LOL, that data only proves the point, our country also has a MUCH larger population as well. Show us per capita figures please. I dont know Germany's population but Im sure the US population is more then 4 times it.the_heart_attack wrote:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_criHorseman 77 wrote:
Dude its not our Guns, where I grew up Everyone had plenty From WAR Trophys to Hunting and Target.the_heart_attack wrote:
i think americas gun laws are a joke....sure iv got a few guns but here in aus not just anyone can have a gun liscence,
if you have any kind of vilence noted on your criminal record you will not be allowed to get/keep a gun liscence and those who have them have to show that they are a hunter or a member of a club to keep it.
plus you are not allowed to own any semi auto rifles or pump action shoties.
shootings in canberra are almost non existant (maybe one every few yrs).
although i guess if i grew up in america the gun laws they have would be what im used to so it wouldnt be a prob, but looking from the outside in and looking at the amount of gun related murders per capita compared to here i think its apauling.
Its our people. If We put our people in Canberra. You'd See Young men in the Inner city Speak of Rape as its a Right of Passage. Something to expirement with Growing up.
The Places with the Most guns have the least crime. I could go on for hours
least crime?
Here is the per capita data:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
Looks like the US is less then several western European countries. Yes the US needs to get crime down but its not because people have the right to guns.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
Looks like the US is less then several western European countries. Yes the US needs to get crime down but its not because people have the right to guns.
We need to keep crimanals in Jail, We all know what to do and how to do it but that is Called Fantasy.General_Anabolic wrote:
Here is the per capita data:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
Looks like the US is less then several western European countries. Yes the US needs to get crime down but its not because people have the right to guns.
What we Do We know will never work and never has but that is called Reality.
In the US felons aren't allowed to own guns either.the_heart_attack wrote:
i think americas gun laws are a joke....sure iv got a few guns but here in aus not just anyone can have a gun liscence,
if you have any kind of vilence noted on your criminal record you will not be allowed to get/keep a gun liscence and those who have them have to show that they are a hunter or a member of a club to keep it.
plus you are not allowed to own any semi auto rifles or pump action shoties.
shootings in canberra are almost non existant (maybe one every few yrs).
although i guess if i grew up in america the gun laws they have would be what im used to so it wouldnt be a prob, but looking from the outside in and looking at the amount of gun related murders per capita compared to here i think its apauling.
Yeah, the UK, which doesn't allow anyone to own guns (except hunters who must keep them locked up at a hunting lodge), has higher crime per capita than the US.General_Anabolic wrote:
Here is the per capita data:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
Looks like the US is less then several western European countries. Yes the US needs to get crime down but its not because people have the right to guns.
the References to Europe must be Tempered with the Knowledge That Twice they Plunged the World into War, its Always the Backwards, Ignorant, unsophisticated U.S. that Steps in, Stops it and Saves Everyone's lives.
That Stalin Killed millions of his People, Hitler Exterminated millions The Turks Exterminated, The Serbs, The Croats . Etc Etc.
That Won't and cant happen her Because of Our Right to Be Armed.
Drugs Are not legal here but they make or import them By the Thousands of Tons
If they Ban legal ownership of Fire arms You think they wont manufacture or import them too ?
We have a hell of a ways to Go if we are going to Catch up to Europe's Murder.
That Stalin Killed millions of his People, Hitler Exterminated millions The Turks Exterminated, The Serbs, The Croats . Etc Etc.
That Won't and cant happen her Because of Our Right to Be Armed.
Drugs Are not legal here but they make or import them By the Thousands of Tons
If they Ban legal ownership of Fire arms You think they wont manufacture or import them too ?
We have a hell of a ways to Go if we are going to Catch up to Europe's Murder.
it doesn't say a word about a military serviceable weapon. this was all covered ad naseum in another thread
try bear arms
bare arms are uncovered i.e. sleeveless lol
I don't think we need auto weapons or bazookas or anything. But we DEFINITELY need shotguns and the like.
I think the United States would be the hardest country to occupy in the world in terms of the shear resistance you would encounter from the guerilla warfare that the paranoid rednecks would start, and the country would join. Not to mention the gangs, crime rings and such. Favorite line in the movie "The Rocketeer"-" I may not earn an honest buck, but I'm a 100% American, and I wont work for some two-bit nazi."
I think the United States would be the hardest country to occupy in the world in terms of the shear resistance you would encounter from the guerilla warfare that the paranoid rednecks would start, and the country would join. Not to mention the gangs, crime rings and such. Favorite line in the movie "The Rocketeer"-" I may not earn an honest buck, but I'm a 100% American, and I wont work for some two-bit nazi."
I have had a REDNECK Whe you work out doors you get Em. thats why Coboys wore hats n bandanas.
Are you home sick too ?dshak wrote:
it doesn't say a word about a military serviceable weapon. this was all covered ad naseum in another thread
I made Mention of "Other Works " that our Founding Fathers produced during the same period, The Federalist papers for one. It was more of an effort to understand their desires goals intentions and Fears. Good Reading too.
It is pertinent to note that The Basic American Militiaman Who " Procured his own " Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifle Was Far better Equipped for the Conflict at hand Than his British or Hessian Counter part. They could strike from safe distance with Impunity in most cases.
As the Constitution was Being Written, The Framers and The Average American citizen where in possession of Weapons that Out Preformed any standing Army's at the Time. Including Our Own. I don't think this was lost on them.*
Maybe the Constitution needs Change but we all know what it means.
* these guys were the " Jet pilots " of their time. lol just kidding.
what does that even mean? am I homesick to? that doesn't even make sense.
You were referring to the constitution when you made that statement, don't try to back out of that now, it was pretty clear, though to your credit you said you weren't sure. I was just confirming what you weren't sure about.
you wouldn't do well on a debate team at all, you use a lot of false logic and straw man arguments, like your comment about how one can't use the fact that Europeans don't consistently murder eachother with guns because twice they sent the world into war only to be "saved by america." Thats not even a parallel argument, it has nothing to do with the fact that they don't have guns and therfore don't have gun deaths today. You just can't use international historical events to discredit modern domestic facts. There is simply no argument you can make against this fact and that is why you're forced to use faulty reasoning. In many European nations the typical police officer doesn't even carry a gun, yet their murder rates aren't a 100th what ours are. It is becoming more and more ridiculous to believe that A) the only reason we aren't a communist nation ourselves is because people can have guns, and B) having the average citizen carrying weapons will do anything to deter violent crime. People are stupid emotional animals who make irrational decisions based on many reasons, some of which include panic (for one example), and putting a deadly weapon in those situation leads to one thing, deaths. They don't do it in Europe, they don't have the deaths, you have no counter point to that because there isn't one. period.
I find arguing with you very frustrating because when presented with a point of contention you either ignore it or completely dodge it by shifting the debate to a completely unrelated point, and when one of your own points is disproved or contested you either come back with some sort of nonsensical insult or try to back out of it by saying your position was "misread."
As I intended in the first place, the only substance I will add to this thread, which has been beat like a dead horse in multiple other threads, is a direct quote taken off of an NRA phamplet, the NRA, champions of gun rights... "Gun saftey is important, as you are stastically still 12 times more likely to harm either yourself or a family member than an intruder or attacker." I think only Charlton Heston said it better when he said they'd have to pry his gun "from his cold dead hand." EXACTLY.
Finally, and I'm just curious about this... but why in gods name do you randomly capitalize letters all over the place in your posts?!?! I feel like I'm reading one giant title instead of a discussion!
You were referring to the constitution when you made that statement, don't try to back out of that now, it was pretty clear, though to your credit you said you weren't sure. I was just confirming what you weren't sure about.
you wouldn't do well on a debate team at all, you use a lot of false logic and straw man arguments, like your comment about how one can't use the fact that Europeans don't consistently murder eachother with guns because twice they sent the world into war only to be "saved by america." Thats not even a parallel argument, it has nothing to do with the fact that they don't have guns and therfore don't have gun deaths today. You just can't use international historical events to discredit modern domestic facts. There is simply no argument you can make against this fact and that is why you're forced to use faulty reasoning. In many European nations the typical police officer doesn't even carry a gun, yet their murder rates aren't a 100th what ours are. It is becoming more and more ridiculous to believe that A) the only reason we aren't a communist nation ourselves is because people can have guns, and B) having the average citizen carrying weapons will do anything to deter violent crime. People are stupid emotional animals who make irrational decisions based on many reasons, some of which include panic (for one example), and putting a deadly weapon in those situation leads to one thing, deaths. They don't do it in Europe, they don't have the deaths, you have no counter point to that because there isn't one. period.
I find arguing with you very frustrating because when presented with a point of contention you either ignore it or completely dodge it by shifting the debate to a completely unrelated point, and when one of your own points is disproved or contested you either come back with some sort of nonsensical insult or try to back out of it by saying your position was "misread."
As I intended in the first place, the only substance I will add to this thread, which has been beat like a dead horse in multiple other threads, is a direct quote taken off of an NRA phamplet, the NRA, champions of gun rights... "Gun saftey is important, as you are stastically still 12 times more likely to harm either yourself or a family member than an intruder or attacker." I think only Charlton Heston said it better when he said they'd have to pry his gun "from his cold dead hand." EXACTLY.
Finally, and I'm just curious about this... but why in gods name do you randomly capitalize letters all over the place in your posts?!?! I feel like I'm reading one giant title instead of a discussion!
Last edited by dshak (2005-11-19 11:38:45)
Dshak
what does that even mean? am I homesick to? that doesn't even make sense.
Horseman
Earlier, Two Days ago. I asked you " how You Respond so Fast? " I am at home sick., that's why I do. You must not remember this. NBD <= oops caps. sorry
Dshak
You were referring to the constitution when you made that statement, don't try to back out of that now.
Horseman I said this.
Actually If you read the Whole thing ( I think ) it does state. Each man must procure and keep a Military serviceable weapon. But its been Years since I read it. Also read the Federalist papers. Its Exhausting but worth it. If you can get a copy of George Washington's Officers hand book. (Just Guessing at title ) My sis has it. It gives you an insight into these men The things that Troubled them Etc. Right up your ally I suspect.
and then I said this
I made Mention of "Other Works " that our Founding Fathers produced during the same period, The Federalist papers for one. It was more of an effort to understand their desires goals intentions and Fears. Good Reading too.
It is pertinent to note that The Basic American Militiaman Who " Procured his own " Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifle Was Far better Equipped for the Conflict at hand Than his British or Hessian Counter part. They could strike from safe distance with Impunity in most cases.
As the Constitution was Being Written, The Framers and The Average American citizen where in possession of Weapons that Out Preformed any standing Army's at the Time. Including Our Own. I don't think this was lost on them.*
Maybe the Constitution needs Change but we all know what it means.
* these guys were the " Jet pilots " of their time. lol just kidding. <= ( Humor Sorry )
Dshak
how one can't use the fact that European's don't consistently murder eachother with guns because twice they sent the world into war only to be "saved by america."
Horseman
I never said this at all. This is what I said
the References to Europe must be Tempered with the Knowledge That Twice they Plunged the World into War, its Always the Backwards, Ignorant, unsophisticated U.S. that Steps in, Stops it and Saves Everyone's lives.
That Stalin Killed millions of his People, Hitler Exterminated millions The Turks Exterminated, The Serbs, The Croats . Etc Etc.
That Won't and cant happen here Because of Our Right to Be Armed.
Drugs Are not legal here but they make or import them By the Thousands of Tons
If they Ban legal ownership of Firearms You think they wont manufacture or import them too ?
We have a hell of a ways to Go if we are going to Catch up to Europe's Murders.
I will simplify it.
What I meant was. They produce their own brand of Violence which I never want to be part of
even if it meant losing ours.
Dshak
when presented with a point of contention you either ignore it or completely dodge it by shifting the debate to a completely unrelated point, and when one of your own point is disproved or contested you either come back with some sort of nonsensical insult or try to back out of it by saying your position was "misread."
Horseman
Show me the part where you disprove my point or where I back out of it. I cut and pasted your words and mine.
I will show you where you did. You very first line. I said this. " Are you home sick too ? "
You thought, ( and you can check your post ) I asked you if you " were homesick" . and were rude about your own mistake. At risk of sending you into a blind rage. You Miss read it, No big deal. I have shown you nothing but respect. Show me One Insult. I can show you many of yours.
Dshak
deal.I'm pretty sure our founding fathers wanted an AK47 assault rifle in every home, yeah, that was their idea
Horseman
The Basic American Militiaman Who " Procured his own " Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifle Was Far better Equipped for the Conflict at hand Than his British or Hessian Counter part. They could strike from safe distance with Impunity in most cases.
As the Constitution was Being Written, The Framers and The Average American citizen where in possession of Weapons that Out Preformed any standing Army's at the Time. Including Our Own. I don't think this was lost on them.
Dshak
Also, I just read... literally... off of an NRA pamphlet (and they are the ones who are all about guns aren't they?) that if you have a gun in your home you are 12 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.
Horseman
This is the "Kleck Study" that your Quoting. Don't its a proven fraud.
Dshak
You just can't use international historical events to discredit modern domestic facts. There is simply no argument you can make against this fact and that is why you're forced to use faulty reasoning
Horseman
Why can't I use reference to international events in Debate? They put you in charge? If you don't consider the Holocaust or Stalin's purges Recent history.
Wasn't Ethnic Cleansing a modern Event?
Dshak
In many European nations the typical police officer doesn't even carry a gun, yet their murder rates aren't a 100th what ours are. It is becoming more and more ridiculous to believe that A) the only reason we aren't a communist nation ourselves is because people can have guns, and B) having the average citizen carrying weapons will do anything to deter violent crime. People are stupid emotional animals who make irrational decisions based on many reasons, some of which include panic
Horseman
To what were you responding? I never said this? Is this from some other post?. Also here we Clearly depart. I don't even consider Even X.X.X. stupid ( you know who I mean don't go there and I won't) and you consider Everyone, You and I included stupid.
Simplified. My point is
The Horrors and mass murders European Governments have carried out on a unarmed populace, I Feel out weighs the Violence we have here. This is my Argument I will not trade our murder rate with ( all weapons ) For one Holocaust. that is my point.
also my experience is that possessing a firearm prevents panic.
I tried to be polite.
what does that even mean? am I homesick to? that doesn't even make sense.
Horseman
Earlier, Two Days ago. I asked you " how You Respond so Fast? " I am at home sick., that's why I do. You must not remember this. NBD <= oops caps. sorry
Dshak
You were referring to the constitution when you made that statement, don't try to back out of that now.
Horseman I said this.
Actually If you read the Whole thing ( I think ) it does state. Each man must procure and keep a Military serviceable weapon. But its been Years since I read it. Also read the Federalist papers. Its Exhausting but worth it. If you can get a copy of George Washington's Officers hand book. (Just Guessing at title ) My sis has it. It gives you an insight into these men The things that Troubled them Etc. Right up your ally I suspect.
and then I said this
I made Mention of "Other Works " that our Founding Fathers produced during the same period, The Federalist papers for one. It was more of an effort to understand their desires goals intentions and Fears. Good Reading too.
It is pertinent to note that The Basic American Militiaman Who " Procured his own " Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifle Was Far better Equipped for the Conflict at hand Than his British or Hessian Counter part. They could strike from safe distance with Impunity in most cases.
As the Constitution was Being Written, The Framers and The Average American citizen where in possession of Weapons that Out Preformed any standing Army's at the Time. Including Our Own. I don't think this was lost on them.*
Maybe the Constitution needs Change but we all know what it means.
* these guys were the " Jet pilots " of their time. lol just kidding. <= ( Humor Sorry )
Dshak
how one can't use the fact that European's don't consistently murder eachother with guns because twice they sent the world into war only to be "saved by america."
Horseman
I never said this at all. This is what I said
the References to Europe must be Tempered with the Knowledge That Twice they Plunged the World into War, its Always the Backwards, Ignorant, unsophisticated U.S. that Steps in, Stops it and Saves Everyone's lives.
That Stalin Killed millions of his People, Hitler Exterminated millions The Turks Exterminated, The Serbs, The Croats . Etc Etc.
That Won't and cant happen here Because of Our Right to Be Armed.
Drugs Are not legal here but they make or import them By the Thousands of Tons
If they Ban legal ownership of Firearms You think they wont manufacture or import them too ?
We have a hell of a ways to Go if we are going to Catch up to Europe's Murders.
I will simplify it.
What I meant was. They produce their own brand of Violence which I never want to be part of
even if it meant losing ours.
Dshak
when presented with a point of contention you either ignore it or completely dodge it by shifting the debate to a completely unrelated point, and when one of your own point is disproved or contested you either come back with some sort of nonsensical insult or try to back out of it by saying your position was "misread."
Horseman
Show me the part where you disprove my point or where I back out of it. I cut and pasted your words and mine.
I will show you where you did. You very first line. I said this. " Are you home sick too ? "
You thought, ( and you can check your post ) I asked you if you " were homesick" . and were rude about your own mistake. At risk of sending you into a blind rage. You Miss read it, No big deal. I have shown you nothing but respect. Show me One Insult. I can show you many of yours.
Dshak
deal.I'm pretty sure our founding fathers wanted an AK47 assault rifle in every home, yeah, that was their idea
Horseman
The Basic American Militiaman Who " Procured his own " Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifle Was Far better Equipped for the Conflict at hand Than his British or Hessian Counter part. They could strike from safe distance with Impunity in most cases.
As the Constitution was Being Written, The Framers and The Average American citizen where in possession of Weapons that Out Preformed any standing Army's at the Time. Including Our Own. I don't think this was lost on them.
Dshak
Also, I just read... literally... off of an NRA pamphlet (and they are the ones who are all about guns aren't they?) that if you have a gun in your home you are 12 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.
Horseman
This is the "Kleck Study" that your Quoting. Don't its a proven fraud.
Dshak
You just can't use international historical events to discredit modern domestic facts. There is simply no argument you can make against this fact and that is why you're forced to use faulty reasoning
Horseman
Why can't I use reference to international events in Debate? They put you in charge? If you don't consider the Holocaust or Stalin's purges Recent history.
Wasn't Ethnic Cleansing a modern Event?
Dshak
In many European nations the typical police officer doesn't even carry a gun, yet their murder rates aren't a 100th what ours are. It is becoming more and more ridiculous to believe that A) the only reason we aren't a communist nation ourselves is because people can have guns, and B) having the average citizen carrying weapons will do anything to deter violent crime. People are stupid emotional animals who make irrational decisions based on many reasons, some of which include panic
Horseman
To what were you responding? I never said this? Is this from some other post?. Also here we Clearly depart. I don't even consider Even X.X.X. stupid ( you know who I mean don't go there and I won't) and you consider Everyone, You and I included stupid.
Simplified. My point is
The Horrors and mass murders European Governments have carried out on a unarmed populace, I Feel out weighs the Violence we have here. This is my Argument I will not trade our murder rate with ( all weapons ) For one Holocaust. that is my point.
also my experience is that possessing a firearm prevents panic.
I tried to be polite.
ug,
honestly, I didn't bother reading that. I don't remember saying I was home sick lately either, must have been a while ago.
Why don't you ask the families of one of the thousands of annual gun deaths if the horrors of Europes past outwiegh the CURRENT situation here.
like the last post, once again, I retire. I haven't got the first clue what that whole XXX thing was about either. Seriously, just write in english, with words.
A person is smart, people are dumb and emotional.
finally... you tried to be polite? what are you saying that last post put me down somehow? put me in my place? ah, maybe it did, I really didn't read much of it.
honestly, I didn't bother reading that. I don't remember saying I was home sick lately either, must have been a while ago.
Why don't you ask the families of one of the thousands of annual gun deaths if the horrors of Europes past outwiegh the CURRENT situation here.
like the last post, once again, I retire. I haven't got the first clue what that whole XXX thing was about either. Seriously, just write in english, with words.
A person is smart, people are dumb and emotional.
finally... you tried to be polite? what are you saying that last post put me down somehow? put me in my place? ah, maybe it did, I really didn't read much of it.
Last edited by dshak (2005-11-19 16:11:48)
dshak ug,
honestly, I didn't bother reading that. I don't remember saying I was home sick lately either, must have been a while ago.
"why did He comment on it and Insult if he didnt read it"
Horseman
Yea Two Days, good memory curve, you are tipping your hand pal.
dshak
Why don't you ask the families of one of the thousands of annual gun deaths if the horrors of Europes past outwiegh the CURRENT situation here.
Horseman
why dont you go to Israel an ask them if they think the Gun situation here Out wieghs the Six million who died in the holocaust?
Dshak
finally... you tried to be polite? what are you saying that last post put me down somehow? put me in my place? ah, maybe it did,
Horseman
that meant I tried to be polite even though I never did insult you.
dshak
I really didn't read much of it.
No shit you didnt read anything aparantly. Nor did you Respond with a valid counter piont. Like evry other thread you just rant. where do you get your arogance? Please Tell me you are a gym teacher working on your Phys Ed Doctorate.
Your condesending and its missplaced. You are a legand in your own mind.
Now come back with your " I wont Respond anymore " ploy. The adult equivalent of putting your hands over your Ears and yelling la la la la la. Ps Try Thorazine.
I took a while but i lost any respect I had for you. Now I am not polite. Bye
honestly, I didn't bother reading that. I don't remember saying I was home sick lately either, must have been a while ago.
"why did He comment on it and Insult if he didnt read it"
Horseman
Yea Two Days, good memory curve, you are tipping your hand pal.
dshak
Why don't you ask the families of one of the thousands of annual gun deaths if the horrors of Europes past outwiegh the CURRENT situation here.
Horseman
why dont you go to Israel an ask them if they think the Gun situation here Out wieghs the Six million who died in the holocaust?
Dshak
finally... you tried to be polite? what are you saying that last post put me down somehow? put me in my place? ah, maybe it did,
Horseman
that meant I tried to be polite even though I never did insult you.
dshak
I really didn't read much of it.
No shit you didnt read anything aparantly. Nor did you Respond with a valid counter piont. Like evry other thread you just rant. where do you get your arogance? Please Tell me you are a gym teacher working on your Phys Ed Doctorate.
Your condesending and its missplaced. You are a legand in your own mind.
Now come back with your " I wont Respond anymore " ploy. The adult equivalent of putting your hands over your Ears and yelling la la la la la. Ps Try Thorazine.
I took a while but i lost any respect I had for you. Now I am not polite. Bye
The second amendment says this exactly:
A well regulated Militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The question arises, " What did the founding fathers mean?"
To understand that we must look at the first six amendments.
The founding fathers knew that government, elected or not, can be corrupted by the power it holds. The right to keep and bear arms give the people the power to overthrow a government should it become oppressive and/or work against the best interest of the citizens.
The peoples freedom from oppression is further expressed in the third and fourth amendments which BOTH state the government cannot enter our homes without the rule of law. This is important.
The first amendement deals with what we say. The second deals with how we protect ourselves from our government and the third and fourth limit how the government can treat our property, in particular, our homes.
The fifth and sixth amendments limits the governments ability to jail its citizens.
Once the second amendment is placed in context with the other amendments it becomes clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a means to an end. A means by which the citizens can protect itself from its government.
The first six amendments are the work of genius for its time.
But that brings us to the most important point. For its time.
Remember that when the second amendment was ratified ( Dec. 15th, 1791 ) there were no assault rifles, no guided missles, nothing but muskets.
When muskets were replaced by repeating revolvers and rifles, the citizenry had access to the same weaponry the government had access to, thereby maintaining the status quo on the second amendment.
However, with the advent of modern warfare, the citizens has been left behind. Gun laws have been passed banning most of the weapons that the government clearly has access to and uses on a day to day basis.
Now the NRA has taken the tact that sportsmen should have access to their guns. And several people have posted here that shotguns are ok but not assault rifles. Unfortunately, the second amendment debate has become a ," Is hunting a sport?" debate. This is just plain wrong.
The debate shouldn't be about whether or not a sportsman should hunt deer with an M16 but a debate on if that same man can defend his home with a .22 rifle against a government armed with smart bombs. Can he?
The answer is no.
Imagine trying to defend you home against one of the helos we so often curse at as it sprays death from above time and time again in BF2. It's just not going to happen with a shotgun or bolt action rifle.
The simple truth is that unless the citizens have access to the same technological level of weaponry as the government, then the second amendment has been violated. The fact that the government has vastly superior firepower renders the second amendment meaningless. Also, ANY and ALL government ban of private firearm ownership is unconstitutional as it directly violates the intent of the amendment which is to place the power into the hands of the people.
Basically, it comes down to this:
The second amendment has been erased. It was erased a LONG time ago and no one raised a big enough stink to stop it.
The second amendment is null and void.
A well regulated Militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The question arises, " What did the founding fathers mean?"
To understand that we must look at the first six amendments.
The founding fathers knew that government, elected or not, can be corrupted by the power it holds. The right to keep and bear arms give the people the power to overthrow a government should it become oppressive and/or work against the best interest of the citizens.
The peoples freedom from oppression is further expressed in the third and fourth amendments which BOTH state the government cannot enter our homes without the rule of law. This is important.
The first amendement deals with what we say. The second deals with how we protect ourselves from our government and the third and fourth limit how the government can treat our property, in particular, our homes.
The fifth and sixth amendments limits the governments ability to jail its citizens.
Once the second amendment is placed in context with the other amendments it becomes clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a means to an end. A means by which the citizens can protect itself from its government.
The first six amendments are the work of genius for its time.
But that brings us to the most important point. For its time.
Remember that when the second amendment was ratified ( Dec. 15th, 1791 ) there were no assault rifles, no guided missles, nothing but muskets.
When muskets were replaced by repeating revolvers and rifles, the citizenry had access to the same weaponry the government had access to, thereby maintaining the status quo on the second amendment.
However, with the advent of modern warfare, the citizens has been left behind. Gun laws have been passed banning most of the weapons that the government clearly has access to and uses on a day to day basis.
Now the NRA has taken the tact that sportsmen should have access to their guns. And several people have posted here that shotguns are ok but not assault rifles. Unfortunately, the second amendment debate has become a ," Is hunting a sport?" debate. This is just plain wrong.
The debate shouldn't be about whether or not a sportsman should hunt deer with an M16 but a debate on if that same man can defend his home with a .22 rifle against a government armed with smart bombs. Can he?
The answer is no.
Imagine trying to defend you home against one of the helos we so often curse at as it sprays death from above time and time again in BF2. It's just not going to happen with a shotgun or bolt action rifle.
The simple truth is that unless the citizens have access to the same technological level of weaponry as the government, then the second amendment has been violated. The fact that the government has vastly superior firepower renders the second amendment meaningless. Also, ANY and ALL government ban of private firearm ownership is unconstitutional as it directly violates the intent of the amendment which is to place the power into the hands of the people.
Basically, it comes down to this:
The second amendment has been erased. It was erased a LONG time ago and no one raised a big enough stink to stop it.
The second amendment is null and void.
Last edited by Vidi (2005-11-19 23:05:05)
yeh but what i was meaning was, inthe us anyone can get a gun if they want one, there isnt really a black market here for them.atlvolunteer wrote:
In the US felons aren't allowed to own guns either.the_heart_attack wrote:
i think americas gun laws are a joke....sure iv got a few guns but here in aus not just anyone can have a gun liscence,
if you have any kind of vilence noted on your criminal record you will not be allowed to get/keep a gun liscence and those who have them have to show that they are a hunter or a member of a club to keep it.
plus you are not allowed to own any semi auto rifles or pump action shoties.
shootings in canberra are almost non existant (maybe one every few yrs).
although i guess if i grew up in america the gun laws they have would be what im used to so it wouldnt be a prob, but looking from the outside in and looking at the amount of gun related murders per capita compared to here i think its apauling.
The thing is, there are multiple reasons why gun violence happens. I don't think anyone can prove that it is directly related to owning guns, as Finland shows the opposite effect, having a high % of ownership of guns, yet having a very small amount of gun related murders.
how often does someone come to your door holding a shotgun dude? do people just randomly show up at other people's houses and shoot them as they answer the door? now i've never seen that happen, but maybe its just me.KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:
You have got to be young or dumb. Think about it you go to your door and have your trusty stun-gun and open the door to a sawed off shotgun?
i think the difference is the mindframe of those that own them. finnish people (i'm guessing) use them mainly for sport and recreation etc. don't get me wrong, there are shootouts here, but the guns are illegally owned anyway, and this will happen in every country.freebirdpat wrote:
The thing is, there are multiple reasons why gun violence happens. I don't think anyone can prove that it is directly related to owning guns, as Finland shows the opposite effect, having a high % of ownership of guns, yet having a very small amount of gun related murders.
in America they are used for defence, and i can understand that, but i dont think the use of firearms is as nessecary as it is common over there. i've defended my home more than once without ever needing to blow anyone away.
i think (on a whole, not talking about any of you guys or any specifics) that many people who own guns in America are a little too jumpy, by that i mean that often they will just fire at someone without negotiation or sometimes even good reason. just to get them away from their house or loved ones for instance. which is fine. but hear me out.
in the last 30 years, more people in the USA have died from being shot than from AIDS and Polio, by over 200,000.
in the UK, an average of 68 people die each year from being shot. in japan, its at a high of 139. in the USA, its at 11,127.
does no one else find that alarming?
no offence but you don't know jack about israel bro. they didnt just go there after WWII, most of the jews who tried to enter palestine after the holocaust were just turned back to germany. a large amount of the israelis actually came from russia during the 3rd aliyah (i think?). they also have come from america and UK, eastern bloc nations, other middle eastern countries, and have been doing so for almost 100 years.Horseman 77 wrote:
Horseman
why dont you go to Israel an ask them if they think the Gun situation here Out wieghs the Six million who died in the holocaust?
besides, those were german jews, not israelis. they're a different race. you got jews in America too.
I dont think this address my piont. In Israel Almost every one has a weapon, they learned the hard way.nzjafa wrote:
no offence but you don't know jack about israel bro. they didnt just go there after WWII, most of the jews who tried to enter palestine after the holocaust were just turned back to germany. a large amount of the israelis actually came from russia during the 3rd aliyah (i think?). they also have come from america and UK, eastern bloc nations, other middle eastern countries, and have been doing so for almost 100 years.Horseman 77 wrote:
Horseman
why dont you go to Israel an ask them if they think the Gun situation here Out wieghs the Six million who died in the holocaust?
besides, those were german jews, not israelis. they're a different race. you got jews in America too.
The Galial sp ? is basicaly an AK47 Chamberd for 7.62 Nato round / .308 winchester ( Same thing )
So despite what dshak-hole said in the Earlier posts, Yes in Isreal a
Yea everyone has an ( AK47 Uzi M4 m16 ) in their closet. They found out the hard way.
The Reason we have murder rates other countries don't is we have people who have been on welfare for 12 generations , we have children even Toddlers out in the streets of NYC at 2 am.
We have animals here who need to be jailed. The avarage Murderer or rapist has 3 priors.
If it was Money or education or some other dam thing, Some Base or button that needed to be touched, it would have happend by now.
Murderers are the only commen denomanator for murder.
By Dshak-holes logic any one with 7 guns would be more 7 times more likly to shoot some one. Its laughable but so is he.
Horseman
Also here we Clearly depart. you consider Everyone, You and I included stupid.
I don't even consider Even X.X.X. stupid ( you know who I mean, don't go there and I won't ) and
Dshak relpies
like the last post, once again, I retire. I haven't got the first clue what that whole XXX thing was about either. Seriously, just write in english, with words.
Who where we talking about for the last week ( is he smart or a moron/idiot ) Hint X. X. X.
Three Initials G. W. B.
You have the attention span of a Chocolate Lab you Moron. wait, Make that a Clam.
and befor you mention typos, check your own post, like most people here we just type to make a piont.
Also here we Clearly depart. you consider Everyone, You and I included stupid.
I don't even consider Even X.X.X. stupid ( you know who I mean, don't go there and I won't ) and
Dshak relpies
like the last post, once again, I retire. I haven't got the first clue what that whole XXX thing was about either. Seriously, just write in english, with words.
Who where we talking about for the last week ( is he smart or a moron/idiot ) Hint X. X. X.
Three Initials G. W. B.
You have the attention span of a Chocolate Lab you Moron. wait, Make that a Clam.
and befor you mention typos, check your own post, like most people here we just type to make a piont.
the topic is " The Right to Keep and Bear arms " what did our fore Fathers mean?dshak wrote:
I'm pretty sure our founding fathers wanted an AK47 assault rifle in every home, yeah, that was their idea. Also, I just read... literally... off of an NRA pamphlet (and they are the ones who are all about guns aren't they?) that if you have a gun in your home you are 12 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.
I SWEAR TO GOD I got that right off an NRA mailing (I get their crap all the time even though I don't own a gun, I go climbing a lot and apparently order adventure gear from a place that gave them my address)... perhaps this is like warning labels on cigarettes, ha.
Fox, we don't need to start a debate you and I looped around for an infinite amount of time already... but I will say that not ALL European nations are losing rights, and many of the more socialist ones are also the most democratic (ie sweden, where they have most rights we do and even some we do not, yet have universal health care, etc etc)
There are examples for each end of the argument, but some of those scandanvian countries enjoy TRULY SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY, and I'm sorry but in many ways they are a LOT better off than us (healthcare and education to name just a few, but those aren't important right?)
If you just watched a Michael moore Film and want to Impress everyone with your Idiotic Blather on socialism start your own thread on That topic.
I sugest you go some place they wont run you out. Start at a park bench with some homeless people and work your way down.