The Second Amendment

[Grave_n_idle]

There are no sacred rights. It's what people like you tell yourself to try to create a web of excuses to protect the way YOU want things to be.

It's cute, but it's meaningless.

I would have to disagree there, although that is a cool pic, I believe there are some sacred rights, such as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

However, how guns fit into that is another matter...

Those rights are granted to us by our societies. They are only 'sacred' in as much as they can hold special meaning - they certainly aren't inalienable or intrinsic.

[Galloism]

I also think the notion that you need a gun to "defend yourself" is a folly. To me, it just really means you don't trust the police to handle problems, and I'll agree, defense is a problem. That's not the fault of the government, but ours, as we think we have explicit rights to anything not banned. The US, being one of the safest nations in the world, has the most guns per 100 people BY FAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _ownership).

So, it's not the fault of the government that I live in a major metropolitan area with an average emergency police response time of 17 minutes? You know, in 17 minutes, I could be dead, and so could every neighbor around me. I find it absolutely lovely that you trust the police with your defense, but the police can't be everywhere at once, and our police departments are sorely understaffed. So, if you believe in the police department to defend you, either you live in a really quiet town, or you have bought some delusion about the police being everywhere. Either way, it's folly.

Our notion of absolute freedom also leads to less safety. If we banned on guns, yes, criminals could still get them, but tracking and controlling them would be easier.

[Citation needed]

How's that working against the drug trade?

[Grave_n_idle]

very true, rights are indeed ideas and are not trully natural. However, freedom is natural and limits on that freedom are either agreed upon or imposed, as to which takes place depends on the interactions of the persons involved.

Which is where the idea of the 'social contract' comes in. Those rights are agreed upon and the limits defined, by our reactions with our social model, because that is the ultimate arbiter of those 'rights'.

[Rhodmhire]

Either people, police/military, and criminals have weapons, or police/military and criminals have weapons.

I think the public should be armed. Laws aren't going to stop people who break laws.

[Grave_n_idle]

I trust an armed populace more than I trust an armed police and military.

I am a pacifist by conviction, but I doubt the populace will survive oppression once we are disarmed.

That, I am convinced, was why the amendment was passed in the first place. People still recalled the depredations of the British.

Curious that you mention the Bristish, which seems to have a population that seems to have survived without noticable oppression, despite being disarmed.

That was almost like bringing your own kryptonite to the party...

[Grave_n_idle]

Either people, police/military, and criminals have weapons, or police/military and criminals have weapons.

I think the public should be armed. Laws aren't going to stop people who break laws.

And neither will arming them...

[Rhodmhire]

Either people, police/military, and criminals have weapons, or police/military and criminals have weapons.

I think the public should be armed. Laws aren't going to stop people who break laws.

And neither will arming them...

You're right. Arming criminals won't stop criminals, and making laws to stop criminals won't stop criminals.

Therefore I don't see why we should make the people unarmed and virtually powerless, in a futile attempt to stop those who can often only be stopped by a force we can either allow the people to have, or entrust it all in our police forces which are far from perfect.

I'd rather be able to defend my own life than put it in the hands of the police. It's a risk I shouldn't have to take.

I should also add the fact that illegal dealing of guns, and pretty much anything made illegal that doesn't have to be...alcohol or drugs for example...continues when laws banning said substances, weapons, and so on are implied. So no matter what, they are still being armed.

[United Dependencies]

No, I don't see the appeal in hunting or target shooting. I don't see the logic in having a gun to protect yourself.

Well, if you can own a gun, a criminal can too, and generally criminals will be apprehending you, not the other way 'round.... preferably from an angle wherein you can't turn to shoot them without getting shot yourself, if they intend to stay alive. A gun will do you as much good as a knife, or a taser, or a chemical spray, or a slingshot for that matter: very little. In fact, the only circumstances I can imagine a criminal actually being shot to death by a potential victim are circumstances in which the criminal is being criminally stupid.

Admittedly that does happen fairly often, but not really often enough to justify getting a gun as opposed to some other kind of weapon, attack dog, etc.

Guns make some feel safer though.

[Grave_n_idle]

Either people, police/military, and criminals have weapons, or police/military and criminals have weapons.

I think the public should be armed. Laws aren't going to stop people who break laws.

And neither will arming them...

You're right. Arming criminals won't stop criminals, and making laws to stop criminals won't stop criminals.

Therefore I don't see why we should make the people unarmed and virtually powerless, in a futile attempt to stop those who can often only be stopped by a force we can either allow the people to have, or entrust it all in our police forces which are far from perfect.

I'd rather be able to defend my own life than put it in the hands of the police. It's a risk I shouldn't have to take.

I should also add the fact that illegal dealing of guns, and pretty much anything made illegal that doesn't have to be...alcohol or drugs for example...continues when laws banning said substances, weapons, and so on are implied. So no matter what, they are still being armed.

Ah, but most crime is crime-of-opportunity. The less easy access there is to guns, the less opportunity.

[Pope Joan]

I trust an armed populace more than I trust an armed police and military.

A police and military made of the people? Why not just rebel now? If you don't trust the police, why bother following laws?

Almost everyone trusts the police, the military, the government, until it does something they don't agree with. Then they're rights are being trampled and they need defense against them.

Many people mistrust police, and with good reason.

If you don't, you must be a privileged and suburbanite.

"Blacks are far more likely than whites to see police brutality as widespread and to distrust police overall. In fact, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of whites express confidence in police to not use excessive force on suspects, compared with just 38 percent of blacks"
http://www.publicagenda.org/blogs/phila ... -videotape

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 71,1059938

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/A ... ?id=248466

http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/Communi ... strust.htm

http://www.kdbc.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... =menu608_2

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:J6w ... =firefox-a

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009 ... uits74340/

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:_dX ... =firefox-a

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/cr ... shoot.html

http://club.hbcuconnect.com/cgi-bin/blo ... 7&reading=

[Enadail]

So, it's not the fault of the government that I live in a major metropolitan area with an average emergency police response time of 17 minutes? You know, in 17 minutes, I could be dead, and so could every neighbor around me. I find it absolutely lovely that you trust the police with your defense, but the police can't be everywhere at once, and our police departments are sorely understaffed. So, if you believe in the police department to defend you, either you live in a really quiet town, or you have bought some delusion about the police being everywhere. Either way, it's folly.

Its a good thing you picked up that part of my statement and none of the rest. I don't live in a small place, but in 18 years in the same place, I've had a handful of petty crimes in the area, in part I believe because of the people. I don't think its the governments fault we have crime... I think its the peoples fault for expecting everything. Like I also said, defense is a problem. But I disagree that its the governments lack of response that is causing crime... I believe its our selfish attitudes. Europe has been increasing gun control in recent years, making the owners more responsible, and yet the crimes rates have been dropping.

Like I said, this is what I think. While I oppose people owning guns, I don't think it'll happen. So whats wrong with more restrictive control? I'm not saying you're right leaning, but the common argument is that the government should get out of the matter, yet at the same time, its important the government controls personal rights like abortion. Two faced much?

Again, as to this thread, I think the second amendment is outdated. I don't think our founding fathers ever expected people to be following the constitution to the word two hundred years later. I think they'd be proud of the amendments and mortified that people oppose updating it.

Our notion of absolute freedom also leads to less safety. If we banned on guns, yes, criminals could still get them, but tracking and controlling them would be easier.

[Citation needed]

How's that working against the drug trade?

The second sentence was not an absolute statement, but please, tell me this: which is easier to hide... a bag of pot or a handgun?

[Enadail]

Many people mistrust police, and with good reason.

If you don't, you must be a privileged and suburbanite.

<links>

Ah yes, why would people who've been abused by the police fear them... gee, of course its the police's fault, not racial discrimination that goes far beyond the police...

Please, you're connecting police discrimination with racial discrimination without considering that its not only the police. The difference between the common person and the police is that the police have a privileged authority, and so are MORE feared. But that doesn't mean I support what these officers do, nor do I think they did it because they were police. If a sexist engineer designs a device that is harder to use by people with smaller hands, then we look at the fact that on average, women have smaller hands then men, are we gonna say engineering is sexist and shouldn't be trusted? If its a case of numbers, what if it was a company that held this policy? No, we would say the people or the company are sexist. The industry is not anything because of a minority of actions.

And just because these people don't trust police doesn't mean they should be armed to defend themselves against the police. By being citizens of this country, we put our trust and faith in the hands of the government, by extension, the police, to do the right thing, and when things go wrong, we vote or petition or use other legal means to see our goals, and we use justice on our side. We don't arm ourselves and take the law upon ourselves. If every immigrant who was fearful of a cop had a gun, we'd just have more cop deaths, because fear makes people do stupid things.

[Galloism]

Its a good thing you picked up that part of my statement and none of the rest. I don't live in a small place, but in 18 years in the same place, I've had a handful of petty crimes in the area, in part I believe because of the people. I don't think its the governments fault we have crime... I think its the peoples fault for expecting everything. Like I also said, defense is a problem. But I disagree that its the governments lack of response that is causing crime... I believe its our selfish attitudes. Europe has been increasing gun control in recent years, making the owners more responsible, and yet the crimes rates have been dropping.

Crime rates have been dropping in the US too. I suggest you look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg

Like I said, this is what I think. While I oppose people owning guns, I don't think it'll happen. So whats wrong with more restrictive control? I'm not saying you're right leaning, but the common argument is that the government should get out of the matter, yet at the same time, its important the government controls personal rights like abortion. Two faced much?

Don't presume to assume my argument on abortion. I'm very much pro-choice, and not two-faced. That's a ridiculous assertion and I resent it.

Again, as to this thread, I think the second amendment is outdated. I don't think our founding fathers ever expected people to be following the constitution to the word two hundred years later. I think they'd be proud of the amendments and mortified that people oppose updating it.

Perhaps there may come a day when we don't need guns to defend ourselves, and that day I will stand with you. Today is not that day.

Our notion of absolute freedom also leads to less safety. If we banned on guns, yes, criminals could still get them, but tracking and controlling them would be easier.

[Citation needed]

How's that working against the drug trade?

The second sentence was not an absolute statement, but please, tell me this: which is easier to hide... a bag of pot or a hang un?

Depends. I saw a gun that weighed only 8oz once (with the clip removed) and could be concealed in the palm of your hand. The fucker even had a laser sight on it. However, I've seen a bag of pot that was as big as a bag of fertilizer.

So, really, it depends.

[Capricana]

very true, rights are indeed ideas and are not trully natural. However, freedom is natural and limits on that freedom are either agreed upon or imposed, as to which takes place depends on the interactions of the persons involved.

Which is where the idea of the 'social contract' comes in. Those rights are agreed upon and the limits defined, by our reactions with our social model, because that is the ultimate arbiter of those 'rights'.

To a degree, so long as people comply to the said social contract or at least a significant majority does.

[Big Jim P]

I demand my right to bear arms! Specifically this:

[Enadail]

Crime rates have been dropping in the US too. I suggest you look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg

I can't disagree, and again, I don't think that's because people have access to guns, but because of people in general. The lack of a correlation between gun control and lack of crime goes both ways... there is a lack of correlation between gun access and lack of crime.

Don't presume to assume my argument on abortion. I'm very much pro-choice, and not two-faced. That's a ridiculous assertion and I resent it.

I'm glad you read my statements and make random judgements. I said, very specifically because I didn't know your stance, that "I don't know if you're right leaning, BUT the common argument is..." If you're gonna take offense at something I say, at least make it when I direct an offense at you.

Perhaps there may come a day when we don't need guns to defend ourselves, and that day I will stand with you. Today is not that day.

And as I said more then a few times, I agree with that statement. But I think the idea that people can buy a combat shotgun or an assault rifle with little more difficultly then a hand gun absurd. What are you defending yourself against?

Depends. I saw a gun that weighed only 8oz once (with the clip removed) and could be concealed in the palm of your hand. The fucker even had a laser sight on it. However, I've seen a bag of pot that was as big as a bag of fertilizer.

So, really, it depends.

Sure, you can pick out small examples, but that's like saying we should ban blood transfusions because a few go wrong. The minority situations don't inform the majority.

Most of the time, a bag of drugs is easier to conceal then a weapon. Most guns are much larger then your palm and most are made of metal making them easier to detect. While its not the only way to carry in drugs, every ounce of drugs could be brought into the US by mules who've wrapped them in plastic and swallowed them. Are we gonna give x-ray or CT scans to everyone who crosses the border?

[Galloism]

Don't presume to assume my argument on abortion. I'm very much pro-choice, and not two-faced. That's a ridiculous assertion and I resent it.

I'm glad you read my statements and make random judgements. I said, very specifically because I didn't know your stance, that "I don't know if you're right leaning, BUT the common argument is..." If you're gonna take offense at something I say, at least make it when I direct an offense at you.

You asked me if I was "two-faced" much based on the assumption that I was anti-choice. I take offense at being insinuated as being two-faced without evidence.

Perhaps there may come a day when we don't need guns to defend ourselves, and that day I will stand with you. Today is not that day.

And as I said more then a few times, I agree with that statement. But I think the idea that people can buy a combat shotgun or an assault rifle with little more difficultly then a hand gun absurd. What are you defending yourself against?

Right now, being called two-faced.

Depends. I saw a gun that weighed only 8oz once (with the clip removed) and could be concealed in the palm of your hand. The fucker even had a laser sight on it. However, I've seen a bag of pot that was as big as a bag of fertilizer.

So, really, it depends.

Sure, you can pick out small examples, but that's like saying we should ban blood transfusions because a few go wrong. The minority situations don't inform the majority.

This doesn't even follow, not at all. Besides, much larger guns can be concealed in the trunk or glove compartment in a vehicle, or inside of a coat, and so on. The fact that guns are relatively small and very easily concealed blows a hole in the argument that guns will magically disappear if we ban them.

Most of the time, a bag of drugs is easier to conceal then a weapon. Most guns are much larger then your palm and most are made of metal making them easier to detect. While its not the only way to carry in drugs, every ounce of drugs could be brought into the US by mules who've wrapped them in plastic and swallowed them. Are we gonna give x-ray or CT scans to everyone who crosses the border?

Actually, given the advent of drug dogs, guns are easier to conceal than drugs by a long margin in any kind of a public space. Whereas a drug dog can take you through the middle of a crowd to a person who's carrying, a person carrying a gun could walk right through the crowd and no one suspect a thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, sacred inviolable rights.

I believe a wise philosopher once said:



There are no sacred rights. It's what people like you tell yourself to try to create a web of excuses to protect the way YOU want things to be.

It's cute, but it's meaningless.

Their are no rights that cannot ever be violated, but their are rights that should not ever be violated.

"I believe a wise philosopher once said:" is not a legitimate argument. Who is this philosopher? What makes this particular philosopher any more qualified to make such a pronouncement than any other philosopher in history? What makes his philosophy right?

I call Appeal to Authority. Despite not even naming the authority you're appealing to.

[Enadail]

I don't think we'll ever reach a middle ground on the drugs vs guns thing. I thought we were talking about smuggling, but somehow it became about carrying... and no offense, but I don't think you wanna bother reading what I wrote anyway, so lets go back and look at what I did write. The following is exactly what I wrote, and we'll break it down.

I'm not saying you're right leaning, but the common argument is that the government should get out of the matter, yet at the same time, its important the government controls personal rights like abortion. Two faced much?

First

I'm not saying you're right leaning

I think this means... I'm not saying you're right leaning.

but the common argument is that the government should get out of the matter, yet at the same time, its important the government controls personal rights like abortion.

I also believe the meaning of this is evident. The common argument from the right (as the previous part of the sentence established my subject was the right, which I implicitly stated I wasn't sure if you're part of) is the above.

Two faced much?

The conclusion drawn to the previous statement. When the previous statement talked about the view often raised by members of the right, which is inherently contradictory, I pointed out that it is two faced.

Now when I first established that I didn't know if you were right, then established the argument presented by the right, then ended with the hypocrisy of the statement, where in there did I call you two-faced?

[Grave_n_idle]

Their are no rights that cannot ever be violated, but their are rights that should not ever be violated.

Which is irrelevant. If there are inalienable rights, they can't be violated - if they can be violated (even if you don't think they should), they're not inalienable.

[Galloism]

Now when I first established that I didn't know if you were right, then established the argument presented by the right, then ended with the hypocrisy of the statement, where in there did I call you two-faced?

I read it, you predicated it with plenty of statements in the form of questions, insinuating something that I was not.

However, if you say you were saying that the general republican mantra was two-faced, instead of me, I'll accept it, and admit you weren't insulting me, and take back what I said.

You were building a strawman instead. My mistake.

[Enadail]

You were building a strawman instead. My mistake.

I'll admit, in retrospect, it was a strawman. While I didn't know which side you leaned on, I built an argument assuming that your ideology for/against gun control was based on a similar premise. For that, I apologize.

[Galloism]

You were building a strawman instead. My mistake.

I'll admit, in retrospect, it was a strawman. While I didn't know which side you leaned on, I built an argument assuming that your ideology for/against gun control was based on a similar premise. For that, I apologize.

Apology accepted.

Now, on to the gun control debate, given I linked earlier in this thread several studies that showed that guns were used ~2 million times per year in self-defense in this country alone, I don't really see how making guns harder to get for law-abiding citizens will help things. If anything, it will cause fewer people to be able to defend themselves as they won't be as able (or as willing) to pass through the regulation.

Some regulation I do support. Background checks are good. I would even approve of a one-day safety course (at cost or no charge). I'm open to other ideas.

[Enadail]

Now, on to the gun control debate, given I linked earlier in this thread several studies that showed that guns were used ~2 million times per year in self-defense in this country alone, I don't really see how making guns harder to get for law-abiding citizens will help things. If anything, it will cause fewer people to be able to defend themselves as they won't be as able (or as willing) to pass through the regulation.

Some regulation I do support. Background checks are good. I would even approve of a one-day safety course (at cost or no charge). I'm open to other ideas.

Lets start wit this: my ideology on owning guns, if people are to own them is that it is for defense against crimes, namely on your own property.

First, as I said, I don't think things like most shotguns (or I guess in the case of shotguns, the ammos more important) or assault rifles should be available to the public. I don't think they aid in defense any better then a handgun, thus... assault.

Second, I don't think people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. If we take your premise that guns can be easier to conceal then drugs as true, then in a place where anyone can carry a gun hidden, it makes it all that harder to find who is carrying a gun legally and who isn't.

Third, I think the open gun show trading needs to go. If you want to trade guns at a gun show, background checks and registering should be required, same as if you bought a new gun. I think people should have to account for their weapons in the form of a bi-yearly or yearly certification, to maintain your registration on a gun. Frankly, I think combat knives should too, but then you run into the issue of chef's knives, and I think we start a new line there. I agree with having a safety course, but I see it as part of getting your license, and see no reason for it to be free.

I'm sure I have more, but I'm goin to bed in a few, its 2:40 AM :-(

[Galloism]

First, as I said, I don't think things like most shotguns (or I guess in the case of shotguns, the ammos more important) or assault rifles should be available to the public. I don't think they aid in defense any better then a handgun, thus... assault.

Hmm, assault rifles I can go with you on I think, but I don't know about shotguns. Why not shotguns? They're extremely good medium-close range weapons.

Second, I don't think people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. If we take your premise that guns can be easier to conceal then drugs as true, then in a place where anyone can carry a gun hidden, it makes it all that harder to find who is carrying a gun legally and who isn't.

This I vehemently disagree. Having a large population carrying concealed weapons is a good deterrent against crime. After all, would you want to commit a crime knowing that there are probably people around you who are law-abiding and packing, but you don't know who?

Third, I think the open gun show trading needs to go. If you want to trade guns at a gun show, background checks and registering should be required, same as if you bought a new gun.

I can agree with that, although it will be the death of those events.

I think people should have to account for their weapons in the form of a bi-yearly or yearly certification, to maintain your registration on a gun. Frankly, I think combat knives should too, but then you run into the issue of chef's knives, and I think we start a new line there. I agree with having a safety course, but I see it as part of getting your license, and see no reason for it to be free.

I accepted "at-cost" as a qualifier. I disagree with having a bi-yearly or yearly certification, as that usually comes with fees. It's already required by law for you to report if any gun is stolen, and failure to do so is, in of itself, a crime. That should be sufficient.

I'm sure I have more, but I'm goin to bed in a few, its 2:40 AM :-(

Me too. I'm in the same time zone.