Hello There, Guest!

  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fellow Gun Nuts
#11
Yup, if you accept the 2nd amendment is about the right of private citizens to bear arms and not just a "well regulated militia", which is much debated, I think the main purpose was to discourage dictatorships (royal or otherwise), not invasions.
 Reply
#12
Yep. The first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) were to acknowledge the God-given individual liberties and to protect them from the government that they had just formed.

At the time of the Bill of Rights, there were a few colonies that had not ratified the Constitution yet. There was no debate regarding whether these rights were important. The debate was based on whether the Consitution needed to be amended to specifically state these things. Many founders believed that the government they created could never become large enough to be a threat to individual liberties.

Others had the foresight to know that the federal government would naturally grow and encroach on people's liberties. And they forced the other colonies to accept these amendments in trade for their support of the Constitution.

So you are correct. The 2nd Amendment had everything to do with individuals protecting themselves (individually) from an aggresive government, domestic or otherwise.
 Reply
#13
MichMan Wrote:What I found funny was that Americans are getting criticized for having laws protecting private gun ownership from people in the UK.

If it wasn't for England's abuse of the American colonists, there might not have ever been a 2nd Amendment protecting the right to bear arms.

The 1st Amendment granting freedom from a state mandated religion, the 2nd Amendment granting private citizens the right to bear arms and the 3rd Amendment forbidding soldiers from quartering in people's homes were ALL the result of the abuses endured by the colonists at the hands of the English. And the list goes on.

No doubt, the first 10 Amendments (The Bill of Rights) were ALL written with England in mind.

As the "people from the UK" (sic) to whom you are referring, can you tell me how the actions of my forebears 200+ years ago has any relevance to this debate ? The "abuses" suggested may be the reason for the amendments but that does not make them relevant today.

The number of gun deaths in the US for 2008 when released is likely to be in the region of 25-30,000. Given that maybe half of these are suicides, that still means upwards of 12-13,000 people are killed by guns every year in the US. This equates to more than a quarter of all US deaths in the whole of the Vietnam war.

Who needs a foreign war to send people to their deaths when you can do it so easily at home ?

As IBOFB has said (or at least my paraphrasing of his words), the need for a country to bear arms is quite different from the individual's need to do so. The amendments to the Constitution were drawn in a very different time when personal arms were quite possibly necessary to supplement the nation's arms, as the nation was still young and maybe vulnerable. Should we all now hold nuclear weapons too ??

Sorry but this whole macho thing of needing to own weapons of murder (even if not held for that intent) is one that leaves me completely bewildered.

I know I won't convince anyone of the opposite persuasion (especially with my poor debating skills), so I probably won't be posting further on this topic (but never say never !).
 Reply
#14
MichMan Wrote:So you are correct. The 2nd Amendment had everything to do with individuals protecting themselves (individually) from an aggresive government, domestic or otherwise.


Confusedhock:

So the ballot box is no longer the way of the world - we just take up arms against our elected Government if we disagree with them ?

Confusedhock:
 Reply
#15
ibofightback Wrote:Ummm ... this is a bit of a stretch. It was the American armed forces that helped liberate Europe and defend the UK, not American citizens with guns in their homes.

Agree with you in principle. My point and concern still remains. CMF--Shouldn't be trashing anyone's country or constitution. If he wants to debate philosophical points regarding differences between his country and way of life with the US..then fine, but to blatantly say it is BS, is disrespectful.

Quote:Here is my other point with regards to your statement.
Also a bit of a stretch, and historically inaccurate. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany had plans drawnup for a US invasion, as did Hitler. You also seem to have forgotten Pearl Harbour - Japan did attack the US and even overran some American territory in Alaska, then there's the US war with Mexico (albeit after the US invaded Mexico and annexed Texas and California), which took place on US soil.
All of these well after the second amendment, it didn't discourage any of them.
Drawn up plans (I guess is consideration), but never implemented. Pearl Harbor and Alaska is a stretch, it is not mainland USA, which was my point. Not that Hawaii or Alaska are less important by any stretch. Your Mexican/US war example falls under the same supposition. Those "areas" at the time were disputed.

Another non-US related account would be the way we ended WWII with Japan. Regardless of how you feel about dropping the nukes, the question is why did the US decided to do that? Because every single Japanese soldier, citizen and/or prisoner would have fought to the last person to protect their land, resulting in a huge deterrent to invade.

Quote:By contrast countries like Norway and Austria had very high citizen gun ownership, but that didn't stop Germany at all, did it?
Germany had an overwhelming advantage. Just like the US had an overwhelming advantage over Japan. Not to mention the shear numbers Germany had.

Quote:It's the US armed forces that make the US strong, not armed citizens, entirely apart from the fact most of the world isn't that interested in invading anyone..
No argument there. Our armed forces are what keep and have kept us free. That is not the point.

Quote:
Quote:Our founders already had this in mind when they wrote our constitution.

Well history has proved them wrong then - except of course for the fact the supposed "right to bear arms" wasn't put in your constitution by "the founders" per se. It was added some years later, hence it's an "amendment"
It was passed as an Amendment, written by Hamilton and Madison. However, "talk" about it went as far back as the Boston massacre trial. So to say it suddenly just appeared in 1800's is naive.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#16
cmfitzg Wrote:As the "people from the UK" (sic) to whom you are referring, can you tell me how the actions of my forebears 200+ years ago has any relevance to this debate ? The "abuses" suggested may be the reason for the amendments but that does not make them relevant today.

It has everything to do with this debate. Perhaps not so much from England, but from other governments. Not to get into a political debate, but even early socialists (of the extreme type), said (paraphrase) " You will not take America direct or head on...it needs to be done from the inside". Part has to do with our military power, but the other has to do with individuals and their appointed liberties.

Quote:The number of gun deaths in the US for 2008 when released is likely to be in the region of 25-30,000. Given that maybe half of these are suicides, that still means upwards of 12-13,000 people are killed by guns every year in the US. This equates to more than a quarter of all US deaths in the whole of the Vietnam war.
This is hogwash, and complete manipulation of the numbers. Based solely on your numbers 12-13k...Far more people died in auto accidents. Now should we go out and eliminate those "murder mobiles"? The fact is CMF, even if we eliminated all rights to guns...do you really think it would eliminate gun deaths in our country?
Quote:Who needs a foreign war to send people to their deaths when you can do it so easily at home ?
Who needs a foreign war when we have suicides, cars, private airplanes, obesity. All are contributors to "murder devices" as you put it. Let's just eliminate all of them, then we can all sit in circle around a bon-fire and sing koom-by-ya....wait...fire...can't have that because that is also a murdering device.

Quote:Should we all now hold nuclear weapons too ??
Isn't that what countries like North Korea and Iran are effective trying to do. The question is CMF...why would they try to acquire nuclear weapons?? hnmmm?

Quote:Sorry but this whole macho thing of needing to own weapons of murder (even if not held for that intent) is one that leaves me completely bewildered.
Not to beat my point..but see above again. Although your argument is good on paper, and we can all hug, hold hands and get along...problem is...it is not reality.

Quote:I know I won't convince anyone of the opposite persuasion (especially with my poor debating skills), so I probably won't be posting further on this topic (but never say never !).
Look at you...right after this statement...you wrote another post. Just think, next you may start believing in gun ownership too! One can dream can't he? :thumbsup:
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#17
TB 2 IBO Wrote:Not to get into a political debate, but even early socialists (of the extreme type), said (paraphrase) " You will not take America direct or head on...it needs to be done from the inside". Part has to do with our military power, but the other has to do with individuals and their appointed liberties.


On what basis do you make that claim? Given early (extreme) socialism was about power to the people, that sounds a pretty strange assertion.

Quote:This is hogwash, and complete manipulation of the numbers. Based solely on your numbers 12-13k...Far more people died in auto accidents. Now should we go out and eliminate those "murder mobiles"? The fact is CMF, even if we eliminated all rights to guns...do you really think it would eliminate gun deaths in our country?

Actually I think it's wrong to remove the suicides. Probably the biggest single change that comes about from increases in gun control is fewer suicide deaths. Guns make suicide easy and have a high rate of success.

As for autos, that could start another whole debate on things like seat belts, where there has been similar debates about personal freedom.

Quote:Who needs a foreign war when we have suicides, cars, private airplanes, obesity. All are contributors to "murder devices" as you put it.

I think the issue is whether it increases the risk of harm to other people

Quote:Isn't that what countries like North Korea and Iran are effective trying to do.

They're trying to give their private citizen nuclear weapons at home? I don't think so ...

The point is, are you allowed to have a nuclear weapon at home? Why not? What about a semi-automatic? Why Not?

Quote:Although your argument is good on paper, and we can all hug, hold hands and get along...problem is...it is not reality.

It's closer to reality than the idea that armed citizens is what stops the US getting invaded ...
 Reply
#18
ibofightback Wrote:On what basis do you make that claim? Given early (extreme) socialism was about power to the people, that sounds a pretty strange assertion.

We have had this debate before, and since I have made the commitment to my fellow posters on here..I will not expound upon the political side of this debate. Just know that we are talking about two different points.

Quote:Actually I think it's wrong to remove the suicides. Probably the biggest single change that comes about from increases in gun control is fewer suicide deaths. Guns make suicide easy and have a high rate of success.

As for autos, that could start another whole debate on things like seat belts, where there has been similar debates about personal freedom.
Either way with his numbers, it is still irrelevant to the manipulation of the numbers he was espousing.

Quote:I think the issue is whether it increases the risk of harm to other people
Just poking fun here...but obesity offers a huge (no pun intended) risk to me. I mean, have you been on an airplane, with two overly obese people on either side of you. Gives you anxiety, high blood pressure, near suffocation and restriction blood circulation. Here is a debate going on in our country. Is it constitutional for an airline to require "bigger" people to buy two tickets for two seats?

Quote:They're trying to give their private citizen nuclear weapons at home? I don't think so ...
Thinking more on the global community here. Mr. Wordsmith!

Quote:The point is, are you allowed to have a nuclear weapon at home? Why not? What about a semi-automatic? Why Not?
Nope, and yes you are allowed a semi-auto. Some interesting quotes from Wiki
Quote:While some people believe military-style semiautomatic rifles are commonly used by criminals, a 2001
Quote:Justice Department study revealed that fewer than 2% of State and Federal inmates used, carried, or possessed a military-style semiautomatic gun or a fully automatic gun during their current offense
Semi-automatic rifles are mistakenly believed by many people to be capable of fully automatic fire or easily convertible to have that functionality. While it is theoretically possible to convert a semi-automatic firearm to fully-automatic, extensive equipment and machining knowledge would be required. The small number of fully-automatic weapons confiscated from criminals are overwhelmingly illegally-imported fully-automatic weapons, rather than converted semi-automatic weapons.
Bring this up to prove my point...regardless of the law there will be guns in the US. Therefore there will be gun deaths. This is just me but I would rather have a fighting chance with a pistol than with a butter knife against an intruder with a gun him/herself. Or at the very least to have the liberty to choose this option.

Quote:It's closer to reality than the idea that armed citizens is what stops the US getting invaded ...
Nope, I think if an enemy government does figure a way to defeat our military, to stage an invasion (Would never happen by the way), they would ultimately have to consider the people being armed as well as their patriotism.

It would be much easier for a country to take over another, that once the military is defeated, to invade against a bunch of citizens with pitch forks and torches...don't you think?
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#19
HEY!!! WHERE IS RW1---Wasn't this what he wanted??? Bedtime reading??
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#20
TB 2 IBO Wrote:Bring this up to prove my point...regardless of the law there will be guns in the US. Therefore there will be gun deaths. This is just me but I would rather have a fighting chance with a pistol than with a butter knife against an intruder with a gun him/herself. Or at the very least to have the liberty to choose this option.


I'd rather than intruder didn't have the gun in the first place. This is part of the catch-22 situation the US is in though, the gun supply is so large that implementing stronger controls would IMO indeed have little effect on criminals access to guns. If controls had been in place earlier that wouldn't be the case.

Personally I consider suicides and accidental gund deaths a bigger issue. If I recall correctly more than half of all suicides are firearm related and more than 2/3 of young peoples suicide. We're talking 15,000-20,000 deaths a year many of which would not have occurred. Some argue it makes no difference but I disagree with their statistical analysis.

Quote:It would be much easier for a country to take over another, that once the military is defeated, to invade against a bunch of citizens with pitch forks and torches...don't you think?

Sure, but that's not an issue for the US or most other countries. Heck ... the Iraqi populous was very heavily armed and it didn't stop the US! Come to think of it, didn't help much against tyranny either ...

Either way, there has been no real risk of a successful land invasion of the US for probably a century, so the idea an armed populace is needed for defence of country is to my mind ludicrous.
 Reply
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)