Incidentally, waiving a 200 y/o document around carries the same weight with me as a certain 2000 y/o document. the same for it’s authors in both cases. Both have supported things we do not find acceptable now. This to me is no different.
Actually up close a knife can be better. A bullet simply makes a small hole in you, but a knife will do a broader amount of damage up close and you don’t have to worry about recoil(or shooting yourself:)).
“such citizen uprising a lesson in futility”
Now thats just shows you don’t know much about citizens uprisings and arguing against your point. First off there is no possible way if people fought back with guns for the army to do much of anything at all. They would die to attrition in no time. Secondly that would be a arguement for people to get AK-47s and such so we can. Its also shortsighted, the constution was made to last, not for todays current stuff.
Besides the CIA kills innocent people all the time, the army trains soldiers to kill and to obey orders. It woulden’t take much, maybe a good downsizing on the army, for them to start attacking their own people. The army is trained to kill not to protect.
“Get my drift, it does absolutely nothing to curtail crime from happening in the first place”
Why should it? Should we start blaming the law abiding for the criminals actions?
Also, I would recommend not publishing or reporting crimes. The best that can do is nothing. The worst it can do is cause people to mimic the crimes. The majority of what it will do is cause fear.
“it didn’t change the fact they students blew other students away with guns, right”
Who cares what weapon the students used? It doesen’t matter at all. I can assure you that you will be as dead from a knife or a car as a gun. If you outlaw guns and times get hard america could be ruled by organized crime again. Woulden’t that be fun:)
Please. Many? Give me a figure.
And the vast majority of those previous law-abiding citizens are still law-abiding citizens. Just because a right may be abused by a vanishingly small percentage of the population, does not make it any less valuable. Nor is it a rational reason for removing it from the vast majority of responsible citizens.
Also, many of those law-abiding citizens which have purchased guns use them in legitimate self-defense. A far, far greater number than those used in the commission of crime. And is widely recognized that defensive gun uses are almost never reported in the press either.
Everything you’ve posted has been posted in the past and convincingly and quickly de-bunked. Mere restatements of the same junk science crapola is no way to advance a cause.
Now I wanna know, can you, ethically, deny an otherwise law-abiding citizen the ability to defend himself and family with the same means that a miscreant may attempt to use against him?
Apparently you don’t remember the 60s. Just such an incident has happened, except that it was 12 blocks. In Detroit, in 1967 a riot broke out that the police didn’t have a chance of containing. After several days of gun fighting, the Gov called in the NG 10,000 troops. Any guesses on how long it took them to contain the violence, 2 days. No anybody from Detroit? When I lived thier you could still see the damage caused by both fires and tanks rolling through the streets.
Stuffnb may have a point. The constitution is 200 years old, and it hasn’t done a damn thing for the US! Certainly the right of free speech and freedom of religion are not necesary. Nor is a protection against illegal search and seizure. Lord knows we don’t need any right to vote nor balance of power. I say we just scrap the whole thing, eliminate states and go with a single ruler.
The constitution is far too old to be of any importance. If we are going to trash some of it, I say we trash the whole goddam rotten thing… and nobody reads it anyway :rolleyes:
Anybody bother to notice that gun crime is on the decline? I fail to see why one of the biggest issues to some is a relatively minor cause of death that is declining. It would be a better use of time to make better standards regarding the availability of alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods.
stuffinb-were you thinking of that guy in the tower of a building at a university sniping at people? What was his name…oh, where was it-I saw it on the History Channel about a month ago!
Joe_Cool-the Natural rights given to us by the Creator?
Where in the Bible is the line, “And on the 5th day, the Lord saith, Let there be guns; and there were rifles and shootings and militias and Charleton Heston. And the Lord saith It is good. Kill in Peace.”
(Sorry, the idea that the “right to bear arms” coming from the Creator is a little bit ludicrious-don’t you think?)
NOt an attack, just an observation.
It’s what popped into my head while reading the OP.
How many stabbings or bludgeonings have you seen reported as a headline story lately? I can recall one of each over the last 2 years: One because it was one of the Beatles, and one because a lady was killed with a brick locally for a few dollars. But I hear reports of shootings somewhere in the country nearly every night. Often you’ll hear that someone was killed, but no mention of how. Why? because it isn’t important. Unless the instrument was one you are trying to ban.
As far as being disproportionate…Imagine that we were faced with having to hear about a shooting on the news every single night of the year. Pretty awful, right? No wonder the nation is in an uproar, and calling for the banning of all firearms, right? Well that’s only 365 shootings. In a country of 250 million people, 365 deaths are pretty inconsequential. Just over [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]10,000[/sub] of 1 percent! So the media are not biased? Pull the other one!
Ok, that’s one instance. Let’s hear more. A problem has to have more than one instance for it to be epidemic and justify impositions on a quarter of a billion people, right? I can give you an example, in the same time frame, of government power run mad, where the National Guard fired into crowds of unarmed civilian students. There, should we disband the Guard and disarm the government’s forces? Of course not. Only an idiot would accept that reasoning. So why do you accept it when it applies to civilians?
As has already been discussed, there are far more laws than are necessary to put criminals away for good. But they are not enforced. Why does Clinton boast about the thousands of felons who were stopped from buying a gun by the brady law and its background checks? Shouldn’t he be boasting about the thousands of felons who were put behind bars for committing a number of felony violations by trying to buy a gun? But those people are never prosecuted. Because the laws are made for show, not for results.
It worries me even more that somebody who argues without facts, experience, or knowledge and would rule through fear and ignorance is afforded the same right to free speech as I or anyone else. But would I try to muzzle you? No. Because you have committed no crime, and stifling your speech means that the same can later be done to me. All the freedoms you (hopefully) cherish have the right to bear arms as their foundation and their protection.
Speech can be much more deadly than any gun. However, if you favor eliminating one right, and you may get your wish eventually, you can rest assured that the other will soon follow.
Uncle Beer I wondered when you show up. So I’m the only one asked for cites huh, figures? No problemo, I have plenty for you. I do ask that you wait until tommorrow though I don’t have enough time to pull them today. So tommorrow, same time, same channel?
BTW, I’d like a cite for this comment, since we’re asking for them.
MrZ Your sarcasm aside, I pretty sure you understood the point I was making. That being the constitution has been changed in the pass, it’s not written in stone. Just because something was right 200 years ago, doesn’t make it right today.
See what I meant about the responses. Show of hands, does anyone know the meaning of antagonism?
Necros,
This caught my eye.
It is, IMO, a bad example.
I don’t see it being representative of the US general populace in such a situation, and seriously doubt that their behaviour would be as you describe.
More likely, a large portion of the people would either be for the government, or surrender out of fear.
Whatever weapons there were would not have ammunition or other supplies to last for any meaningful period of time in a combat situation.
Your point about not shelling the civilians would probably become moot when they opened fire on the soldiers, as they would no longer be noncombatants.
Finally, if the situation had come to a civil war, I don’t think the military would be deterred by a handful of small-arms wielding civilians.
The big point is that it’s easy to come up with situations of successful civilian resistance, but finding a plausible scenario to fit it into is considerably harder.
So how would the US come into the situation you describe?
stuffinb said:
Yeah, see, that’s kind of my point:
A = 12 (number of blocks needing to be contained)
B = 10,000 (number of National Guard troops necessary to contain area)
B/A = C = troops per block (~833)
D = number of blocks in Detroit (I dunno. Let’s say 1000)
So, C x D = X, total number of troops to contain Detroit.
That’s 833,000 troops to contain one city. And that city’s not even the biggest one in the country. I don’t even think it’s in the top five any more. The standing US Army is (don’t kill me for no figures) something like 1.5 million. Do you see where this going? No way could the military stand up to an armed citizenry when push came to shove.
Stuff, there are provisions for changing the constitution, as you know.
I just find it tremendously interesting that those for gun control often express views similar to yours when it comes to the second. But put up the ten commandments in school, or censor a newspaper and they go nuts about how that would be unconstitutional. Correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that the 2nd is somehow a lesser amendment in your estimation.
THe way I see it there are two ways to look at the Constitution: a) it is really old and it doesn’t make sennse anymore, so we should tinker around with it and b) it has served us well for 200 years so lets not mess with it unless absolutely necesary.
IMHO, the number of gun deaths is so low that it does not justify tinkering.
Funny you should ask!
Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.
Psalm 144:1-2 [[[A Psalm] of David.]] Blessed [be] the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, [and] my fingers to fight: My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and [he] in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
(he did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword, just to sheathe it, because God himself didn’t need Peter’s protection)
I could probably go on. Want me to? You really want to take up your complaint with the Declaration of Independence, though, not with me.
Mr.Z & UncleBeer,
Welcome to the party! All we need is ExTank & Spoofe Bo Diddley to show up, and the whole gang is here. 
Well, where did it say GUNS…it said sword, not guns.
And don’t forget, Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” And “Turn the other cheek.”
Joe_Cool,
Thank you kindly for inviting me to the Great Debates, but I am not interested in debating this issue with you or anyone else. My belief is not that guns should be banned (in my MPSIMS post, I was simply saying that I don’t see guns as particularly necessary for law-abiding citizens, and I still don’t), but that stricter gun controls should be enacted. A child should not be allowed to by a gun. A criminal convicted of a felon should not be allowed to own a gun.
My viewpoint on this issue comes from personal experiance. I am not interested in getting into it here, because it is one of those experiances that has affected me more than any other. Suffice to say I lost a very important person to gun violence, and I have yet to recover even after 11 years.
It is outside my realm of ability to discuss an issue so close to me. I have no desire to open up a wound that has yet to heal, and attempting to apply logic to this issue is just beyond me. At the core of my being, who I am today, is what happened to me, what was taken from me, because of gun violence. Therefore I cannot debate this issue.
I hope I have made myself clear here. I thought my post in MPSIMS displyed my belief that logical arguments do not apply to the issue for me. I didn’t argue, I just stated my opinion on the issue.
Does this make it better?
IMHO,
[/quote]
what is so bad about not “raping” the Bill of Rights is that people are dying because of your beloved guns every day. Not just drug dealers, not just crackheads and whores, but innocent people. This reality, IMHO, far negates your right to own a gun.
[/quote]
Sorry that I cannot be a more able debater on this topic.
Stuff, there are provisions for changing the constitution, as you know.
I just find it tremendously interesting that those for gun control often express views similar to yours when it comes to the second. But put up the ten commandments in school, or censor a newspaper and they go nuts about how that would be unconstitutional. Correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that the 2nd is somehow a lesser amendment in your estimation.
THe way I see it there are two ways to look at the Constitution: a) it is really old and it doesn’t make sennse anymore, so we should tinker around with it and b) it has served us well for 200 years so lets not mess with it unless absolutely necesary.
IMHO, the number of gun deaths is so low that it does not justify tinkering.
Sorry for the double post. I wanted to jump back her and hit the wrong button.
I think that Nacho illustrates a good point about the debate. Much of the anti-gun movement is based on emotion and anecdote. This is fine as long as it is not used to make policy.
I had a family member killed in a chainsaw accident. My feelings about that are not good foundations for chainsaw restrictions.
She can refuse to recognize your “rights.” If she can get enough people to go along with her, then it’s not a right anymore.
Rights flow from governments. Should you think otherwise, I suggest you tell the nearest ocean of your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of oxygen.
Some horseshit inspired by a goofy French philosopher none of you respect,who thought long and hard about man’s purity in the state of nature, written by a guy who kept and raped his slaves, and only believed in a creator as a mechanical first cause, not the font of goodness or justice.
The research that shows guns don’t make you safe, Duggan, Kellerman, Lambert, et al, is superior to Lott and Kleck, which you’d know if the smartest one of you characters wasn’t Dennison. I guess you haven’t actually read any of this, huh?
No, a “well-regulated militia” is "necessary to the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is an at least semi-regular military body, subject to state discipline, drill and regulation, as an honest reading of Hamilton’s writings would indicate.
Uncle Beer is out of his league if the question requires more insight or information than “tastes great” versus “less filling.”
Cite?
Reductio ad absurdum. Fallacious arguing from a gun loon, and who is surprised?
I just want everyone to see that again.“I could kill you…just as easily with a knife or a pointed stick as with a gun,”
Nope, but permits, registration, and background checks required of every sale, and strict and mandatory penalties aimed at those who break the rules the above imply will increase the cost of illegal guns, which will reduce crime substantially. Also, the fewer guns that are around in general, the less homocide
Which explains the proliferation of high teas and curtseys in the South Bronx.
Robert Heinlein was a low budget pulp hack, slicking up school boy ideas with rocket ships for pale friendless virgins.
<snip ad verecundam>
Here, kid. Grow a brain: spend five bones and learn some things you didn’t know.
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7967
“You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers”
…because that’s all I will have left. I will give up all of my other rights, all of my other privileges, live in as bad a society as you can imagine, all to avoid giving up my gun.
I have done a bit of travelling and something seems pretty clear.
In Israel and Switzerland where guns are as common as blue jeans there is less crime than in USA gated communities, while in the US inner cities which have about the same amount of guns, gun violence is epidemic.
It seems pretty darn clear that guns are neither the problem nor banning them the solution.
It is a matter of societal cohesion and respect of others. Seems that Family values are the best “gun control” that there is.
Doesn’t make it wrong, either. They got it right about Speech, Religion, Press, Search & Seizure, Voting, and a whole slew of other things (they missed Civil Rights, though that was more a factor of ignorance in the 1700s). I find it hard to believe that one aspect of a 200-year-old document, which has been proven to be very accurate or useful, is “outdated”.
Personally, I see the Constitution more as “tried and true” rather than “obsolete”. And your rantings of “I was a ‘seagent’ so I’m always right” really don’t hold much weight to convince me otherwise.
Miss Sara…
You know what? That’s how things are already.
The viewpoint of others on this issue probably comes from personal experience, as well.
And your opinion has been respected. But don’t you think it’s a tad foolish to create law affecting millions based on “opinion”? It’s my opinion that I should rule the world, but that doesn’t mean I expect it to be so.
Mr. Dufuz…
That doesn’t mean she’s correct to do so. In fact, it would be folly to refuse to recognize someone else’s rights. Matthew Shephard was killed because people refused to recognize his rights.
Intelligent people know that the ocean isn’t composed of sentient beings. Rights exist… period. If an institution violates a right, that right still exists. It’s just being violated.
I think the flaws of the Founding Fathers are well-known. Should we expect doctors to violate the Hypocratic Oath simply because Hypocrates lived in a time when only men were considered citizens, and people competed in their sports naked?
Just because they lived in a time when less knowledge abounded, that doesn’t mean that their conclusions are any less valid.
Untrue. We’ve seen how, say, Kellerman conducted his research, and we’ve decided it to be invalid (he included suicides in his statistics, for example, which skews the stats greatly in favor of the anti-gun notion).
Untrue. Greatly untrue. In fact, that’s a malicious lie. Hamilton’s writings indicate that he believed that the citizenry composed the militia.
I suggest you look up the word “militia” in your dictionary. Read the WHOLE definition, please. And keep in mind the meaning hasn’t changed in the past 200 years.
And with this quote, the ignorant man reveals himself.
Oh, I see. We’re wrong because some ignorant boob says we are. That makes perfect sense.
Cite, please?
Cite, please?
If you believe that is our stance, you are a fool. I, Unclebeer, Joe Cool, and others, are against gun control that hinders law-abiders more than law-breakers. But I guess it’s easy for you to trample over our rights (I’ve yet to shoot anyone) when you, in your ignorance, simply classify us all as “gun loons”. I guess it makes it easier for you to look at yourself in the mirror to invent this false reality around yourself, huh?
It is very interesting to hear people say things like “The military would never do such a thing.” I suppose the holocoust has slipped everyone’s mind suddenly. Or perhaps no one has ever met someone who lived in modern Soviet Union.
Yes, Jesus did say turn the other cheek. He got nailed to a tree. Sorry, but I’ll shoot back if they ever come for me.
Yes, the Army does have bigger weapons. However, to utilize them for conquering back their own country would be pointless. It doesn’t take much to decimate Nagasaki when you don’t plan to occupy it. But when you plan to re-use the area, good luck convincing the Pentagon to start dropping cluster bombs. An armed civilian force can be very intimidating.
Need we forget the civil war? What, you think brothers won’t kill brothers?
I’m glad you gun-control advocates have such a high opinion of humankind. I share that vision…which is why I trust people to own guns and use them wisely.