DeletedUser
They are on about changing the law on hunting Croc's again aint they? Too many and more accidents?
They are on about changing the law on hunting Croc's again aint they? Too many and more accidents?
DeletedUser
As I said, here in Australia sports shooters can get exemptions from the laws so anyone with a legitimate purpose for having any particular type of gun can still get one.
Apart from that quibble, you basically made my case from the other side. The US has a cultural problem, not a gun control problem. But having said that, some sensible, federal gun control laws in the US might be a good idea, if only for sending a cultural messsage.
I am not anti-gun. (Well, maybe I am because looking at them in real life actually turns my stomach, but in terms of politics I am not anti-gun.) I am just practical.
And for all those who suggest that a gun will protect you from criminals with guns, well, Hellstromm has already made some points on that but let's just say it is a load of rubbish.
DeletedUser
Like you mentioned it is not the guns that is the problem Canada for example have allmost as many guns as USA but something is different there.
But what USA has got that other countries lack is the bill of rights that no goverment can change.
And what is to stop them from whitdrawing other rights if they start to take away there right to keep bear arms ?
I think it is a wery good thing that they have a sacred bill of rights that no one can change and it is not to be tampered with in any way !
It has allready gone to far with the patriot act
now i do not know every fact about that but from the little i do know it goes to far.
They did not put the second amendment there just becauce the founding fathers liked to hunt it is there for a reason.
And that is that the sitizens shuld allways have the possibility to by force overtrow a opressive goverment if needed.
What history has thought us
Is that we do not learn anything from ouer past misstakes.
And when some goverment somwhere starts to think it is a good thing to start killing some ethnic group.
It is a good thing if they at least have the possibility to resist genocide.
Because the army will sure as hell not protect them then it is the opposite.
Peapole in general tend to think that sutch a think can not happen
But still it has happend over and over again not even a long time ago !
There was some reason they started bombing in Serbia what was it 1999 ?
When they started to execute muslims in Kossovo.
10 years ago i do not think humanity has evolved so mutch in one decade that we can say that can not happen again it might as well be some other minoroty anywhere else.
It may be a losing battle without outside help but at least they get the chance to die fighting and not just be executed.
It is better to have weapons and not need them
than to need them and not have them.
But what USA has got that other countries lack is the bill of rights that no goverment can change.
And what is to stop them from whitdrawing other rights if they start to take away there right to keep bear arms ?
I think it is a wery good thing that they have a sacred bill of rights that no one can change and it is not to be tampered with in any way !
It has allready gone to far with the patriot act
now i do not know every fact about that but from the little i do know it goes to far.
They did not put the second amendment there just becauce the founding fathers liked to hunt it is there for a reason.
And that is that the sitizens shuld allways have the possibility to by force overtrow a opressive goverment if needed.
What history has thought us
Is that we do not learn anything from ouer past misstakes.
And when some goverment somwhere starts to think it is a good thing to start killing some ethnic group.
It is a good thing if they at least have the possibility to resist genocide.
Because the army will sure as hell not protect them then it is the opposite.
Peapole in general tend to think that sutch a think can not happen
But still it has happend over and over again not even a long time ago !
There was some reason they started bombing in Serbia what was it 1999 ?
When they started to execute muslims in Kossovo.
10 years ago i do not think humanity has evolved so mutch in one decade that we can say that can not happen again it might as well be some other minoroty anywhere else.
It may be a losing battle without outside help but at least they get the chance to die fighting and not just be executed.
It is better to have weapons and not need them
than to need them and not have them.
DeletedUser
I most definitely agree with this statement, however, personally I believe that whether you have weapons or not is irrelevant here.
You could just as easily state: It is better to not need weapons than to need them.
Just as true regardless of whether you have weapons or not!
DeletedUser
another great example of a person who outlawed guns from the general public was Hitler and look what he did to the Jews
DeletedUser
Originally Posted by Below me
It is better to have weapons and not need them
than to need them and not have them.
Hmm, that statement sounds like it is true, logically. But it is entirely irrelevant in terms of reality. A populace moved to the point of overthrowing their government can do so with sticks and stones. Or if they are up against a contemporary national military force, they have little hope of winning without outside support. Or, as is the case for most of us here, they could just, you know... Vote.
DeletedUser
Sure but the senarios i painted up we are way past woting.
But well equipped they can mabyee buy enough time for outside forces to join in and help them out.
I myself is part of the swedish speking minority of Finland and we number barly about 350 000 out of 5 500 000 residents.
I guess it is fair to say we can not dominate the politics here with those numbers we have to use ouer wotes tho to make sure the goverment does not cut funding for all ouer interests tho.
The majoritys interest comes first. But then that is the way it shuld be anyway.
Now ( thank god ) times change and nowadays the relationships inbetvine us and the majority finns are wery good.
Todays teenagers no longer need to engage in fistfights every other weekend.
I myself have had to physicaly fight several times for my right just to exist for no other reason than speaking the wrong language.
Now it never went further than black eyes and a few broken noses and so.
But i can relate to the places where genocide has taken place.
If one is willing to beat up somone else for no other reason than that they speak the wrong language.
The step to go even further is not that big if the goverment sayes it is ok or even encorauges it.
And shuld that happen it might be a long time to the next election
But well equipped they can mabyee buy enough time for outside forces to join in and help them out.
I myself is part of the swedish speking minority of Finland and we number barly about 350 000 out of 5 500 000 residents.
I guess it is fair to say we can not dominate the politics here with those numbers we have to use ouer wotes tho to make sure the goverment does not cut funding for all ouer interests tho.
The majoritys interest comes first. But then that is the way it shuld be anyway.
Now ( thank god ) times change and nowadays the relationships inbetvine us and the majority finns are wery good.
Todays teenagers no longer need to engage in fistfights every other weekend.
I myself have had to physicaly fight several times for my right just to exist for no other reason than speaking the wrong language.
Now it never went further than black eyes and a few broken noses and so.
But i can relate to the places where genocide has taken place.
If one is willing to beat up somone else for no other reason than that they speak the wrong language.
The step to go even further is not that big if the goverment sayes it is ok or even encorauges it.
And shuld that happen it might be a long time to the next election
DeletedUser
The Bill Of Rights can be changed.
Slippery Slope Fallacy.
I think you need to brush up on the constitution, a bit...
And hunting has absolutely nothing to do with hand guns, for example...
Iraqis under Saddam had the right to own 1 AK-47 per household...yet, they still lived under an oppressive government, right?
The simple fact is that the government of the US isn't going to be overthrown with guns. You're going to need nukes. Are you advocating personal nukes for the citizens?
Statistics of gun accidents, suicides, etc...seem to indicate otherwise.
DeletedUser
Hitler was also a vegetarian. Let's use our guns to shoot all non-meat-eaters!
DeletedUser
Yes i do need to brush up on the constitution but not really
it does not apply to me since i am not an american citizen but i will be the first to admit that there is plenty i do not know about that.
And you sayed handguns has nothing to do with hunting !
That is false even tho hunting with handguns is banned in most places i know that in USA it is legal at least in some states.
And allso do hunting with a .22 cal revolver when i put trapped small game to sleep after trapping them.
Wilde life manegment ??? when they sometimes get decises that needs to be stopped from spredding i do not usually trap otherwise.
And here my english is not enough to know the english names sorry but i hope you get my point
But going down an animal den underground is impossible with a long gun
if one hunts that way it is dirty but fun.
And no just because a goverment allows its sitizens to own an AK dos not mean they are not oppressive.
That is not a big issue at all actually
It is like sex it is not that important untill you aint getting any.
And speaking of Hitler facinating man
Have you read Mein Kampf ?
That man would have done allot of good for this world with his talents to get things done.
If he only had not blamed everything that was wrong in society on the jews.
Now it went the other way and he turned out to become one of the most evil men in history
it does not apply to me since i am not an american citizen but i will be the first to admit that there is plenty i do not know about that.
And you sayed handguns has nothing to do with hunting !
That is false even tho hunting with handguns is banned in most places i know that in USA it is legal at least in some states.
And allso do hunting with a .22 cal revolver when i put trapped small game to sleep after trapping them.
Wilde life manegment ??? when they sometimes get decises that needs to be stopped from spredding i do not usually trap otherwise.
And here my english is not enough to know the english names sorry but i hope you get my point
But going down an animal den underground is impossible with a long gun
if one hunts that way it is dirty
but fun.And no just because a goverment allows its sitizens to own an AK dos not mean they are not oppressive.
That is not a big issue at all actually
It is like sex it is not that important untill you aint getting any.
And speaking of Hitler facinating man
Have you read Mein Kampf ?
That man would have done allot of good for this world with his talents to get things done.
If he only had not blamed everything that was wrong in society on the jews.
Now it went the other way and he turned out to become one of the most evil men in history
DeletedUser
I was with you right up until you said that Mein Kampf proved that Hitler would have been a benifit to society. That book is the extremists handbook for wiping out the Jewish people. What's next, saying that Sadams gassing of his own citizens benifited Iraq because it opened up a new housing development sector?
DeletedUser
Naa don`t get me wrong here i did not say i think i agreed with what he did.
And it is nothing more than a self biography written by a madman.
He only describes his thoughts and as we all know his thoughts on how it shuld be was not a great thing.
And it beeing a handbook on how to wipe out the jews i don`t agree with that.
Its his lifes biography but then his life came to be about genocide so that part is sertanly there.
But surley the rightwing extremists neo natzis probably has it like some kind of bible just because of who wrote it.
I read several other self biographys by other men i even read the bible and the koran just because i find it interesting to try to understand how religius fanatics think. And that does not mean i agree with what is written in them !
( has not gotten mutch whiser tho i might add )
Im just saying that he had the skills to acomplish anything good or bad.
If he where a good man he would have done great things for sociaty but he was not and there by bad things happened.
And it is nothing more than a self biography written by a madman.
He only describes his thoughts and as we all know his thoughts on how it shuld be was not a great thing.
And it beeing a handbook on how to wipe out the jews i don`t agree with that.
Its his lifes biography but then his life came to be about genocide so that part is sertanly there.
But surley the rightwing extremists neo natzis probably has it like some kind of bible just because of who wrote it.
I read several other self biographys by other men i even read the bible and the koran just because i find it interesting to try to understand how religius fanatics think. And that does not mean i agree with what is written in them !
( has not gotten mutch whiser tho i might add )
Im just saying that he had the skills to acomplish anything good or bad.
If he where a good man he would have done great things for sociaty but he was not and there by bad things happened.
DeletedUser
The USSR makes Germans look like little kids on the block. They massacred more than 60 million of their own people over a longer period of time. It is arguable that this number is 120 million people, The Nazi threat was large for its time, but the USSR was a whole other story. Hitler was an idiot, he wrote his BS down in Mein Kampf, and he felt the need to make blonde people better than everyone else, It kind of backfired on him and left him sitting on the curb sucking his thumb. As for the Commies, they are pretty much ignored by American educators throughout the country. Why>?<
The reason is under many conspiracys, you have to decide for yourself.
The reason is under many conspiracys, you have to decide for yourself.
DeletedUser
What about if you are in a public place and there's a shooting? If somebody is carrying a loaded gun on them they could take it out and fire back. In a house there's the problem of not having one available in any moment, but it could protect you from a mass murderer.
DeletedUser
In the martial arts there's a standing comment about, "what ifs."
What ifs don't happen. They don't happen because you can never prepare for something, you can never be ready to deal with an unexpected, exceedingly rare, event. What if someone grabs you like this, hits you like that, pulls out a knife, etc and so on.
There are no what ifs that you can prepare for, and there are no logical routes to take with the notion you can carry a weapon that would provide you the opportunity to use it in a what if situation. Once you are carrying a weapon, the what if changes, and the person may very well shoot you before you get a chance to even realize there's a threat. That's what they do to security guards, take them out first.
The idea of being ready for a situation, that carrying a loaded weapon will somehow provide you the opportunity to be a hero, is a pipe dream, it's unrealistic. Whatever the situation you may have faced when unarmed, it will change once you demonstrate a weapon.
The solution to dealing with any possible threat, is to not place yourself in a position where such a threat could exist. And while there is no 100% safe route in life, you can get pretty damn close to it. The problem is, if someone wants to be a hero, he's going to take unnecessary risks, and may very well endanger the lives of others. Pulling out a gun, using your martial arts, these are actions that result in escalating a situation, increasing the likelihood of converting a potential threat into a kinetic one.
But, more important than any of this --- it is far more likely you will shoot your foot, shoot your wife, shoot your neighbor's dog, or have your child shoot herself, than it is you will encounter a mass murderer.
What ifs don't happen. They don't happen because you can never prepare for something, you can never be ready to deal with an unexpected, exceedingly rare, event. What if someone grabs you like this, hits you like that, pulls out a knife, etc and so on.
There are no what ifs that you can prepare for, and there are no logical routes to take with the notion you can carry a weapon that would provide you the opportunity to use it in a what if situation. Once you are carrying a weapon, the what if changes, and the person may very well shoot you before you get a chance to even realize there's a threat. That's what they do to security guards, take them out first.
The idea of being ready for a situation, that carrying a loaded weapon will somehow provide you the opportunity to be a hero, is a pipe dream, it's unrealistic. Whatever the situation you may have faced when unarmed, it will change once you demonstrate a weapon.
The solution to dealing with any possible threat, is to not place yourself in a position where such a threat could exist. And while there is no 100% safe route in life, you can get pretty damn close to it. The problem is, if someone wants to be a hero, he's going to take unnecessary risks, and may very well endanger the lives of others. Pulling out a gun, using your martial arts, these are actions that result in escalating a situation, increasing the likelihood of converting a potential threat into a kinetic one.
But, more important than any of this --- it is far more likely you will shoot your foot, shoot your wife, shoot your neighbor's dog, or have your child shoot herself, than it is you will encounter a mass murderer.
DeletedUser
The pun has been mentioned before, but I still think this t-shirt pic is funny.
DeletedUser
Political rights and freedoms are only secured through the exercise of power. Inherent in these rights is the necessity of defending said gained rights. What it really comes down to is whether or not you trust your government.
The United States Constitution exhibits implicit distrust in the State. The group of men known as the 'Founding Fathers' were of the opinion that regardless of the character of a man when he enters politics, he will invariably be corrupted to a degree. Thus, the USA have a checks-and-balances system, wherein the three branches of the federal government have limited decision-making powers and limited veto powers over the other two branches.
They went beyond self-regulation, however, and included the ultimate fail-safe into the very wording of the Constitution. While people who are in political unrest will revolt as they see fit, the USA has the only national government where you have a right to rebel explicitly stated;
"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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The Declaration of Independence was written by British citizens in America who were well aware of the UK monarchy's history of controlling power among its citizens by the confiscation of weapons.
“Weapons are the tools of power. In the hands of the state, they can be the tools of decency or the tools of oppression, depending on the righteousness of that state. In the hands of criminals, they are the tools of evil. In the hands of the free and decent citizen, they should be the tools of liberty. Weapons compound man’s power to achieve whatever purpose he may have. They amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus, we must regard them as servants, not masters – and good servants of good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” Col. Jeff Cooper
While I would whole-heartedly agree that proper training (free training, since it is a Constitutional right) should be requisite of firearms ownership to avoid the kind of situations you described, your logic that a political freedom is less valuable because it can be misapplied is not universal.
Should we ban free speech because people commit slander and libel? Should we ban freedom of the press because of trashy and destructive tabloid magazines? Should we ban freedom of religion because there are kooky brainwash cults? Should we ban freedom of assembly because of hate-group gatherings?
The vast majority of firearms owners are mature, responsible, civic-minded individuals who obey the law and respect the rights of their neighbors. An armed society is a polite society.
For proof, just look at how gun crime has sky-rocketed in Britain after they banned handguns. The only victims of gun control are the people who need to defend themselves.
The United States Constitution exhibits implicit distrust in the State. The group of men known as the 'Founding Fathers' were of the opinion that regardless of the character of a man when he enters politics, he will invariably be corrupted to a degree. Thus, the USA have a checks-and-balances system, wherein the three branches of the federal government have limited decision-making powers and limited veto powers over the other two branches.
They went beyond self-regulation, however, and included the ultimate fail-safe into the very wording of the Constitution. While people who are in political unrest will revolt as they see fit, the USA has the only national government where you have a right to rebel explicitly stated;
"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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The Declaration of Independence was written by British citizens in America who were well aware of the UK monarchy's history of controlling power among its citizens by the confiscation of weapons.
“Weapons are the tools of power. In the hands of the state, they can be the tools of decency or the tools of oppression, depending on the righteousness of that state. In the hands of criminals, they are the tools of evil. In the hands of the free and decent citizen, they should be the tools of liberty. Weapons compound man’s power to achieve whatever purpose he may have. They amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus, we must regard them as servants, not masters – and good servants of good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” Col. Jeff Cooper
While I would whole-heartedly agree that proper training (free training, since it is a Constitutional right) should be requisite of firearms ownership to avoid the kind of situations you described, your logic that a political freedom is less valuable because it can be misapplied is not universal.
Should we ban free speech because people commit slander and libel? Should we ban freedom of the press because of trashy and destructive tabloid magazines? Should we ban freedom of religion because there are kooky brainwash cults? Should we ban freedom of assembly because of hate-group gatherings?
The vast majority of firearms owners are mature, responsible, civic-minded individuals who obey the law and respect the rights of their neighbors. An armed society is a polite society.
For proof, just look at how gun crime has sky-rocketed in Britain after they banned handguns. The only victims of gun control are the people who need to defend themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Ah, I never participated in the debate of gun ownership constitutionality, only on the misapplication of beliefs associated with that constitutionality. It was entered into the Constitution for the citizens to be able to protect themselves against our own government, not for vigilantism or personal security. It is not the government that is motivating these people to place an armed weapon in their dresser drawer, it is media hype feeding upon personal insecurities.
Also, the inclusion of these arguments in the Constitution did not take into account that weapons would evolve into grossly lethal devices. So, while the intent was noble, the lack of a failsafe would have reached a point where a person could arm themselves with nuclear devices, on the argument they are protecting themselves from an equally armed, potentially lethal, government.
So while I have no issues with people owning weapons, it is with moderation and honesty, not rationalization and media-induced paranoia. Indeed, during Bush's tenure, I must admit having considered partaking in a revolution. It is well and good our government is not yet so corrupt as to foster totalitarianism over republic.
Also, the inclusion of these arguments in the Constitution did not take into account that weapons would evolve into grossly lethal devices. So, while the intent was noble, the lack of a failsafe would have reached a point where a person could arm themselves with nuclear devices, on the argument they are protecting themselves from an equally armed, potentially lethal, government.
So while I have no issues with people owning weapons, it is with moderation and honesty, not rationalization and media-induced paranoia. Indeed, during Bush's tenure, I must admit having considered partaking in a revolution. It is well and good our government is not yet so corrupt as to foster totalitarianism over republic.
DeletedUser
As Hellstromm said, this argument really doesn't work. People aren't going to overthrow the US government with guns. It didn't work at Waco, and it's not going to work across the country... To be able to overthrow a government that owns WMDs, you must also have WMDs. The most effective way to ensure this "right", therefore, is to allow people the ability to own personal nukes...
You seem to forget that slander and libel are illegal, tabloid magazines are regularly sued, kooky brainwash cults are tracked and regularly shut down if they go too far, and hate groups are similarly tracked and their permits to be able to express their freedom of speech are regularly denied.
It sounds to me that there are many limits on freedom of speech, even if the "right" in itself is not fully denied.
I take it, therefore, that you are an advocate of gun control, but not banning outright of all guns. Good! We are on the same page.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
In any event, please see the crime rate of Texas which has very lax gun control laws.
Because a gun in the hands of a "good" person is never a danger to that person or other innocent people...
DeletedUser
Actually, the problem in the UK is knife crime, not gun crime.
http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm
http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm