Firearms yes or no

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Godboo

Somewhat off topic but whatever.

The second amendment was written so militiamen could fight against the British in the American Revolution. It gives people leverage over their government in case that government tries to become tyrannical.

Yet nowhere does it say in the Constitution, Declaration, or Bill of Rights that it was intended to be used only against the British.

The second amendment wasn't written to give people a means of personal self defense against fellow citizens, that's just an unintended consequence.

The intention of the 2nd Amendment is still very much relevant today. If the US government tries to become oppressive, the people have a means of revolution. The 2nd Amendment only becomes important when the government tries to take it away.

I understand what you are saying. It clearly grants us the right to keep the guns. It's not whether or not you shoot someone, but the right to actually have them.


You are correct about it not giving us the right to kill someone in self-defence, which is why we made laws for that. We use the 2nd amendment to keep our weapons, not use it as an excuse to kill another.


P.S.: Welcome, I guess. It's just sad that we first meet in a political discussion.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Fish

Is that necessary?

Nah, nevermind. I'm used to that. I've met many decent American people over the years, and most of them were both able and willing to think about other people's arguments before answering. Unfortunately there are always some who pull the 'nazi' card once they run out of arguments

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Unfortunately there are always some who pull the 'nazi' card once they run out of arguments

Excuse me, but please put it into context. You attacked me the same way, so I gave it back to you. Sad that you try to scoot around that part.

-S

PS. Let me remind you where my response came from :

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'.

What I find ironic in your statements is that you are trying to infuence my thoughts and country, yet you say that I think 'I am the world'. I have not even talked about your country before this. Find that a bit hypocritical now that I put it into that context, no?

[Skybird]

Zag. (@subman)

So many post of yours, but actually prooving nothing, and giving your personal paroles instead. Plenty of arguments had been given to you that indicate you are wrong in several of your staements - and you don't take on it.

I think most readers have made their conclusions by now. Giving you links was not good enough. Quoting the text made you complain. Demanding you to proove that this fella is wrong on where he refutes your claims makes you evading even more.

Zig.

No need to continue for me here, it speaks for itself. Your place.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

I understand what you are saying. It clearly grants us the right to keep the guns. It's not whether or not you shoot someone, but the right to actually have them.


You are correct about it not giving us the right to kill someone in self-defence, which is why we made laws for that. We use the 2nd amendment to keep our weapons, not use it as an excuse to kill another.

No one doubts that you have those laws - but you still have got quite a high homicide rate. About 6 cases for every 100.000 people. What's the reason that not one single western European nation comes anywhere close to this (average below 1 per 100.000 people)?

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Excuse me, but please put it into context. You attacked me the same way, so I gave it back to you. Sad that you try to scoot around that part.

-S

PS. Let me remind you where my response came from :

Quite sweet But unfortunately your argument backfires. I was born long after the war (1969, fyi). So, I had nothing to do with the Nazis and am only oblieged to prevent such things from happening again.
You, however, still have a gun and claim you wouldn't hesitate to kill a human being if you just felt yourself in danger.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Quite sweet But unfortunately your argument backfires. I was born long after the war (1969, fyi). So, I had nothing to do with the Nazis and am only oblieged to prevent such things from happening again.
You, however, still have a gun and claim you wouldn't hesitate to kill a human being if you just felt yourself in danger.

No it doesn't. The same thing is happening again I see. That is what my problem is with it. It is how you have been brought up. It is also something I don't agree with since I do not think it is right either.

And yes, I will not roll over and play dead and let my self become a victim when I can do something about it. There are two types of people in this world, and I understand that people in this world who consider themselves victims have a phycological abnormallity that makes them dispise other people that have the ability to help themselves. Sigmund Frued originally coined this way back when. ANyway, I doubt you will ever see my side of the coin because you are unable to.

-S

PS. I wish the German people would ditch this mentallity and have a mentallity of pride like they once had. Be strong in the world again, rival the US or anyone else. THe problem is, I see them caving in... Guns is only one minor point in the bigger picture to me.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Further investigation gave me a link to this text from 1788 that is worth to take note of:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

Your point Skybird? Hamilton had a lot of funny ideas, including that it was ok to fight duels. But if you want to play the "What the Founding Fathers meant" game here's another quote from the same time period:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

and another:

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

and another:

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

and another and just as key to this argument:

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

No it doesn't. The same thing is happening again I see. That is what my problem is with it. It is how you have been brought up. It is also something I don't agree with since I do not think it is right either.

And yes, I will not roll over and play dead and let my self become a victim when I can do something about it. There are two types of people in this world, and I understand that people in this world who consider themselves victims have a phycological abnormallity that makes them dispise other people that have the ability to help themselves. Sigmund Frued originally coined this way back when. ANyway, I doubt you will ever see my side of the coin because you are unable to.

-S

It may just be that I've advanced far enough in terms of civilization to learn that there are far more dangerous weapons than a gun In any case it's easy to predict that what you call 'helping yourself' just end at exactly the same point. Being a victim.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

It may just be that I've advanced far enough in terms of civilization to learn that there are far more dangerous weapons than a gun In any case it's easy to predict that what you call 'helping yourself' just end at exactly the same point. Being a victim.

Now your not making any logical sense again. Being a victim? Try again since that is the wrong answer.

Also - your advancement in civilization is going the wrong direction. Try backwards. Try turning yourself into a sheep. You will feel more at home.

Read up on phycology. Maybe Skybird can clue you in. Frued has already gone through the victim theory.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902

You asked "COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED?".

In all capital letters no less. So I provided case law that answered your question. But now having been proven wrong you now fall back with an attempt to invalidate one of the two judges who made the ruling.

Y'know you're accuse Subman of zig zagging but you Sir are the king of the zig zag.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Now your not making any logical sense again. Being a victim? Try again since that is the wrong answer.

You don't seem to WANT to understand. Owning a gun will NOT prevent you from facing the wrong end of a gun in some others persons hand. You'll be just as helpless as you would be without a gun. In fact, it does even increase your chance of becoming a victim - because someone who's after you won't come unprepared. And even if you are lucky and manage to shoot down the other guy you'll be knee deep in s**t. Laws are not only for the bad guys.

Also - your advancement in civilization is going the wrong direction. Try backwards. Try turning yourself into a sheep. You will feel more at home.

Read up on phycology. Maybe Skybird can clue you in. Frued has already gone through the victim theory.

For the rest of your words I answer with a question. Which man is smarter? The one who prepares for a bad situation in such a way that any outcome will be bad - or the one who knows how to prevent coming into such a situation?

[August]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Which man is smarter? The one who prepares for a bad situation in such a way that any outcome will be bad - or the one who knows how to prevent coming into such a situation?

The man who does both...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

You don't seem to WANT to understand. Owning a gun will NOT prevent you from facing the wrong end of a gun in some others persons hand. You'll be just as helpless as you would be without a gun. In fact, it does even increase your chance of becoming a victim - because someone who's after you won't come unprepared. And even if you are lucky and manage to shoot down the other guy you'll be knee deep in s**t. Laws are not only for the bad guys.

For the rest of your words I answer with a question. Which man is smarter? The one who prepares for a bad situation in such a way that any outcome will be bad - or the one who knows how to prevent coming into such a situation?

I understand now. What I now understand is that 'you' do not understand the US law system is what you just told me. An example is the man in Seattle a couple months back, who for no reason beat on another man, in which that man pulled out his gun and shot the man that was trying to kill him. The man had a valid CPP, and no charges were ever filed. It didn't even make front page news. No one cared because the man killed was whacked, and the other was simply defending himself. So, you are saying this is not OK? Should the first man have rolled over and died because he should not take action? Maybe in your country, you have to roll over and die, but to me, that is a sick mans mentallity. One who is not even a man, but a child. Sheep.

Me, yes, maybe I won't have a chance to get to a firearm to defend myself, but at least I have an option. This is something you do not have. The mentallity you describe to me says its OK to let the man who would do you harm live, and the good man die. To do the opposite is just not OK. Why? Can you truely answer that question? I don't think you can, but that is what you describe as the right way to do things.

Iff the Seattle man had been on that campus armed, no one or only a few students would have died that day. Instead, we gave over 30 lives, and a ton more wounded simply because no other firearms were present. That just doesn't make sense to me.

-S

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by August

The man who does both...

No. 'Both' only would be an option if there was a positive way out of way number one. But there isn't. Using a gun will never result in a positive outcome, especially if both persons involved are willing to use it (I guess that SUBMAN definitely is willing to use his gun. Correct me if I'm wrong).
It's simple as that: Once the shooting starts you have lost, no matter, what will happen.