BF2S Forums The Right to KEEP and BARE ARMS. What did the Fore Fathers Mean?

Right: let's get some things straight.

Firstly, I'm not impugning anyone's right to bear arms. Nor am I saying you shouldn't. If it makes you feel free, then fine.

What I am saying is that it's frankly ridiculous to think that owning guns makes you safer, or makes you a citizen who experiences 'more freedom' purely because you own guns. "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind" (Ghandi) - I think sums that up quite nicely.

Secondly, Horseman, you list all those people who'd be disarmed/who wouldn't be disarmed: what on earth are you banging on about? Governments enslaving, being imprisoned, etc etc. Listen to yourself. This is paranoia on a massive scale, and a paranoia that I suspect is shared by quite a few people who also subscribe to your argument.

The UK (since you mention it) is an old, established country with an effective governance/parliament/monarchy. Do you see us complaining that we're not free? Do you see us longing for release from our tyrannical leaders because we feel they'd not be up to the job if someone attacked our country? Do you see us, basically, wanting guns because we think it'd make us safer?

No. Because as a nation, we've figured out that more guns don't make you safer. All the nations you list up there in the "Couldn't Disarm" section - they've all experienced or are experiencing some kind of rift or conflict on either a global or national scale, largely because of the US - either directly or indirectly.

Freebirdpat - yeah I did resort to name-calling, although mine was far cooler. 

Pig_Fooker - what's "Tale Of The Tape"? 

Last edited by AnarkyXtra (2005-11-22 00:29:39)

Also in our country we have a Constitution which you all don't. We also had a civil war and killed our own for our fredoms and rights, did you?

KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:

I can bet that the people who want guns have them and you stipid retards just turn your eye from facts. No place in the world is safe and guns can make it safer.

As I said earlier, your guncrime stats speak for themselves. A safe country because it has guns? Seriously - just think about what you're saying for a moment. I understand that this is what you have all been brought up to believe, but jesus: open your eyes.

KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:

Also in our country we have a Constitution which you all don't. We also had a civil war and killed our own for our fredoms and rights, did you?

You are proud of killing your own? You think that's something that other nations should be jealous of? I know I'm not supposed to resort to name calling, but that's just plain retarded.

but dont u think that if ALL guns were taken away from civilianz, the world would be a safer place??? i mean, try to expalin your view to the parents that lost their children in school shootings because a fuckin' dumbass deceided to murder his classmates........

FeloniousMonk wrote:

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

Thanks for the link. A cursory read revels it's written by an American, I see. Well, that's fine...let's have a real quick extraction of a few topics and 'myths' (these are shortened somewhat so's not to bore, but contains the essential facts):

Assault Weapons
Myth: The USA has an assault weapon 'problem'
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal ban on assault weapons, you were 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than shot with an assault weapon.

Good start: focus first on large auto/semi-auto weapons which people who are likely to commit guncrime aren't likely to own. Secondly, this stat is based on statistics almost 11 years old. You were probably more likely to be beaten to death by someone with a mullet and wearing spandex, too.

Myth: Assault weapons are favoured by criminals
Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything like assault rifles

You DON'T say?! Backs up my point above nicely. What this handy little statistic doesn't tell you is what firearms criminals do use.

Myth: People don't need assault rifles
Fact: There are many reasons why people favour these rifles:

* - Easy to operate
* - Reliable
* - Accurate
*-  For self defense
the list goes on

And these are VALID reasons, are they? Valid reasons for owning a semi/full auto rifle....for self defense?! Who exactly are you expecting at your front fucking door? IRAQ?! Oh no wait - you bombed the shit out of them already. Let's find somewhere else. As long as you can call them ragheads or gooks or whatever.

I'll skip down a few pages to the .50Cal/Sniper section:

Myth:.50's are favoured by terrorists
I'm sorry, but who the hell EVER said that?!

Myth: .50 shooters are terrorists in training
Again, what a ridiculous myth. Even someone living outside the States in a country where guns are outlawed can see that the author was struggling a bit there. Anyway - the fact:

Fact: Most .50 owners are businessmen earning upwards of $50,000
And they need a .50 for....what exactly? Taking to a particularly difficult trade negotiation table?
"Jesus John - what'd you bring THAT for"
"Oh you know...protection."

I can't really carry on typing out the bold and italic commands any more as they're starting to get to me now, but you get the idea. I can almost guarantee that anyone outside the US who reads that document will laugh out loud, and quite quickly see straight through the glaring holes of it all.

We can (and in Killer Troop's case, we probably will) argue this until the cows come home. But for me, and most other sane people, regardless of bovine movements, this debate is clearly a dead end. You are all people from a nation who's Constitution states that it's every citizen's right to carry arms. This is how you were brought up. You don't know any better. We, on the other hand, live in a nation who've been and conquered most of the world already...kinda got it out of our system.

Seriously though: on the world stage, the US is sort of viewed as the playground bully. Big, full of snot, and it wants your dinner money. 

AnarkyXtra wrote:

Thanks for the link. A cursory read revels it's written by an American, I see. Well, that's fine...let's have a real quick extraction of a few topics and 'myths' (these are shortened somewhat so's not to bore, but contains the essential facts):

Assault Weapons
Myth: The USA has an assault weapon 'problem'
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal ban on assault weapons, you were 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than shot with an assault weapon.

Good start: focus first on large auto/semi-auto weapons which people who are likely to commit guncrime aren't likely to own. Secondly, this stat is based on statistics almost 11 years old. You were probably more likely to be beaten to death by someone with a mullet and wearing spandex, too.

If you're going to argue a point at least put some effort into it instead of trying to make a joke. The reason an 11 year old stat was used is because 1994 is the date the ban was instituted. It shows that assault weapons are not responsible for more crimes.

Myth: Assault weapons are favoured by criminals
Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything like assault rifles

You DON'T say?! Backs up my point above nicely. What this handy little statistic doesn't tell you is what firearms criminals do use.

Your point doesn't offer any contention to the issue, however. It tells you that criminals use handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Simple as that. The point of the statistic is to dispell the myth that assault weapons largely contribute to gun crimes, which was the lie used to bring forth the assault weapons ban.

Do you not get the point of a publication intent on disproving myths?

Myth: People don't need assault rifles
Fact: There are many reasons why people favour these rifles:

* - Easy to operate
* - Reliable
* - Accurate
*-  For self defense
the list goes on

And these are VALID reasons, are they? Valid reasons for owning a semi/full auto rifle....for self defense?! Who exactly are you expecting at your front fucking door? IRAQ?! Oh no wait - you bombed the shit out of them already. Let's find somewhere else. As long as you can call them ragheads or gooks or whatever.

So you forget that there are criminal in the US? You forget that there are people all over the world that don't like to follow the rules? Self defense against who? Against anyone that decides to hurt me or my family, simple as that.

Try to avoid using racial epithets, it makes one look ignorant.

I'll skip down a few pages to the .50Cal/Sniper section:

Myth:.50's are favoured by terrorists
I'm sorry, but who the hell EVER said that?!

Myth: .50 shooters are terrorists in training
Again, what a ridiculous myth. Even someone living outside the States in a country where guns are outlawed can see that the author was struggling a bit there. Anyway - the fact:

Yes, it's a ridiculous myth made more ridiculous when CNN and the BBC have both reported it. There have been many mentions in the past of terrorists that were supposedly able to shoot down a plane with a .50cal sniper rifle....which is in itself a ridiculous myth. Again, you haven't said anything contrary to any of my points.

Fact: Most .50 owners are businessmen earning upwards of $50,000
And they need a .50 for....what exactly? Taking to a particularly difficult trade negotiation table?
"Jesus John - what'd you bring THAT for"
"Oh you know...protection."

What do you "need" a computer for? What do you "need" this game for? What do you "need" anything you own aside from food and shelter? Nothing. It doesn't matter what people "need" because you nor anyone else has the right to restrict anyone on any purchase if it doesn't direcly affect anyone else.

I have as much right to own my .50cal rifle as you have to own whatever video card is in your computer right now.

I can't really carry on typing out the bold and italic commands any more as they're starting to get to me now, but you get the idea. I can almost guarantee that anyone outside the US who reads that document will laugh out loud, and quite quickly see straight through the glaring holes of it all.

We can (and in Killer Troop's case, we probably will) argue this until the cows come home. But for me, and most other sane people, regardless of bovine movements, this debate is clearly a dead end. You are all people from a nation who's Constitution states that it's every citizen's right to carry arms. This is how you were brought up. You don't know any better. We, on the other hand, live in a nation who've been and conquered most of the world already...kinda got it out of our system.

Seriously though: on the world stage, the US is sort of viewed as the playground bully. Big, full of snot, and it wants your dinner money. 

If you and people from other countries can so easily point out glaring holes, then do so. So far you've said nothing that counters any part of my argument on gun control. I was brought up to believe in liberty, simple as that. The freedom and safety of my family and myself are the most important things in the world to me and I am under no obligation to feel otherwise. To protect that freedom and to ensure that safety I prefer to take the best course of action in doing so.

I don't know any better? Heh, okie dokie. And I'm the one from the violent, ignorant country. You said it yourself, your nation conquered and has been conquered. Your nation is the reason Americans are so adamant about the right to bear arms; we don't ever want to be ruled by a tyrannical force like the British monarchy. Luckily it'll never rule again...and that's because a bunch of colonists decided to stand up and let ole Georgie know where he could shove his royal crown.

Remember, if not for the American Revolution it would've taken a lot longer for Britain to turn into a free state...assuming it would've ever happened at all.

AnarkyXtra wrote:

You will, will you? You'll fight a trained army, will you? With your 2 guns and some ammo you bought from the K-Mart or wherever? Do me a favour sunshine.

Additionally, do you REALLY think that if an army succeeded in defeating your army...well, picture this:

[Enemy army rolls up to your neighbourhood]
General: "Onwards! Attack!"
Soldier: "No way man."
General: "What? Why not?"
Soldier: "They've got guns..."

So instead it's better to lay down and take it? It's better to simply allow oneself to be conquered and exterminated than to die trying to defend yourself, your family, and your freedom? The Jews in the 30's would've just loved you!

So they could have had a giant shootout throughout the school? Is that what you mean? You think those two kids would have gone "Hang on. Although we've got shit loads of guns and ammo, I heard that some of the teachers have handguns..."

They wanted to do it. That would not have stopped them. Stop referring to disgusting tragedies like Columbine in an effort to justify using guns.

There was already a giant shootout in the school, only all the bullets were coming from one side. Maybe if a couple of well placed rounds had come from the other side then fewer children would've died. And yes, if the students had known that the teachers were armed they may have thought twice about doing it. At the very least it would've evened the odds and given some of those kids that were killed a better chance of surviving.

I won't stop referring to tragedies like Columbine to justify guns because tragedies like that are the perfect justification for them. Guns are not going away. Not now, not soon, not later, not ever. You can't get rid of them any moreso than you can get rid of knives and swords. Why are you so intent on only allowing the criminals to carry them?

I've only just seen this as well, and I'm not patient enough at the moment to read and respond to every little thing that's been on here, so I'll just throw my opinion on the original topic in and work from there.

I believe that our Forefathers meant that to protect us from the tyranny that we were supposed to be the opposite of as a country. It's not meant so people can be criminals, nor is it meant for you to go huntin'. It's meant for you to be as a militia.

If the government becomes oppresive and mildly tyrannical, it is our job to repel the oncoming dictatorship. We as a people must get our Arms and overthrow said dictator and restore the government to its rightful democracy.

1) Columbine reference: Instead of one set of untrained shooters (the boys) spraying bullets, you'd rather have two (the boys vs the teachers) would you? Sounds like a recipe for more casualties to me. Of course guns aren't going away...In your country, at least. This is largely why trying to outlaw them in the US would be futile. I'm not saying the UK has NO illegal guns, but it's next to nothing compared to yours.

2) 9/11 reference: I'll tell you what would happen if there had been armed citizens on the planes - there'd have been a shootout mid-air, and plane would probably have depressurised and crashed elsewhere.

3) The Jew reference: You're actually a bit sick, aren't you? Stop taking my point out of context and try and see what I mean. You vs an army? No chance.

You also quote all my references from that ridiculous article with a flagrant disregard for the points I'm trying to make. Do you seriously not understand what I'm saying? Of course I understand the point of a document that tries to dispell myths...but I expect them to be dispelled with valid arguments.

You refer to my owning computer equipment against owning a high-powered sniper rifle! Get it into context, please. It's that kind of justification next to the Columbine argument (for example) that makes me angry.

At the end of the day, you were brought up in a state which says owning guns is fine. I was brought up in a state where they are outlawed. We clearly have our own viewpoints. It just amazes me how you can really think that armed citizens mean a safer country. It's lunacy.

The news is currently covering the shooting of a female police officer. It's shocking. But this is my point: it's unusual in this country. It made the headlines because it doesn't normally happen. In the US, you'd need an almost constant news feed dedicated to gun crime victims.

AnarkyXtra wrote:

1) Columbine reference: Instead of one set of untrained shooters (the boys) spraying bullets, you'd rather have two (the boys vs the teachers) would you? Sounds like a recipe for more casualties to me. Of course guns aren't going away...In your country, at least. This is largely why trying to outlaw them in the US would be futile. I'm not saying the UK has NO illegal guns, but it's next to nothing compared to yours.

Of course not. No one who is untrained should be carrying a weapon. The teachers I'm referring to were CCW licensed, which I believe in Colorado at the very least requires safety training. Most CCW gun owners spend enough time at the range to be fairly proficient with their weapons; it's the whole point of owning a gun. A responsible gun owner knows that a firearm without the skill to use it properly is essentially useless.  Two trained teachers versus two untrained students would've given many of those innocent victims a better chance of survival.

Guns aren't going away anywhere in the world. The majority of the world's guns are made in Europe, by the way. GLOCK, FN, Beretta, and Heckler & Kotch are all companies with origins in Europe. Would you like to compare the per capita numbers of illegal guns in the UK versus the US? You'd be amazed....see, in a country where guns are illegal you're going to find that the responsible, otherwise law abiding citizens are made into criminals simply because they want to protect themselves.

2) 9/11 reference: I'll tell you what would happen if there had been armed citizens on the planes - there'd have been a shootout mid-air, and plane would probably have depressurised and crashed elsewhere.

Hehe, I was waiting for this.

Explosive decompression is a myth. Period. At 30 thousand feet you can empty a 15 round magazine of .45cal ammo into the side of the plane and you will NOT depressurize the cabin and crash the plane. Airliners are peppered with pressure regulator vents that are huge compared to bullet holes. The worst that would happen is the pilot would make an emergency decent to a lower altitude and request an immediate landing from the nearest airport.

Stop believing the myths that Hollywood has fed you. Explosive decompression ONLY happens in movies.

There would've been a shooting in mid-air and those terrorists would've likely been killed before they rammed the planes into buildings.

3) The Jew reference: You're actually a bit sick, aren't you? Stop taking my point out of context and try and see what I mean. You vs an army? No chance.

I do have the sniffles today but I drank some orange juice and should be fine soon.

I do see what you mean. You're suggesting that because I have no chance against an army that it's better to just sit down and allow myself to be conquered. That's exactly what the Jews were told. That's exactly what the Soviets and the Cambodians and the Indians and the South Africans were told.

I don't care if there's an entire battalion of enemy forces charging my home and all I have is my 9mm and a single magazine. I'm still going to fight to the death to protect my family. Maybe some people can't comprehend that but I think it's better to die a free man than live as a conquered slave or to be brutally executed by a tyrannical oppressor.

You also quote all my references from that ridiculous article with a flagrant disregard for the points I'm trying to make. Do you seriously not understand what I'm saying? Of course I understand the point of a document that tries to dispell myths...but I expect them to be dispelled with valid arguments.

You refer to my owning computer equipment against owning a high-powered sniper rifle! Get it into context, please. It's that kind of justification next to the Columbine argument (for example) that makes me angry.

At the end of the day, you were brought up in a state which says owning guns is fine. I was brought up in a state where they are outlawed. We clearly have our own viewpoints. It just amazes me how you can really think that armed citizens mean a safer country. It's lunacy.

The news is currently covering the shooting of a female police officer. It's shocking. But this is my point: it's unusual in this country. It made the headlines because it doesn't normally happen. In the US, you'd need an almost constant news feed dedicated to gun crime victims.

Have you discredited anything written in that article? Sources are quoted for virtually everything that's used to dispell the myths. Have you pointed out an invalidation in a single argument?

The point about your computer was that you have no right to decide what someone else does or does not need. I need my gun to protect myself no more or less than you need your computer to entertain yourself. Simple as that.

It's lunacy to think that people should be allowed to defend themselves? Yeah, the British mind is certainly one of submissivness to authority. That article states, with good sources no less, that countries with stricter gun laws have higher crime rates. Of course a country is safer when the citizens are armed because in countries where they're not, ONLY THE CRIMINALS ARE ARMED. Are we failing to understand that criminals don't follow the rules and thus don't care if guns are illegal?

Remember, over half of those gun crime victims you mentioned are criminals. 2.5 million crimes a year are prevented by guns. 2.5 million crimes. If just one percent of those saved a life then it means 25,000 - twenty five thousand - lives are saved each year by guns. Compare that to the number of accidental firearm deaths. The guns are not the causes of the crimes, the criminals are.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

No where is it implied that I can't keep a gun in my car in case someone tries to carjack me. Are you suggesting that carjackings are a myth like the boogeyman? People never get carjacked? The second ammendment does not restrict guns to a purpose, it merely specifies the reason for the ammendment.

There currently is no large, well regulated militia in this country. The NRA is the closest thing to one, however. You're right, the purpose is to keep the government in check but that does not in any mean that guns cannot be used for personal defense as well as hunting. I don't see how you could twist the grammar around to suggest that a militia is the only reason for the ammendment. Read it, study it, understand what it's saying. The crucial part of the ammendment is "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Without the first part of the sentence the meaning does not change, but without the second part it no longer has meaning.

Did I say that carjacking was a myth? I merely stated that crajacking was not a reason giving to us by the Constitution to bare arms. When the forefathers said one thing I'm pretty sure they meant one thing. No one can really go back in time and ask them, but there were no cars back in the day, so why would they have wanted us to protect ourselves from it? Carriage-jackers? No.

The reason for the amendment. I.E. The purpose behind making it. The sole purpose. Nothing further.

I see the National Guard as a militia, don't you? They may be an actual organization, but do they go and fight our wars? No. They are here to protect us. We are also entitles to protect ourselves from the grievances stated in the Declaration of Independence. Constitution=Right. You=wrong. No one twists and bends the other amendments to the extent of this one. I don't see why they should bend this one either. MILITIA, people, not huntin'.

AnarkyXtra wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Explosive decompression is a myth.

Where did I say anything about explosive decompression? I mentioned decompression in general, and the plane crashing elsewhere as a result of various people - the pilot being my main example - being killed.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Would you like to compare the per capita numbers of illegal guns in the UK versus the US? You'd be amazed....

Well of course there will be. In a country where all guns are illegal, there will be more illegal guns. Because they're all illegal. Get it? That's the most ridiculous counter argument I've heard in a while.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

The guns are not the causes of the crimes, the criminals are.

What, "Guns don't kill people - rappers do"? (a sly GLC reference for any Brits reading).

At the end of the day, what you're talking about is paranoia on a massive scale. The belief that you need to be armed in case your government fails you, or worse - turns on you. You need to be armed because your country might be invaded. You need to be armed because of the criminals out there with weapons.

I don't feel the need to have a gun, thanks very much. I can rest with this fact because a) I don't think my government's gonna turn on me; b) I doubt my country's gonna be invaded in this day and age (although that's exactly what the US have done elsewhere recently); and c) Criminals who use guns in this coutnry aren't common. Read what I said about the female police officer being shot.

Essentially, when you get down to it, your point is you don't trust your own country or it's inhabitants. You distrust them as much as you distrust some fictitious enemy army who's coming to get you. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

We can go at this forever and neither of us will back down because of what we believe in. I've got to install this new BF2 patch and then try and get some sleep. I'll continue this in the morning, no doubt.

read this He invalidates his own  point.

Where Can you Go for the highest Murder rates and most Rapes.  Prisons no guns in there.. Just murderers and Rapist. Get it? If I have 3 guns it dosnt make me 3 x more likely to kill. Ps they were my great grandfathers 1st and in 4 generations they have not been responsible for one Crime or Death. Can Ted Kennedy say that about his car. ?