I wonder what pro-gun lobbyists hope to achieve by this? Here in the UK, Japan and presumably many other countries including Singapore criminals can still get them. Since criminals don't use legal means tightening up the law book will not change anything. What needs to be done is prevent the availability of guns. That said just how that would be done is another issue.sundaymorningstaple wrote: We that are pro-guns want the ability to get them made harder.
Incorrect. The DC law banned hand guns completely. If you owned a rifle or shotgun, you had to keep it unloaded and with a trigger lock... sort of defeats the purpose of self defense. The Supreme Court ruled that handguns in the home are legal and that a loaded weapon in the home is legal.zuluchief wrote:"the right to bear arms" Surely that just means "the right to wear short sleeved shirts" right? On a more serious note, its not very specific is it? With regard to the DC law. I don't see anything wrong in it......the DC law did not ban the right to bear arms, just hand guns. The constitution does not say that there is a right to bear 'loaded' weapons does it?
Strong Eagle wrote:I am surprised you ask this question CB. I didn't say that shooting someone is equal to being beaten. I said that it equalizes my chance of not being a victim.cutiebutie wrote:So, shooting someone is equal to being beaten? With this logic, then, if you want to punch someone who insulted your wife, stepped on your lawn, took your parking spot etc... then he has the right to shoot you.Strong Eagle wrote: PS: Guns equalize a LOT! You have obviously never been in a situation where you were outnumbered and about to be beaten. You'd be seriously wishing for a gun to 'equalize' things.
After all, you wanted to beat him.
You make it sound as though I would be in the wrong for shooting someone in self defense, as though I should allow myself to be beaten rather than shoot someone.
I ask you this: You are about to be sexually assaulted and raped by an intoxicated man, weighing 200 pounds and far stronger than you. You have a gun in your purse. Do you mean to tell me you would not pull the gun out of your purse and shoot him if necessary? Is shooting someone equal to being raped?
SMS pretty much summed up how I feel and I want to add a couple of things.banana wrote:SE, would it be right then to say the crux of pro-gun folks like yourself is that since we can't un-invent the gun, we might as well learn to live with it? Cos that's the only reason I can see going for it.
The thing is, with guns, mistakes have far more severe repercussions than with martial arts. No matter how mentally stable, law abiding and upstanding a person is at the point of profiling, there is no guarantee he will remain so for the rest of his life. Shit happens. Could be severe emotional trauma, could be a mistake. All it takes is a squeeze of the trigger and someone could end up dead.sundaymorningstaple wrote:Might be for SE but not for me. I am an avid hunter. I hunt for the table. Take away my gun and I no longer can provide for the table or at least not as much. This, like your statement, is a ridiculous assumption in today's world, but at the same time, just as valid as well.
Why would we want to de-invent the gun? Guns, when properly used, are not dangerous to other people. A pencil in the hands of Bruce Lee was a lethal weapon. So it's all relative or a matter of degree. We (I) am all for limiting who can legally own a weapon when it come to criminal records, mental instability or some such. I'm all for profiling and more stringent background checks. "We might as well learn to live with it?" What's that? Pro-gun people generally appreciate & respect and immensely enjoy their guns much the same way a coin collector or stamp collector enjoys their collections. Or they are a hobby like skeet/trap shooting and other competitions. Shame the nay-sayers aren't as open-minded about meeting half-way as well. Why don't we outlaw martial arts at the same time? There you are actually trained how to immobilize and even kill using your bare hands. Oh, there's a revelation! And they practice and practice for years. Why aren't they given background checks before they are allowed to step inside a dojo?
Let's un-invent the car.......They kill more people each each year than guns do and they are also operated by people just like guns. Guess we will just have to learn to live with them as well.......
Yes, I completely agree with certain parts of the US declaration. Ideologically. The problem in practice is that it becomes a race to the bottom of the barrel, to see who can kill the most people with the least effort. Oh of course I'm not going to, I just want to be able to. Just in case.Strong Eagle wrote: SMS pretty much summed up how I feel and I want to add a couple of things.
In the most basic formulation, ALL of your rights, your right to liberty, your right of possession of property, your right to live without fear of attack, are all dependent upon your ability to protect yourself from those who would take your rights away. In other words, all other rights are dependent upon your right to self-defense, your ability to defend yourself from the attacks by others.
In the US, the police cannot protect you, the Supreme Court has ruled that they do not have an obligation to protect you and with a large reservoir of guns already in the hands of the criminal element it simply makes no rational sense to disarm myself when the criminal element does not.
I don't really want to steer this thread away from the crime element, yet crime committed upon your person by an individual in a dark alley is really not much different than crime committed upon your person by a tyrannical government.
I wonder how long the citizens would put up with beatings by Mugabe's thugs if they had weapons? Or would the despotic Burmese generals still be in power if the Buddhist monk demonstrations had been backed up by an armed citizenry? Need I mention the genocide, mutilations, and mass rape in Darfur?
It really all starts with mindset. The US Declaration of Independence states in its preamble that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The keyword here is "unalienable". If you believe that your rights are "given" to you by some government authority then you will quickly find such a mindset about 180 degrees opposed to how Americans view rights.
My rights are unalienable, they are part of my being as a human. However, there is nothing to stop other humans from denying me my rights unless I take the steps necessary to protect myself. One way of doing this is to form groups for the common defense, a stated purpose of almost any government in the world.
Another way is to insure that I can have equal (or better) methods than those that would take my rights away from me, whether it be a common criminal or a governmental authority.
So, yes, I suppose I "live with it" because it is a much better way than living without it. I hope to never use my gun, and I would not hesitate to use it if me or my family were in danger. I would not shoot someone stealing my lawnmower out of my garage; I would shoot someone who entered my home in the middle of the night to rob me.
So now, you can see another reason for "going for it". It is your fundamental right to self defense. If the criminals start using Phasers, I'm getting one and I'll learn how to shoot it.
Sure they were designed for that purpose. They have steering wheels and nuts are behind that wheel and sometimes there are two nuts behind the steeringwheel. There used to be a bonnet (hood) ornament and some cars like Jags still have them. They work just like a gunsight. So you give a car to a mentally unstable person, he runs down their spouse who he/she just had a argument with. Or Road Rage (your words, ) has them running someone off the road. Use public transport. A car is as much a necessary evil as a gun is. You need the vehicle to get around with efficiently. You need the guns to provide sustenance efficiently so you CAN get around.banana wrote: Cars, in my opinion, are a necessary evil. While they can certainly cause death, they are not designed for that specific purpose. Unlike say, guns.
Mugabe, Darfur, Burma, they might've been averted if the citizenry had access to weapons like Americans do. But then again, they happened precisely because their governments had them in the first place. Do we really need for a weapon to reach Mutually Assured Destruction status before we will consider disarmament?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests