes into values and responsibility.
They criminals who do have guns don't break into private homes. They are the ones robbing bank transports and the like.
my father has two criminal brothers, and trust me, they do break into your house, to steal stuff. they told me so. another thing they do, is gang fights. another thing they do, get back at people who they dont like.
they've told me this! cmon guys, its easy to say all this kind of stuff when you kinda live around it, but ive lived IN this! poverty, corruption, crime, you say it ive lived it. maybe people from sweden are less hostile (or less population) but the fact remains that criminals wont stop. one of my uncles is actually in mexico because they dont want him here anymore, he's been kicked out of the country over 3 times. jesus.........
Well this is a great subject to talk about. Now i hav strong feelings toward this, i think any citizen in the u.s. that has a clean background should hav the right to bear arms. Also, as for concealing this weapon in town or wherever i hav changed my opinion on this. Since people in todays society (opinion) whenever they see a gun they freak out sometimes. Now if sum random guy had his pistol on his side in town on the street, that may freak sum people out and make them feel unsafe. So for this reason i think the gun should be concealed if the intent is to carry it for self defense in town. As for obtaining guns in the u.s. i think the system now is fine. The only problem is the illegal sellers, which there will always be. It's kinda like drugs, u will never get them to stop selling them illegally, but the legal system is fine for obtaining drugs you need. Alot of the u.s. governemnt is based on trust and for the few who intend to harm others to ruin the majorities right to bear arms, thats total shit. And if they are going to ruin it they prolly ruin it by shooting sum1. If that other person had a concealed weapon they could possibly save there life, they may die but they may live. They hav a better chance of living then dying and if the crazy guy shooting at them gets killed its his own damn fault. So thats my opininon:D
No bombs in backpacks, I don't see what explosives have to do with self-protection.
I was reffering to how a few individuals who want to harm other people for no reason, or people that make bad decisions, mess it up for everyone else. i.e. it only takes a minority to fuck it up for the majority. What i mean is, we can have guns available to people, but it only takes a few people to misuse the guns and then we can't have them anymore.
The bomb in the backpack was just something I thought of because when I went to a baseball game, they made me leave my backpack in the car, probably because some asshole brought something he shouldn't have to the game before.
of course im all for women feeling safe, and for that she needs a knife and wits. if a man is trying to rape her she pulls out the knife during the struggle and remove him of his assault. that is the simplest way to do it.
A knife??? are you kidding me? A knife won't help here. Especially if the man also has wits, and I don't remember women having them at all, they are not supposed to have any.
And for a certain period of time you may sit there thinking that if someone larger than you comes at you you can tackle him with a knife - either you are extremely brave/confident, either you have never been in a situation described, because all I would do is freak out, probably.
Ok...now this where it gets thick. I do not attend to flame or spit in your face Phrozen because your fealings towards the Constitution is your opinion. I have mass respect for not being a follower on a topic. Now...yes the constitution is over 200 years old, made by humans that are not always right on their concept of a perfect government, because there isn't one besides Dictatorship and Communist (because it is so simple to construct). Now, the constitution is more considered a guide line for the courts to govern. The legislative part of democracy reforms and reconstructs the constitution to make a better, and the executive part of democracy (President) allows or not allows changes to the constitution. (Remember, he was elected by the people to represent our country)(Go ahead and laugh, because I hate Bush) So we do not follow the constitution word by word, more like a "root system" to our government "tree". So there you have my position on this one.
Which is not accurately describing the current legal situation. The Constitution is most often interpreted word by word. It is not viewed as guidelines, is is set and firm rules. Otherwise, there would be no point in ruling a law as unconstitutional.
Quote from "Fudlow" »
The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms. I believe the Founding Fathers instituted this into the Constitution because of the philosophy of men being innately evil, meaning that there will always be incriminators and wrong-doers and us citizens should have the right to protect ourselves from this persecution.
However, I believe (without doing any research) that U.S. has a lot of gun related crimes, which means that it's easy to obtain a gun illegally or even legally for that matter. I agree with others that the process for aquiring a firearm, should be a strict one, and if you were to misuse it there should be heavy penalties.
As we all know, it only takes a minority to fuck it up for the majority. EX. a person brings a bomb to a ball game and hid it in his backpack. now everytime we wanna go to see a ball game we have to leave our back packs in the car.
The amendment in itself is neither a reason nor a justification for arguing towards bearing weapons. It describes the status quo, but we are interested in how it should be, not how it is.
Giving citizens weapons because criminals have them makes no logical sense. Criminals rape, should everybody be allowed to do that? There are numerous ways to restrict criminals without giving people guns.
1. More police. THis was successfully carried out in NYC, lowering crime isgnificantly by increasing the number of policemen serving.
2. Tougher control. Both on borders and on miliatry agencies that produce weapons.
3. Heck, you could have the military patrolling the nation. Not likeyl to happen, but nonetheless possible.
i got an interesting fact to show:
criminals get weapons
innocent people get guns
right? is this clear? ok.
Perfectly clear. But that does not explain anything. You just amde a simple statement and taking it for granted.
Criminals get drugs
Innocent people get drugs
Criminals go to jail
Innocent people go to jail
Do the above statements hold true? No, but they are essentially the same as yours. Giving way to criminals is not reasonable.
in NYC people arent allowed to have guns, but criminals get their hands on them anyways. how are people supposed to feel safe if they cant get weapons because its against the law but criminals still get them because they dont care about the law?
Then why not restrict movement of guns? Have you ever considered the fact that the guns are so easy to get because some states allow it, and all they have to do is go over to them?
i believe strongly that if someone is breaking into my house with the intent of causing harm to my family and steal my things i have more than the right to exercise force to remove him, deadly force if necessary.
Also called taking the law in your own hands, which has always been dicsouraged by all nations, as it promotes making choices for yourself.
But what if he doesn't intent to harm you? What if he's just a burglar who needs money for food. Will you still shoot him without qualm?
of course im all for women feeling safe, and for that she needs a knife and wits. if a man is trying to rape her she pulls out the knife during the struggle and remove him of his assault. that is the simplest way to do it.
Most women subject to domestic violence do not respond. Women aren't men, and your resort to violence cannot be applied to everyone. Killing someone isn't to be taken lightly, and never in haste or panic.
yep, they were flawed. everyone is flawed. the constitution was flawed too, that is why they allowed changes to it. tell me one document that is perfect. tell me of one document that is better than the constitution. exactly, because as flawed as it is, it is still better than most other documents.
I say no document is perfect. That's why I wonder why is is always taken to the letter in the United States.
however, those men were geniuses, because they designed it so that it could apply as universally as possible. and changes to it allows it to adapt to newer times. im not saying its perfect, but its the closer to perfection than any other document i know of.
To adapt to newer times? True, in theory. But while the may hav been geniouses, all members of Congress certainly aren't today. And thus they cannot utilize the whole system as it was originally thought out.
As for no other document being better, I can only hope that is because people realise it is better to have a government without it.
im against gun control, because bad people are going to find ways to get them anyways. not only that, but it gives the government more powerful. why would you want to give the government so much power? the right to protect yourself!!! yes, stupid people shouldnt have them, but that goes into values and responsibility.
Right in the first sentence you give up. You basically say that the criminals win.
Why give power to the government? Because they would then perhaps be able to protect you.
ANd how are you supposed to stop stupid people from getting guns if you have no gun control? Please explain your thought process behind this.
my father has two criminal brothers, and trust me, they do break into your house, to steal stuff. they told me so. another thing they do, is gang fights. another thing they do, get back at people who they dont like.
Read. I said Sweden, not America. And why? Because guns aren't abundant.
they've told me this! cmon guys, its easy to say all this kind of stuff when you kinda live around it, but ive lived IN this! poverty, corruption, crime, you say it ive lived it. maybe people from sweden are less hostile (or less population) but the fact remains that criminals wont stop. one of my uncles is actually in mexico because they dont want him here anymore, he's been kicked out of the country over 3 times. jesus.........
As it is easy for you to say what Sweden is like. I've lived in it.
But if you say Swedes are less hostile, that means Americans can become less hostile too, and thus have no need for guns.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
"The Constitution is most often interpreted word by word. It is not viewed as guidelines, is is set and firm rules. Otherwise, there would be no point in ruling a law as unconstitutional."
the constitution if very very lenient, "nessisary and proper clause" some people look at the constitution of things that they have to follow others look at the constitution and see a whole lot of things that you can do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you ever meet a hafling and a hungry dragon you dont have to outrun the dragon, you only have to outrun the hafling.
I'm not going to get deep into this now as my time is limited...but basically if somone that i don't know has broken into MY HOUSE (MY KINGDOM), and are endangering my life i feel that i have more than the right too remove them and i will. (the law in texas is if someone has broken into your home and is endangering your life you can use deadly force without any punishments from the law)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You can just hang outside in the sun all day tossing a ball around or you can sit at your computer and do something that matters"--Cartmen
Chaos, Panic, Disastor, my work here is done.
Make it idiot-proof and somone will make a better idiot.
"The Constitution is most often interpreted word by word. It is not viewed as guidelines, is is set and firm rules. Otherwise, there would be no point in ruling a law as unconstitutional."
the constitution if very very lenient, "nessisary and proper clause" some people look at the constitution of things that they have to follow others look at the constitution and see a whole lot of things that you can do.
True, but given that the legal system, which is the judge of your actions, holds it as rules, it matters little what the person himself believes.
I'm not going to get deep into this now as my time is limited...but basically if somone that i don't know has broken into MY HOUSE (MY KINGDOM), and are endangering my life i feel that i have more than the right too remove them and i will.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Read. I said Sweden, not America. And why? Because guns aren't abundant.
As it is easy for you to say what Sweden is like. I've lived in it.
But if you say Swedes are less hostile, that means Americans can become less hostile too, and thus have no need for guns.
Sweden is the exact same country as America with the exception of the gun laws?
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Giving citizens weapons because criminals have them makes no logical sense. Criminals rape, should everybody be allowed to do that? There are numerous ways to restrict criminals without giving people guns.
Perfectly clear. But that does not explain anything. You just amde a simple statement and taking it for granted.
Criminals get drugs
Innocent people get drugs
Criminals go to jail
Innocent people go to jail
You comparisons are not equivalent to his.
Either have strong control on gun industry (and will that happen in America? I don't think so.), either allow guns to even people out.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Also called taking the law in your own hands, which has always been dicsouraged by all nations, as it promotes making choices for yourself.
But what if he doesn't intent to harm you? What if he's just a burglar who needs money for food. Will you still shoot him without qualm?
With so much welfare for all the do-nothing people, and someone potentially dangerous in my house? Sure I will shoot him. But these days all I can do is take a frying pan (we don't play baseball) if I hear for a bulglar. And I'm not even for "gun vs. gun" here. I'm for "gun vs. danger". Anyone could tackle me because I'm not really strong and I'm not taking Karate classes. I would prefer to have a gun to scare people off.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Right in the first sentence you give up. You basically say that the criminals win.
Why give power to the government? Because they would then perhaps be able to protect you.
ANd how are you supposed to stop stupid people from getting guns if you have no gun control? Please explain your thought process behind this.
But criminals do win. Government, protect people? What the heck for? Since when government helped anybody? You have a very good government in Sweden if it helps you without anything in return.
I said guns, I did not say nuclear weapons. I did not, in any way, ask for my "logic" to be applied to anything besides guns. Do not generalize, that doesn't at all work often.
The fact that it is worse is only your opinion. For me, every person is potentially dangerous. I'm weak. They don't need a gun to kill me. Barehanded. A position where everyone has the same weapon is even for me.
I think we have discussed long enough that the idea "you choose your own government" doesn't work at all. And don't use "you" with me, I'm Ukrainian.
I only win if guns are allowed. At the moment, I'm lower than everybody anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Exacly how regulated should weapon ownership and weapon concealment be?
First of all, what are weapons in this case? I am referring to any firearms or explosives. Possibly also swords and other traditional weapons. Generally speaking, anything that has been made to kill people. And I don't care if you own a "hunting" rifle, that's still a firearm and just as capable of killing me as a pistol.
Weapons originated from war. To be able to kill the enem faster than they could kill you, you needed something more deadly, and thus firearms were invented. Same thing with melee weapons. They were more deadly than fists, thus they were invented.
Now, why would any nation give it's citizens the right to carry instruments to kill each other with? The purpose of society is to ensure the well-being of it's citizens, but how can that be accomplished when they all have the ability to shoot each other?
"But criminals have weapons, shouldn't we be allowed to have them too?"
This is essentially the same as:
"But criminals break into our houses, shouldn't we be allowed to break into theirs too?"
No, you should not. Giving lawful people something on the basis of criminals having it defies the purpose of restricting criminals. If criminals are allowed to direct the way of a society's future, they are essentially ruling it.
"But we can't defend ourselves by breaking into their houses, but we can defend ourselves by having a weapon."
But you also gain the ability to use a weapon in something besides self-defence.
Let me contrast with Sweden. For us, it is illegal to own any weapon unless you have a hunting license. That is extremely hard to get, and if you get it you are still subject to many regulations.
The police has guns, bu they are also restricted in their uses.
Do criminals have weapons? Some, but not many. Are they the type of crminals that are likely to break into your house and threaten your life? No, not at all.
They criminals who do have guns don't break into private homes. They are the ones robbing bank transports and the like.
Do we ever have any kids getting shot? No.
Do we ever have any school shootouts? No.
Do we ever have any accidents involving firearms? No, because we don't have them.
Now, if you do insist on having them, how should they be restricted? Giving them to anybody makes no sense what so ever. It would be the same as America allowing anyone to develop nukes.
"But God forbid! We can't let that happen"
Of course not. You are afraid that some of those nations would use them against you. So why aren't you afraid tha weapons will be used against you?
And what about control? Should any trailer trash be allowed to own guns? Having a gun gives you the power to kill another human being in the blink of an eye. How can we distribute such power to one and everybody without serious control and regulation?
And you should definately not be able to conceal it. Heck, if I were mentally able to kill people I would be able to walk up to anyone and shoot them. I'd be convicted, but would that save the victims life?
"It's in the Constitution!"
You know what, I dislike the Constitution strongly. What is it? A document written by people with faults over 200 years ago. Times change, nations change, the world changes, but the Constitution does not.
Oh sure, you can ament it, but what does that take? And how often has it been done, and how much does it change every time?
The writers, however much you patriots would like to doubt it, were humans too. They were not perfect, and could thus not have created a perfect government, or rules for it. And certainly not taking in the fact that what they designed is largely the same 200 years later.
Go ahead. I'll be attacked, spat on and possibly shot, but I can take that. Just don't flame. Support your statements.
Yes, the world is safer w/o any type of weapon, but if someone wanted to own a gun if they where banned it wouldnt be hard for them to do. Hell, if you wanted to you can buy an APC on ebay... APC
Yes, like everything else in the world, our Constatution is flawed.
1 shopping places to prevent robbery
2 people's houses to prevent robbery
3 hunters to kill animals
4 army to kill people trying to kill us
i also think guns should be controled with a few of these laws
1 no highpowered rifles
2 background checks
3 liscence to own, but if your out regularly must be conceiled in a case
4 only able to shoot guns in a permitted area ie. woods(hunting), battlefeild or even skeet shooting ranges
so if you shoot somone out of self defense you get a fine like 1,000 bucks or somethin
its not supposed to be a nice game
autostats are rediclous
lack of pots is not welcome
if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
as in hunting rifles and stuff?? cause my little .243 is small but thats all you need for hunting deer, although it does look like a sniper rifle right now
heck almost all major asault rifles are only .223 caliber
its not supposed to be a nice game
autostats are rediclous
lack of pots is not welcome
if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
its not supposed to be a nice game
autostats are rediclous
lack of pots is not welcome
if it aint broke dont fix it! (diablo2)
1. Why should people be allowed to bare arms?
A. There will always be people whom intend to do harm to others...whether to prove a point, belief, whatever. Now with people knowing this. They fear of their own security. Now for those whom decide the best way to protect themselves against those whom intend to do harm, by handling a gun...then so be it. That is what that individual believes in. Nothing really you can do about it. Now, since America is a decromatic government structure, the people have the power. If the majority of the people believe that the best way to protect themselves by baring arms, then the very rules change by majority vote. That is how democracy works. Now in america, if you wish to bare arms, you are required to obtain a licence. The materials that are handled while in the process of receiving that licences directs the person on properly handling and self defense use only.
Now if our government wishes to make a change were only local law enforcers are allowed to bare arms, the people must agree or nothing will get changed due to the basic principle of democracy. That is were, lies the problem.
2. Worrying about control of firearms.
A. That is why there are specific classes of education before recieving your licence to bare arms.
3. Should you able to conceal your weapons in public?
A. I believe that this is the worst mistake in a structured society. I believe that it is your duty as a citizen to inform others that you are baring a weapon for self defence. The ability or right to conceal weapons invokes others whom intend to do harm to have the "right" to conceal their weapons when they are up to no good.
Ok...now this where it gets thick. I do not attend to flame or spit in your face Phrozen because your fealings towards the Constitution is your opinion. I have mass respect for not being a follower on a topic. Now...yes the constitution is over 200 years old, made by humans that are not always right on their concept of a perfect government, because there isn't one besides Dictatorship and Communist (because it is so simple to construct). Now, the constitution is more considered a guide line for the courts to govern. The legislative part of democracy reforms and reconstructs the constitution to make a better, and the executive part of democracy (President) allows or not allows changes to the constitution. (Remember, he was elected by the people to represent our country)(Go ahead and laugh, because I hate Bush) So we do not follow the constitution word by word, more like a "root system" to our government "tree". So there you have my position on this one.
However, I believe (without doing any research) that U.S. has a lot of gun related crimes, which means that it's easy to obtain a gun illegally or even legally for that matter. I agree with others that the process for aquiring a firearm, should be a strict one, and if you were to misuse it there should be heavy penalties.
As we all know, it only takes a minority to fuck it up for the majority. EX. a person brings a bomb to a ball game and hid it in his backpack. now everytime we wanna go to see a ball game we have to leave our back packs in the car.
Don't make the acquired process easy or stupid (is that even possible in this country anymore?). Mental test must be, and a good psychologist can setup one. Though it's hard to get a good psychologist, I guess.
No bombs in backpacks, I don't see what explosives have to do with self-protection.
Speaking of concealment, I'm not exactly sure here. I suppose it's better not to have them concealed, and in the end if everybody has a firearm, it makes no sense to hide them.
criminals get weapons
innocent people get guns
right? is this clear? ok.
in NYC people arent allowed to have guns, but criminals get their hands on them anyways. how are people supposed to feel safe if they cant get weapons because its against the law but criminals still get them because they dont care about the law?
i believe strongly that if someone is breaking into my house with the intent of causing harm to my family and steal my things i have more than the right to exercise force to remove him, deadly force if necessary.
of course im all for women feeling safe, and for that she needs a knife and wits. if a man is trying to rape her she pulls out the knife during the struggle and remove him of his assault. that is the simplest way to do it.
yep, they were flawed. everyone is flawed. the constitution was flawed too, that is why they allowed changes to it. tell me one document that is perfect. tell me of one document that is better than the constitution. exactly, because as flawed as it is, it is still better than most other documents.
however, those men were geniuses, because they designed it so that it could apply as universally as possible. and changes to it allows it to adapt to newer times. im not saying its perfect, but its the closer to perfection than any other document i know of.
im against gun control, because bad people are going to find ways to get them anyways. not only that, but it gives the government more powerful. why would you want to give the government so much power? the right to protect yourself!!! yes, stupid people shouldnt have them, but that goes into values and responsibility.
my father has two criminal brothers, and trust me, they do break into your house, to steal stuff. they told me so. another thing they do, is gang fights. another thing they do, get back at people who they dont like.
they've told me this! cmon guys, its easy to say all this kind of stuff when you kinda live around it, but ive lived IN this! poverty, corruption, crime, you say it ive lived it. maybe people from sweden are less hostile (or less population) but the fact remains that criminals wont stop. one of my uncles is actually in mexico because they dont want him here anymore, he's been kicked out of the country over 3 times. jesus.........
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
I was reffering to how a few individuals who want to harm other people for no reason, or people that make bad decisions, mess it up for everyone else. i.e. it only takes a minority to fuck it up for the majority. What i mean is, we can have guns available to people, but it only takes a few people to misuse the guns and then we can't have them anymore.
The bomb in the backpack was just something I thought of because when I went to a baseball game, they made me leave my backpack in the car, probably because some asshole brought something he shouldn't have to the game before.
And for a certain period of time you may sit there thinking that if someone larger than you comes at you you can tackle him with a knife - either you are extremely brave/confident, either you have never been in a situation described, because all I would do is freak out, probably.
The amendment in itself is neither a reason nor a justification for arguing towards bearing weapons. It describes the status quo, but we are interested in how it should be, not how it is.
Giving citizens weapons because criminals have them makes no logical sense. Criminals rape, should everybody be allowed to do that? There are numerous ways to restrict criminals without giving people guns.
1. More police. THis was successfully carried out in NYC, lowering crime isgnificantly by increasing the number of policemen serving.
2. Tougher control. Both on borders and on miliatry agencies that produce weapons.
3. Heck, you could have the military patrolling the nation. Not likeyl to happen, but nonetheless possible.
Perfectly clear. But that does not explain anything. You just amde a simple statement and taking it for granted.
Criminals get drugs
Innocent people get drugs
Criminals go to jail
Innocent people go to jail
Do the above statements hold true? No, but they are essentially the same as yours. Giving way to criminals is not reasonable.
Then why not restrict movement of guns? Have you ever considered the fact that the guns are so easy to get because some states allow it, and all they have to do is go over to them?
Also called taking the law in your own hands, which has always been dicsouraged by all nations, as it promotes making choices for yourself.
But what if he doesn't intent to harm you? What if he's just a burglar who needs money for food. Will you still shoot him without qualm?
Most women subject to domestic violence do not respond. Women aren't men, and your resort to violence cannot be applied to everyone. Killing someone isn't to be taken lightly, and never in haste or panic.
I say no document is perfect. That's why I wonder why is is always taken to the letter in the United States.
To adapt to newer times? True, in theory. But while the may hav been geniouses, all members of Congress certainly aren't today. And thus they cannot utilize the whole system as it was originally thought out.
As for no other document being better, I can only hope that is because people realise it is better to have a government without it.
Right in the first sentence you give up. You basically say that the criminals win.
Why give power to the government? Because they would then perhaps be able to protect you.
ANd how are you supposed to stop stupid people from getting guns if you have no gun control? Please explain your thought process behind this.
Read. I said Sweden, not America. And why? Because guns aren't abundant.
As it is easy for you to say what Sweden is like. I've lived in it.
But if you say Swedes are less hostile, that means Americans can become less hostile too, and thus have no need for guns.
the constitution if very very lenient, "nessisary and proper clause" some people look at the constitution of things that they have to follow others look at the constitution and see a whole lot of things that you can do.
Chaos, Panic, Disastor, my work here is done.
Make it idiot-proof and somone will make a better idiot.
www.zendeath.com
True, but given that the legal system, which is the judge of your actions, holds it as rules, it matters little what the person himself believes.
And you can't do that with anything but a gun?
Sweden is the exact same country as America with the exception of the gun laws?
You comparisons are not equivalent to his.
Either have strong control on gun industry (and will that happen in America? I don't think so.), either allow guns to even people out.
With so much welfare for all the do-nothing people, and someone potentially dangerous in my house? Sure I will shoot him. But these days all I can do is take a frying pan (we don't play baseball) if I hear for a bulglar. And I'm not even for "gun vs. gun" here. I'm for "gun vs. danger". Anyone could tackle me because I'm not really strong and I'm not taking Karate classes. I would prefer to have a gun to scare people off.
But criminals do win. Government, protect people? What the heck for? Since when government helped anybody? You have a very good government in Sweden if it helps you without anything in return.
The fact that it is worse is only your opinion. For me, every person is potentially dangerous. I'm weak. They don't need a gun to kill me. Barehanded. A position where everyone has the same weapon is even for me.
I think we have discussed long enough that the idea "you choose your own government" doesn't work at all. And don't use "you" with me, I'm Ukrainian.
I only win if guns are allowed. At the moment, I'm lower than everybody anyway.