Jump to content

Change Mode

News For Those Who Oppose The 2nd Amendment


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't want to be drawn into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of gun ownership. However, I do agree with the 'slippery slope' argument that if you allow certain guns to be outlawed, you set a precedent which will make it easier to ban the next type of gun and the next etc etc.

 

Having said that, I do find it difficult to comprehend the 'need' of some people for certain types of weapons that you would normally expect only the military to use.

 

It must be a difficult and devisive issue for you guys. How do you stop people owning really outrageous and unnecessary weapons without threatening rights granted by your constitution? I'm glad things are simpler over here - the only people who have guns are the military, the (armed) police and bad guys. You can usually tell these groups apart! :mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it now....

 

Old Man: Careful, I have an unloaded 1911.

 

Armed Robber: That's good to know...Now, give me your valuables.

 

Old Man: Take it all.

 

Armed Robber: I will.

 

BANG.

 

Later that night....

 

News Reporter: An elderly man was gunned down by an armed robber, who broke into his home. Police say, if the gun he had was loaded he may still be alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, if there wasn't any ammo he wouldn't have got shot.

It's ammo that kills, not guns.

Criminals get illegal guns all the time and their ammo is just as illegal. Look at DC, guns are completely banned, yet they have the highest crime rate of the country.

 

Lets not forget the gun trouble in England, Japan, and elsewhere where guns are severely restricted or completely banned, yet they still have gun related deaths that are extreme considering the fact that people can not own guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about gun ownership makes me nervous because I know how much the right to bear arms means to a lot of people in the US.

 

In a society where ownership of guns is not prevalant, the chances are that that scenario you paint would be different; neither of your protagonists would be likely to have a gun, therefore the old man doesn't end up shot.

 

In my humble and totally subjective opinion, I feel that the people of America pay a very dear price in human life in order to maintain their rights to own guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that makes gun ownership in the US important is protection against the government. People in other countries that have guns outlawed are essentially screwed if their government one day trys to force marshal law against the will of the population or do something major against the people. So that's just one of the main reasons gun ownership is important in the US.

Edited by Henry8866
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a society where ownership of guns is not prevalant, the chances are that that scenario you paint would be different; neither of your protagonists would be likely to have a gun, therefore the old man doesn't end up shot.

 

Tell that to the victims' families in those countries that I listed as a small example. Tell those people that their family member didn't die from a gun. Tell them that the laws that keep innocent people from protecting themselves is working as intended and that no one is murdered with a firearm.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw c'mon, surely somewhere deep in his conscience a little voice is saying ' Mugger, you know you have no constitutional right to carry ammo '

Nope. But you just described the thinking of the law abiding citizen that got shot.....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if nobody bothers abiding by the constitution, what's the point of having one ?

That's the whole crux of the matter. People trying to defend the constitution, are the people who want it restored to its original power and meaning. Unfortunately, touchy-feely people buy into the rhetoric spewed by the government into believing the government knows what's best for them. Instead of thinking for themselves and learning their own history and laws of the land, they would rather blindly follow what ever their favored party leader tells them. :mrsgreen:
Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire Constitution is subject to interpretation. If someone doesn't agree with a particular interpretation of an amendment, it doesn't mean they oppose the amendment. Just that interpretation. For example, we have freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constution but it does have limits.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

-- US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1919

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, this study is a few years old now, but you will get my point:

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

 

I will not dispute that gun crime in the UK is rising. There are also arguments about violent crime in general. I will also not dispute that people are shot and killed in the UK, but I will stick to my original point - in a country like the UK where ownership of firearms is not a right, there is far less chance of being killed with a firearm than in the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire Constitution is subject to interpretation. If someone doesn't agree with a particular interpretation of an amendment, it doesn't mean they oppose the amendment. Just that interpretation. For example, we have freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constution but it does have limits.

However, in the 2nd amendment it clearly states "shall not be infringed". That clearly prevents the government from even toying with the idea of making limitations. Especially, since the government was told where it could and could not rule and all others were left to the states and the citizens of the states.

 

Shall not be infringed means that no regulations or restrictions maybe placed on it.

 

As for the idiot SC judge, that was a stupid correlation as the two have no basis of similarity.

 

I also have to disagree with it being subject to interpretation as the founders said these are unwaiverable and undeniable rights of the people. The ones who decided its up for interpretation are the very ones seaking to garner control over the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, this study is a few years old now, but you will get my point:

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

 

I will not dispute that gun crime in the UK is rising. There are also arguments about violent crime in general. I will also not dispute that people are shot and killed in the UK, but I will stick to my original point - in a country like the UK where ownership of firearms is not a right, there is far less chance of being killed with a firearm than in the USA.

Did you even read my links? It seems you deliberately went to a well known anti-rights website for your "proof". I have links not only from pro-rights sites but also from government agencies that did studies to prove guns were more dangerous than anything else only to be proven wrong everytime. Also, they made remarks that the accidents and murders with guns are grossly exaggerate in anti-right sites and studies.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...