Singapore Expats Forum

Gun Rights Upheld in the US

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35173
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Sat, 28 Jun 2008 7:23 am

As usual, it looks like common sense isn't going to prevail it this discussion. Course that's the problem with discussing this particular topic. We that are pro-guns want the ability to get them made harder. We are not against restriction (checks). We ARE against Outlawing them altogether because it DOES violate our Constitution AND the ability to protect our Families & property. Not only from others but from a government gone bad.

Law abiding citizens generally won't use guns without strong provocation. Sure, sometimes somebody goes off the rails. When they do, they would go and get an illegal Saturday Night Special which I can do here in Singapore in Half a day if I was hellbent on mayhem. This is what makes reactionaries so silly looking and makes clutching a the littlest 'what if's' for dear life instead of seeing the big picture (without learning our history first before opening their mouths and sticking their feet in it.

Anyway, My front gate across MY drive on MY farm has a sign on it that says "Survivors Will Be Prosecuted". My parking spot is not MINE unless it's on MY property. A little common sense would be appreciated. Sometimes a little difficult I know but at least try. :wink:

User avatar
Plavt
Director
Director
Posts: 4292
Joined: Wed, 18 May 2005
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Plavt » Sat, 28 Jun 2008 3:24 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote: We that are pro-guns want the ability to get them made harder.


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.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35173
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Sat, 28 Jun 2008 4:17 pm

And that, my friend, is the crux of the whole problem. Half of the guns turned in during the Timor unrest, Mindano troubles and so forth are guns that were made in a barn. Almost anybody with a machineshop can make a gun that will kill somebody (and hopefully themselves when it blows up). So rather than having unlicensed gun manufacturers (as long as there are criminals there will be methods to get guns) lets have quality manufacturer and stringent background checks. Otherwise, if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns, granades, missile launchers and so forth. So, in the end analysis, what SE says is still correct and I will still agree. As we cannot get rid of guns (impossible at best and impractical at the least), at least make getting one harder (with stringent background checks and if necessary profiling). But don't make blanket laws so Joe Average cannot protect that which is his from either criminals from the street or in the government. Why did our guns laws come about? From having to fight your country for our freedom. Just think, you are partially responsible for enshrining it in our Constitution! :D Think 1776. Think 1812. Not once but twice. :P

User avatar
taxico
Director
Director
Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat, 10 May 2008
Location: Existential dilemma!

Postby taxico » Sat, 28 Jun 2008 8:30 pm

Image

Image

Image

i'd call first, always.

zuluchief
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed, 14 May 2008

Postby zuluchief » Sat, 28 Jun 2008 8:39 pm

"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?

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11110
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Sat, 28 Jun 2008 9:10 pm

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?


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.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Sun, 29 Jun 2008 1:16 am

I love guns, and I believe we have all seen the results of trigger fingers, especially in the UK, it doesn't really matter if the person is innocent or guilty, providing a policeman is pulling the trigger.

My personal experience of weapons is 3 years instructing in all arms, as an instructor, i couldn't and wouldn't trust anyone on the range, because i was the one accountable for the safety of others.

Negligence is common, of which one cannot do so much about, :shit: some people are just pure clumsy, or forgetful, and with guns, the circumstance can be deadly, so I don't really like loaded weapons in the home and would never have it. If one is capable, it can all be done blindfolded within seconds.

I've also grown up around guns, and was shot in the throat with an air rifle, at 60 or 70 meters at the age of 13, some how, I still feel the UK law is wrong to ban gun, of course there are idiots every where, but they will get guns, one way or another, the law halps jack shit, to ban them.

I've been gobsmacked on many occasions when it comes to weapons, and a shoot to kill policy, and i can assure you, that the Military and Police force attract the illegal killer instinct, and i mean for the fun of it. we have seen it all to often, but its taboo to talk about.

Although we can debate the actions of shooting someone, in the line of defence, for ever more, I have given it great thought, and my conclusion is that most people will kill, out of fear, not out of defence, but for the simple fact, that the intruder may return with a vengeance, especially if it was on their own property.

but let me also say, that people that do not have guns, will also arm themselves to protect their family and home.. I can recall my father as a child having a weapon in the bedroom, but never understood why, was it fear, I have never seen my father fear anyone, now that I am an adult, I think back and understand the need to be prepared for the worsts, I also understand that many will make judgement against the idea, but my social environmental childhood upbringing, was only the strongest survive.
I cannot say nobody wants to kill, because many people do want to kill, but still its a minority, and the minority with the urge to kill, can be kept in check, by others that have the same tools, and that's what it is all about, fear against fear...

No human wishes to be an animal, but when it comes to survival, the animal instinct in me would take over, that i know, from past experiences.

What it all boils down too, is how much fear can you take, before you loose it, or are you just the cold hearted bloody killer, that needs an excuse, or maybe its just, what the f--ck, why not everyone else is doing it for fun. I used to have fights with catapults and air rifles in our neighbourhood, it was serious stuff, at the age of 10 and 15 and you were either bullied, or put up a fight, I can recall, that i was never bothered at all, by the so called hard nuts, I was left alone, because they knew, to pick on me, wouldn't be so easy. I grew up a loner, and that's what i am today.

I'm happy for the US, they should fight for their rights, and I abhor the UK for what it has become, for me its open season, every time i visit. :wink:

I have only one thing else to say on this subject, again preparation for the unexpected is key to survival, and lets face it, in Malaysia your life might only be worth 30$ or the cash you have on you. Its all about experiences in the end.

Even for the hunters, I can remember my first kill, and i also remember the bad things i did too, when i was young, and I live with it, because i know it was wrong.

These are the phases of life we all go through, and the majority of people know their capabilities, because they have been tested, many have not! So I'm in favour of weapons.[quote][/quote]

User avatar
cutiebutie
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat, 01 Sep 2007
Location: Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Home

Postby cutiebutie » Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:51 am

What I have a problem with is the premise that you can and do give yourself the right to shoot someone based on your perception of a 'threat'. Now, you may be able to do that at any given moment, but can others who are not as focussed and balanced as you?

The scenario you pose has some serious flaws in it. Would I be able to overcome an attacker to pull out my gun, release the security latch, aim and shoot before he whacks me into oblivion? So, after he attacks me he then has anew gun as well to possibly shoot me with and definitely to shoot someone else with.

Another gun in circulation among the criminal population.

You say you would only shoot in self-defense, but at what stage is it self-defense?
A gut feeling?
Eye-contact?
Brushing against you when walking past?
Bumping into you on a crowded street?
Cutting you off in traffic (and we know that cars make men into raging morons)
A push?
An inadvertent (or not) trip

What I am saying is that I would hate to see a situation where any and every harmless act or situation can be seen as aggression - and with that a gun is brandished. The opposing person then reacts to having a gun pointed at him and pulls out his own. bang, bang = you're dead.

No thank you. I'd prefer to live life rather than be afraid of it.



Strong Eagle wrote:
cutiebutie wrote:
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.


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.

After all, you wanted to beat him. :roll:


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.

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?
- Thank God for Darwin -

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11110
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:11 pm

CB,

Within all states in the US, there are rules for usage of dangerous weapons, and that includes not only handguns but other guns, knives, baseball bats, throwing stars, and many more.

The laws I am most familiar with are those of Texas, although most others are similar. The laws specifically state the conditions under which deadly force may be used. They include protection of person from assault, rape, and murder, and protection of property when the perpetrator is on your property. There are a couple of oddities. If my car is parked on the street in daylight and I see someone trying to steal it I may not use deadly force. At night, I may... possibly an offshoot of attempts to control cattle rustling in earlier days.

EVEN if I use deadly force in a well defined situation I will still be taken before a grand jury to determine if my use of deadly force was justified. If yes, I am no billed, if not, then I am charged with assault with a deadly weapon. As of right now, in Houston, a grand jury is hearing evidence concerning an individual who shot and killed two people breaking into his neighbor's house. This will be a tough call because there are points of note on both sides.

It is up to you to judge when it is self defense. My choice is always to run away from trouble if at all possible. But when I was caught, with nowhere to go and two large people were coming over, definitely with malevolent intent, I pulled my gun out. I would have used it. Fortunately, it was not necessary.

And finally, I subscribe to the maxim, "I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". If I ask someone to refrain from what they are doing, and they refuse to stop, like approaching me with knives or sticks, what do you think I ought to do?

I'd ask the same of you. What would you do? Of course, your first attempt should be to get away but if that fails, then what? For me, there is no question. Once I have ascertained that the fellow does not mean me well, and if he doesn't get the message to leave me alone, then the problem becomes his, not mine.

User avatar
banana
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue, 24 May 2005

Postby banana » Mon, 30 Jun 2008 2:35 pm

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.
some signatures are more equal than others

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35173
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 30 Jun 2008 4:05 pm

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.......

:wink:

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11110
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Mon, 30 Jun 2008 5:00 pm

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.


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.

User avatar
banana
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue, 24 May 2005

Postby banana » Mon, 30 Jun 2008 5:41 pm

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.......

:wink:


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.

With martial arts, the risks are significantly lessened. You can't accidentally block the vital qi of an opponent from 200 yards away. Not unless you live in a kung fu movie. The very nature of martial arts demand and demonstrates intent. Intent which, ideally, should have been worked away through the many years of training required to reach that level of skill. But I concede that many dojos these days neglect the spiritual aspect of martial arts training. Nevertheless, it's highly improbable for a crazed exponent to achieve a body count like at Columbine or Virginia Tech.

You also can't have your martial arts skills stolen by a mugger and used to commit more crimes.

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.

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.


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.

I'm not sure if you've ever mingled with the "criminal" element or studied them. Most crimes are committed due to circumstance or stupidity rather than malice. Some are only crimes because the government says so. In fact, some of the most sociopathic people are the ones who will almost never be incarcerated.

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?
some signatures are more equal than others

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35173
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:59 pm

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?


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, :shit: ) 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.

Regarding you last paragraph, It's nice of fantasize about an ideal world, but most of us are pretty grounded in reality. In reality, you cannot expect voluntary disarmament so you have to reach MAD. Not a nice concept but unfortunately the reality of life.
Last edited by sundaymorningstaple on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
banana
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue, 24 May 2005

Postby banana » Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:11 am

Now you're just being facetious SMS. You're in Singapore with no guns. Yet you are able to put food on the table, no?
some signatures are more equal than others


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests