Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 218 (550710)
03-17-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peepul
03-17-2010 9:11 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
I guess the key question is - what are the reasons why the US homicide rate is so high relative to other countries? Instead of arguing for or against guns on principle, that's the question that needs answering, and the root causes fixing.
I don't know why probably because it is more complex than any one reason. I couldn't tell you why Russia, Mexico, or Colombia are extraordinarily higher than the US either. There are many cultural factors at play, but I completely agree that finding the root cause is very important.
As an outsider (a UK person) it's clear the US discussion about guns touches a deep cultural nerve, one that doesn't exist here. It's tied up with the question of individual freedom in a way that isn't the case in the UK.
Yes, but as you can see some American's don't want that personal freedom. From your perspective, it would be easy to think of not having the right because many didn't have it all. Others in the UK are not happy about it. But for many, and possibly most, we don't know what it is like not to have access to arms. It would be next to impossible to go without it, especially when it is afforded as a Constitutional right.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peepul, posted 03-17-2010 9:11 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 218 (550711)
03-17-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Shield
03-17-2010 9:17 AM


Re: I dont get you americans
I dont get you americans... do you really need Bear Arms that badly?In most of the civilized world, we get by with puny human arms.
I can't imagine living in a world where you are disallowed access to guns.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Shield, posted 03-17-2010 9:17 AM Shield has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 63 of 218 (550735)
03-17-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taq
03-17-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Guns were truly necessary for home security at one time from very real threats.
On the frontier. But once the native population was pushed out the areas of USA without them actually had no more need for guns for home security than Europe did.
So I think more credence is given to this idea than it is due.
I think part of the gun culture is an adoration and
misrepresentation of the frontier, primarily the age of the cowboy. Remember handguns did not become practical until after the civil war. The USA of the 1800's and 1900's was not as lawless as the rabid pro-gun crowd would like us to believe.
The idea of the cowboy/vigilante, protect my castle, is an American adaption(perversion) of English common law. The castle doctrine which the pro-gun crowd has perverted to justification to kill anyone that enters their house is not thought of that way in England where it originally came from.
The closest interpretation in US law to the original English common law is the 4th amendment. The thing that has always disturbed me about the pro-gun crowd is there insistence that the right to bear arms also give them the right to shoot and kill people. I see nothing in the 2nd amendment that says anything about using deadly force to protect ones possessions.
Before I am attacked for being anti-gun, I want to repeat. I am a gun owner. As a matter of fact I used my .22 rifle today to shoot a couple squirrels. So please lay off the personal attacks and don't claim I want guns banned.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 12:15 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-18-2010 7:27 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 64 of 218 (550737)
03-17-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
03-17-2010 1:03 PM


I like the other parts bare too
Pic not suitable for this forum.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2010 1:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 218 (550776)
03-18-2010 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Theodoric
03-17-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
The thing that has always disturbed me about the pro-gun crowd is there insistence that the right to bear arms also give them the right to shoot and kill people.
What other right would it include, but for protection?
I see nothing in the 2nd amendment that says anything about using deadly force to protect ones possessions.
Whenever you fire at somebody, deadly force is implied whether you meant to incapacitate or not. That's how the police view it and I'm pretty sure that's how you'd view it too being shot at. If you shoot at someone unlawfully, more than likely you will be charged with attempted murder or murder.
Before I am attacked for being anti-gun, I want to repeat. I am a gun owner. As a matter of fact I used my .22 rifle today to shoot a couple squirrels. So please lay off the personal attacks and don't claim I want guns banned.
Everyone that needs to tell everyone they're not anti-gun solicits that information all their own because of the perception they themselves projected. Invariably they give a thousand and one reasons why guns need to go and find no compelling reasons to own a gun, but insert that small claim that is often backed up by some personal anecdote that means nothing to the rest of the debaters.
I'm not saying that you're doing that, but your concession got me thinking about how anti-gun people claim not to be anti-gun. It's a lot like the homophobic crowd. "I don't hate gay people," right after giving a hundred and one reasons they despise gay people.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2010 5:28 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 10:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 66 of 218 (550791)
03-18-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
03-18-2010 7:27 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
What other right would it include, but for protection?
Read the constitution.
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Again, classic Hyro. Misrepresent, attack, obfuscate.
Because I do not agree with you, I am anti-gun. Classic. I have never made any argument for the banning of guns. All I have ever argued for is the stronger regulation of guns. Regulation is not infringement.
So the people that support gun control regulations are the same as homophobes. We might have to have a corollary to Godwin's Law. Call it the Hyro corollary. Have you brought up Nazi's or Hitler yet in this thread? You always do so I think now is about the right time.
Don't you think it is a perversion of justice, that if the police catch someone breaking into your house the following happens. They arrest them, they go on trial and if convicted the spend time in prison. But if you catch them breaking in, you want to be judge, jury and executioner. All for what? A thousand dollar stereo, a thousand dollar tv. This isn't exercising your rights. It is vigilantism, mob rule.
Everyone that needs to tell everyone they're not anti-gun solicits that information all their own because of the perception they themselves projected. Invariably they give a thousand and one reasons why guns need to go and find no compelling reasons to own a gun, but insert that small claim that is often backed up by some personal anecdote that means nothing to the rest of the debaters.
I didn't know we had a practicing psychologist here. Don't you dare tell me what my motivations are or what I am thinking or "projecting". I know much more about guns they you think I do. So since you don't even know me, how about you just quit with trying to tell me my motivations.
AND PLEASE.
Could you stop with the personal attacks. It is rude and makes you look petty. But if that is all you have got I guess you got to go with it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-18-2010 7:27 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 03-18-2010 12:57 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-19-2010 7:52 PM Theodoric has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 67 of 218 (550807)
03-18-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Have you brought up Nazi's or Hitler yet in this thread?
Right off the bat, Message 6.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 10:48 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 1:31 PM onifre has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 68 of 218 (550814)
03-18-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by onifre
03-18-2010 12:57 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Well if you look at all the gun control threads, you can see he is batting .1000.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 03-18-2010 12:57 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 218 (550934)
03-19-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Read the constitution.
quote:
:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
I notice you conveniently left out the most important section.
I have never made any argument for the banning of guns. All I have ever argued for is the stronger regulation of guns. Regulation is not infringement.
Give some specific examples of what stricter gun laws you'd like to see.
Don't you think it is a perversion of justice, that if the police catch someone breaking into your house the following happens. They arrest them, they go on trial and if convicted the spend time in prison. But if you catch them breaking in, you want to be judge, jury and executioner. All for what? A thousand dollar stereo, a thousand dollar tv. This isn't exercising your rights. It is vigilantism, mob rule.
It's "vigilantism" to protect yourself in your own home?!?!
Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."
If you are not anti-gun, what reason do you want to allow for weapons if not for self-defense? It seems odd to me that you have no contention with shooting defenseless squirrels off your porch, but appear indignant by the notion of actually defending yourself against a murderer, rapist, or thief.
I know much more about guns they you think I do. So since you don't even know me, how about you just quit with trying to tell me my motivations.
I can only know what you share. If you don't want to be misunderstood then my suggestion is that you don't misrepresent yourself.
Could you stop with the personal attacks. It is rude and makes you look petty. But if that is all you have got I guess you got to go with it.
Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black. Let's see Theo, you fabricated everything about an earlier discussion. I tried to clear the air and be very courteous to you. You chose instead to have acted like a menstruating teenager that day and clearly was picking a fight with me. Don't poke people if you don't want them to poke back.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 10:48 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 8:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2010 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 4:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 4:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 70 of 218 (550935)
03-19-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
03-19-2010 7:52 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Hyroglyphx writes:
It's "vigilantism" to protect yourself in your own home?!?!
Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."
If you are not anti-gun, what reason do you want to allow for weapons if not for self-defense? It seems odd to me that you have no contention with shooting defenseless squirrels off your porch, but appear indignant by the notion of actually defending yourself against a murderer, rapist, or thief.
Totally agree. If there is any place where an American citizen should be allowed to protect themselves at all costs it's in their own home. This shouldn't even debated. No one should have to make the judgment as to whether the intruder is going to just steal a stereo or slaughter his family. Ya, a car might be one thing, but at home at night....in your bed with the kids across the hall and someone enters that privacy....sorry, they won't be leaving.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-19-2010 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2010 10:25 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 218 (550940)
03-19-2010 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
03-19-2010 7:52 PM


The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution.
Yes, Hyroglyphx, it is vigilantism, plus run-away paranoia.
It's "vigilantism" to protect yourself in your own home?!?!
Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."
If you are not anti-gun, what reason do you want to allow for weapons if not for self-defense? It seems odd to me that you have no contention with shooting defenseless squirrels off your porch, but appear indignant by the notion of actually defending yourself against a murderer, rapist, or thief.
Because you have decided that when someone crosses your threshold uninvited that they have incurred the death penalty with no appeal.
You have assumed that they intend you harm and willingly render judgment based on your most abject paranoid fear/s.
I don't have a gun, I don't see any need to have a gun.
I notice you conveniently left out the most important section.
Penn & Teller? Masters of the slight of hand? The argument from incredulity is all they have.
You cannot escape the fact that "the right to bear arms" is indeed a subjugate phrase to the formation of a well organized militia - an organization that is mentioned elsewhere in the constitution, where the operation is left to the individual states, one of the places of division of duties between the federal government and the states.
Interestingly, one of the duties of the state run militias is the suppression of insurrections, and curiously "the people" are not mentioned as having any duty in this regard at all ...
quote:
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Curiously, a bunch of people running around waving guns does not make a militia, nor a court of law, nor does it enforce the constitution or any other laws, but it does make a vigilante mob.
Interestingly, "the people" are not called upon to enforce the laws of the nation, while the militia is -- spelled out in no uncertain terms: "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union" -- and thus, as it is not a duty of the people, but one of the militia, then when you take on this task you are engaging in vigilante justice, not law and order.
Fascinatingly, the constitution is very explicit about training and provisioning of the militias and their use to enforce law and order when necessary, rather than a federal agency.
This is the division of power to prevent one oversurping the other.
The founders just fought a war where it became very clear that only by forming into a well organized militia would they be able to win the war, it was not fought by individuals running around waving guns doing whatever they individually wanted to do.
Let's not try to pretend that history was different than what really happened.
Let's not try to pretend the constitution says something that is not in the words and is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the history.
There is no provision for individual people to enforce the laws of the nation, or to take on the mantle of judge and jury.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-19-2010 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 10:16 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-20-2010 9:02 AM RAZD has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 72 of 218 (550950)
03-19-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
03-19-2010 9:09 PM


Re: The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution.
I'd rather be tried by 12, then carried by 6.
You can decide for yourself, I know what I would and will do if I wake up and there is an intruder in my house. I will not leave it up to a jury to try the fellow who decided to invade my home.
What you are saying, is that in no case has anyone had their kid snatched in the night from their own home??? What about the girl in Utah? Would they had been justified in shooting him? Do you have to wait until the guy is out the door with your kid? On top of your wife? It's not up for a jury to decide this! It's up to you, as the man of the house to decide this. I would hope to God, or whatever you hope to, that you wouldn't let this happen...but it sounds like you would.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2010 9:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2010 11:01 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 218 (550958)
03-19-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Flyer75
03-19-2010 10:16 PM


Re: The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution.
Hi Flyer75, just as I said, paranoid ... you are "protecting" yourself from your paranoid fantasies.
It's not up for a jury to decide this!
Yes it is up to a jury to decide, as that is how civilized people enforce justice, not at the point of a gun.
It is also a duty of civic government to protect the people, not to mop the blood afterward.
Curiously, statistics have shown that there are more "girls in utah" that are killed by guns every year than are killed by people that society should take care of before they kill people, and which society has been by and large capable of doing.
Guns don't solve the problem of people doing these things, they just give you a personal excuse for avoiding the issue of the causes of thefts etc.
The constitution does not give you the right to be executioner, and there are many cases where people have been justly convicted of wrongful death when guns have been used.
You have no constitutional right to be judge and jury and executioner.
That is for a court of law.
Guns can be used for self-defense, however this does not entail shooting anyone that just happens to be inside your house.
Two points from history that you may have heard about:
(1) John Brown
(2) The Civil War
Notice that in neither case were the people called upon to enforce the laws of the union nor to suppress the rebellions.
In both cases state militias were used.
Did John Brown's "right to bear arms" give him the right to try to impose his idea of law and justice on the nation?
Did the "right to bear arms" give the south the right to rise up and succeed from the union?
Does the "right to bear arms" include the rights of home-grown terrorist groups to plot against the US government and people of the US?
Not in my opinion.
The right to bear arms does not give you the right to blast away whenever you feel like it, rather it gives you the responsibility to use any arms in your possession in accordance with all laws and regulations and to be responsible in your actions, and not to take the law into your hands.
I repeat, I do not own a gun. I also have not experienced any need to have owned a gun, nor do I have any friends that have had any such experiences.
When I weigh the pros and the cons, the adverse effects and statistical results of gun ownership come out worse than the benefits and statistical results of gun ownership.
I expect anyone replying to me on this thread to have read my posts on Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control, and not repeat false arguments.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added link at end

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 10:16 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 74 of 218 (550980)
03-20-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
03-19-2010 7:52 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
do you realize penn and teller are comedians?
It's "vigilantism" to protect yourself in your own home?!?!
If it means just killin people , than yes its.
Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."
Yes I do
If you think killing people willy nilly than yes.If you are
Yes I do not anti-gun, what reason do you want to allow for weapons if not for self-defense? It seems odd to me that you have no contention with shooting defenseless squirrels off your porch, but appear indignant by the notion of actually defending yourself against a murderer, rapist, or thief.
Have you ever had to shoot a human being? or do you just fantasize about about it?
Let's see Theo, you fabricated everything about an earlier discussion
Fabricated? Why don't you show the fabrication. You are real good pretending things but not good at showing reality. Show me how things are fabricated.
You chose instead to have acted like a menstruating teenager that day and clearly was picking a fight with me. Don't poke people if you don't want them to poke back.
How classic. Menstruating teenager.
You chose instead to have acted like a menstruating teenager that day and clearly was picking a fight with me
Are you 14 years old? Wow good to see you cant really discuss the issue. I was willing t show you my real world experience with guns and you come up with menstruation? Do you have any real world relationship with real women?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-19-2010 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-20-2010 9:40 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 75 of 218 (550985)
03-20-2010 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
03-19-2010 7:52 PM


What shooting game to you want to play?
Longest? How many meters?
What target?
You willing to kill?
For what?
Have you killed?
Or are you a tough talking pussy?
Sorry if I am offensive here. but certain people make me very mad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-19-2010 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-20-2010 9:49 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024