Gun Control / Regulation In The U.S. ( Topic For Debate )

[J3scribe]

2 for 4 ain't bad 'Scribe.
If you were in the Majors it'd mean a bonus and fat contract extension.

What do you mean, 2 for 4?

^^^^ disagrees with what most pro-guns have been saying in this thread.......that they need guns to protect them from tyranny...

The argument is specious.

this is rather what I've been saying from the beginning.....you don't need guns.....you just like to have them because it makes you think you are "free".

That's not why people in this country "think" they are "free." The possibility of unlimited opportunity for those willing to work for it is a much more profound foundation for the ideal of personal freedom.

[Jack Tripper]

That's not why people in this country "think" they are "free." The possibility of unlimited opportunity for those willing to work for it is a much more profound foundation for the ideal of personal freedom.

Every 1 of you associated guns with freedoms........largely implying that the to have freedoms and be "free" is to have the right to own a gun.

[X-Spectre]

If I remember correctly you seemed to think that guns were the only way to stop the Government from taking away your freedoms......and that an armed rebellion by the people was the only thing that kept the Government in check.

No, I've said... very plainly that the 2nd Amendment is the bedrock of the other freedoms and LAST RESORT against tyranny, not that we have to brandish guns every day to keep our politicians in line.

Oh and 'Scribe, the argument is NOT specious, it is in fact VERY much at issue and was clearly part of the original intent of the 2nd and is as valid today as it was then.

[marquis]

Banging my head against a brick wall, but can somebody please tell me just HOW having guns can prevent the Government taking away your freedom? Just who are you going to use them against and how will it work? Can the fact that you have a gun at home really influence somebody in a government building a thousand miles away?
In the same thread, can somebody please explain (don't use any big words please) why Americans need guns to protect their freedom yet their friends across the border in Canada have just as much without having to bother?
Look at this link; these are the guaranteed freedoms of those of us living in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...n_Human_Rights

[J3scribe]

Every 1 of you associated guns with freedoms........largely implying that the to have freedoms and be "free" is to have the right to own a gun.

The right to own a gun is one of our personal freedoms, it's in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not you exercise that right is a matter of personal choice. However, owning a gun (or a warehouse full of them) does not determine whether or not one is free in this nation. The Constitution is the guarantor of freedoms in this nation, not the simple act of owning a gun. That right to own a gun can be taken away if you're convicted of a felony (as well as your right to vote, for some dumbass reason), so the right is actually a privilege - something I've argued in the past on the topic of freedom and rights in this country.

[Jack Tripper]

The right to own a gun is one of our personal freedoms, it's in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not you exercise that right is a matter of personal choice. However, owning a gun (or a warehouse full of them) does not determine whether or not one is free in this nation. The Constitution is the guarantor of freedoms in this nation, not the simple act of owning a gun. That right to own a gun can be taken away if you're convicted of a felony (as well as your right to vote, for some dumbass reason), so the right is actually a privilege - something I've argued in the past on the topic of freedom and rights in this country.

Don't tell me that.....I'm not the 1 who thinks it.

[J3scribe]

Oh and 'Scribe, the argument is NOT specious, it is in fact VERY much at issue and was clearly part of the original intent of the 2nd and is as valid today as it was then.

The country has never been in danger of falling to a tyrant and today's corporate culture is a better hedge against tyranny than any amount of weapons. This nation runs on avarice, and absolute power in the hands of a ruling cabal with its own ideas on how things should be done would not be in the best interests of corporate America and the politicians they own.

[Jack Tripper]

I'm curious though......you say that after being convicted your freedom to own a gun is taken away........how does that stop convicts from owning a gun......say you bought a bunch of guns before you ever got convicted......then have the misfortune of being convicted......and after you're released....you just go back and pick up your guns where you left them??

[J3scribe]

Don't tell me that.....I'm not the 1 who thinks it.

Your previous remark said "every 1 of you," implying that the opinion was unanimous in this country. It's not.

[Jack Tripper]

Your previous remark said "every 1 of you," implying that the opinion was unanimous in this country. It's not.

I meant every body that has been pro gun in this debate.

[TheRiver]

hm. maybe more a "fundamental", "basic" topic, but... do constitutions always need to be carved into stone for eternity without any "chance" to adopt them in the course of time?

what i am interested to (try to understand): why are so many insisting to keep the right to have those pretty harmful sorts of guns? is the ability to protect yourself against multiple threats (crime, government, foreign intruders, terror....) such a general, common issue in the states?

at least for the "crime"-part of the options mentioned above: isn`t there a slight chance that (fatal effects of) crime might decrease when not everyone is able to get (which means not only to buy - looks like many "abused" guns have been bought legally) these that makes thinking about reducing availability at least an option?

[J3scribe]

I'm curious though......you say that after being convicted your freedom to own a gun is taken away........how does that stop convicts from owning a gun......say you bought a bunch of guns before you ever got convicted......then have the misfortune of being convicted......and after you're released....you just go back and pick up your guns where you left them??

If they weren't confiscated in the first place, pretty much, yeah. If you're on parole your parole officer has the right to search for and confiscate any contraband items you possess. Depending on what you were convicted for they may or may not do that. You can ask Nick, he'd be able to tell you more about it.

[Jack Tripper]

If they weren't confiscated in the first place, pretty much, yeah. If you're on parole your parole officer has the right to search for and confiscate any contraband items you possess. Depending on what you were convicted for they may or may not do that. You can ask Nick, he'd be able to tell you more about it.

Pretty easy to hide I'd assume.

[J3scribe]

I meant every body that has been pro gun in this debate.

I've been a gun owner most of my adult life.

hm. maybe more a "fundamental", "basic" topic, but... do constitutions always need to be carved into stone for eternity without any "chance" to adapt them in the course of time?

The US Constitution is designed for just that. Congress can draft an amendment further defining the Second Amendment if they so choose. Whether or not it would be ratified by the necessary majority of the States is another question altogether.

what i am interested to (try to understand): why are so many insisting to keep the right to have those pretty harmful sorts of guns? is the ability to protect yourself against multiple threats (crime, government, foreign intruders, terror....) such a general, common issue in the states?
at least for the "crime"-part of the options mentioned above: isn`t there a slight chance that (fatal effects of) crime might decrease when not everyone is able to get (which means not only to buy - looks like many "abused" guns have been bought legally) these that makes thinking about reducing availability at least an option?

The top story on the local evening news all across the country has something to do with crime, which makes for pretty strong motivation for people to seek ways of protecting themselves from the cruel world outside their doors. Buying guns (legally) is only slightly more difficult than purchasing a refrigerator.

Most murders are crimes of passion involving people who know one another personally, often intimately, or gang related, which tend to be highly localized. Eliminate those two scenarios from the statistics and the murder rate plunges dramatically. Aside from armed robbery, most other violent crimes are not gun related.

The massacres are aberrations, though admittedly they're becoming uncomfortably more common, and I doubt adding more restrictions and regulations alone will do anything about it. I think it's a mental health issue as much as anything else. The solution will not be simple.

[J3scribe]

Pretty easy to hide I'd assume.

Absolutely. And the Constitution also protects people against illegal search and seizure - even for ex-convicts - so unless the law has good reason to search you, they won't go out of their way to do it.