Firearms yes or no

[micky1up]

look until the USA gives up this outdated bill of right that they are entitled to bare arms crap that was wriiten when the US was under threat from the english the french and the real american the native red indian its the 2007 now this fasination with protection its my right its my right what about the rights of those 33 people today the basic right to live ? you claim to be the leaders of the free world i think you need to look it up in the dictionary the word freedom all i can see is a police state where your all afraid of everyone else your all packing pistols, assualt rifles and god knows what else where duz it stop when duz it stop , it dosent hit home until its your children brother sister or family on a slab in the morgue unfortunately thats what it takes for your people to realise when its too late i wager this man wastnt a career criminal or had any previous pyscopathic tendencies and if so this can happen anywhere at any time to anyone and as we have seen even with the experts involved trying to police this incident they cannot prevent it and dont say in to emotional of bloody course i am 33 innocent people are dead an all you can do is try to justify the gun laws and this outdated bill of rights ,just maybe your polititians need to grow back bones and get a little emotional too

[ASWnut101]

They put the period button on the keyboard for a reason.




Oh, and from what I could make of your post, you claim the Bill of Rights is outdated. Why do you think so? Also, you claim we are a "police state." That explains why there is a "seceret police" officer on every street corner waiting, listening if we say the wrong thing, to lock us up.

Originally Posted by micky1up

look until the USA gives up this outdated bill of right that they are entitled to bare arms crap that was wriiten when the US was under threat from the english the french and the real american the native red indian its the 2007 now this fasination with protection its my right its my right what about the rights of those 33 people today the basic right to live ? you claim to be the leaders of the free world i think you need to look it up in the dictionary the word freedom all i can see is a police state where your all afraid of everyone else your all packing pistols, assualt rifles and god knows what else where duz it stop when duz it stop , it dosent hit home until its your children brother sister or family on a slab in the morgue unfortunately thats what it takes for your people to realise when its too late i wager this man wastnt a career criminal or had any previous pyscopathic tendencies and if so this can happen anywhere at any time to anyone and as we have seen even with the experts involved trying to police this incident they cannot prevent it and dont say in to emotional of bloody course i am 33 innocent people are dead an all you can do is try to justify the gun laws and this outdated bill of rights ,just maybe your polititians need to grow back bones and get a little emotional too

I will say this only once. The 'Bill of Rights', the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, do not, I repeat, do not grant people any right(s). Those ten amendments restrict the government from denying those rights from anyone . Government is in no position to grant rights.

[Yahoshua]

Waste Gate, you're correct as far as restricting the government from restricting the people and restricting the government from "bestowing" rights.

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.


If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right 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."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.


And might I point out that in the Militia act of 1792 dictated that ALL white citizens were to have and posess arms and be ready for active duty when called upon.

.....every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service....

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Reading the Federalist papers is also a good idea:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...apers/fedi.htm


As for being outdated Mickey:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm


And I should remind you of British history also, in regards to the Magna Carta and the right of Habeus Corpus.

Should you now claim that since the Magna Carta is "outdated" that you and all other English citizens must therefore forfeit the right os Habeus Corpus? Or of the right to freely exercise ones' religion? (In this case the Church of England to freely exercise their beliefs).

That the seizure of land is only to be exercised when the debt in question is extreme and that widows shouldn't be required to pay off inhereted debts or loans? What makes you think such things are "antiquated" or "outdated?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_C...of_Magna_Carta

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.

There is nothing other than individual rights. Collective rights only exist under failed paradigms.

[August]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Its not about the criminals surrendering weapons. Its about making it so that you can't have one to begin with. If you heavily regulate something its alot harder to get one.

That strategy has failed completely when it comes to illegal drugs so I fail to see how it could potentially work in this situation. There are over 200 million legal firearms in this country and countless more not on the books, and countless more than that only a smugglers run away in any number of countries. So, short of conducting door to door house searches, guns, like drugs, are here to stay.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally.

Where did you get this from? From what i've read a great majority of these animals found less than legal ways to acquire their weapons.

Saying that the solution is to let everyone carry a concealed weapon is reactionary. Its saying that we won't prevent it, we'll just kill him first. Saying that we need to let people have guns with them at all times to protect themselves from other guys cause we let them have guns all the time is just... silly. It doesn't fix anything. The only ones that should be in a shootout are cops.

Why so silly? There were plenty of cops both on and off the VT campus this morning and that did not prevent this horrible crime from happening. Seriously, unless you put cops on every street corner, mall, school, park, restaurant and everywhere else people congregate, 24/7/365, they are never going to be a citizens first line of defense.

And using Israel as an example isn't apt. Its a different social environment.

Social environments as we know them are fast dissapearing in this age of instant communications and rapid travel, especially here in the west. Whatever stability they ever had was due mainly to their isolation and that just isn't possible anymore. What goes on in Israel is just a plane ride or a phone call, or an internet message away and that is going to increase rather than decrease as time goes on.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by waste gate

There is nothing other than individual rights. Collective rights only exist under failed paradigms.

Just so I can make sure I'm understanding you correctly: You're agreeing that the Bill of rights refers to individuals, not the collective. Am I right, or am I right?

[moose1am]

Let them take all the firearms away from the Iraqis before they start that here in the USA. That should keep the antigun people busy for another century or so.

[NefariousKoel]

Originally Posted by moose1am

Let them take all the firearms away from the Iraqis before they start that here in the USA. That should keep the antigun people busy for another century or so.

LOL!

Excellent comparison the subject.

I guess us, as Americans, should become more like our 'culturally superior' European friends and pretend the rest of the world doesn't matter?

Great post.

[Tchocky]

Yay, another gun thread. Can't say I'm thrilled.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Waste Gate, you're correct as far as restricting the government from restricting the people and restricting the government from "bestowing" rights.

But the Bill of Rights does in fact guarantee individual rights to the citizens.


If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right 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."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.


And might I point out that in the Militia act of 1792 dictated that ALL white citizens were to have and posess arms and be ready for active duty when called upon.

.....every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service....

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Reading the Federalist papers is also a good idea:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...apers/fedi.htm


As for being outdated Mickey:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm


And I should remind you of British history also, in regards to the Magna Carta and the right of Habeus Corpus.

Should you now claim that since the Magna Carta is "outdated" that you and all other English citizens must therefore forfeit the right os Habeus Corpus? Or of the right to freely exercise ones' religion? (In this case the Church of England to freely exercise their beliefs).

That the seizure of land is only to be exercised when the debt in question is extreme and that widows shouldn't be required to pay off inhereted debts or loans? What makes you think such things are "antiquated" or "outdated?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_C...of_Magna_Carta

stop deflecting the arguement the right of free religious belifs is nothing compared to the right to bare arms and we have no where near the history of massacres that you have i agree its not just the guns its also your way of life that is a threat but you had loads of guns avalible to the police involved that dint stop the individual killing 30 people did it your comparing what happened yesterday to land siezures get a grip will you thats a big insult to 30 plus grieving families

[Skybird]

This thread is tzzzzz.

Firearms are tools of death, and exclusively so. they are designed to hurt and to kill, nothing else. This is what they excel in, they are of no other use. Like a Katana is optimized to cut only one material: human flesh, firearms are optimized to bring as much death as often and quickly as possible.

america makes a fetish of weapons, but this idol is a cruel god, and from time to time it demands your first-borne as a sacrifice.

If it is argued that a problem caused by firearms - can be healed by even more firearms and easy access to them, then the debate is beyond any hope. If the problem is compared to drug abuse, and Iraq war, then it has already dissappeared in the swamps of irrationality. - As expected.

the part of the bill of rights (I think the weapons thing is anchored in that, right?) that allowed citizens to carry weapons - was written in a different world, and time, when the young US where under threat by the British, and huge parts of the wilderness still were a "non-civilised" country. but these threats are gone. The Queen does not demand the submission of amerian citizens anymore. Would the bill of rights, if written today, include this part on weapons, too? I don't think so. Those minds authoring it were no idiots, and were considering the situation and it's future developement only so far, and not beyond. This passage today - is abused only. Or better: it's content and context gets perverted.

Violance is omni-present in media, film, TV, computer games. It serves as en example for social learning by example-setting. It influences thinking, and behavior patterns, especially of young ones still developing. But be assured that it has no effect on the minds of people and especially young ones.

Weapons are a very lucratice business in the the US. We all know that this has nothing to do with lobbying for less gun control laws.

I can assure you that none of the things anyone of you may grew fond of has anything to do with these events. So don't worry, none of you have to change his habits, and everything can happily stay as it is.

Seen that way, the shooting event has it's good sides. It tells us that everything is good.

Firearms... every idiot can use them and cause havoc at short range without training. No quality in character is needed. No education. No self-discipline or self-restraint. Some very clever even are stupid enough to hurt themselves with them. Go on, sell them even more. See where it will lead you. - Probably straight to hell.

You arm yourself as if you expect to fight wars in your streets and cities, homes and living rooms? Guns, rifles, even automatic rifles, ha!: even explosives? Well, yesterday the fruits of your deeds have found you again. Stop complaining, these events are results of your very own society you have built. Welcome to the jungle. Both perpetrator and victims are your sons and daughters. They are no Martians who just fell down from the sky.

On the level of individual fates I express my condolences.

On a national, community-wide level I say: you got what you deserved. If you play with fire, you get your fingers burned.

SkyBird, you da man!

[Letum]

Originally Posted by GakunGak

SkyBird, you da man!

I used to have some sympathy with the supporters of publicly owned firearms.
I reasoned that publicly owned firearms might go someway to help oppressed people fight back against the regimes that oppress them. However, I now see from the example of history that this is clearly not the case.

I find the personal security argument deeply ironic.

As for keeping firearms in the interest of sport or tradition, this has some merit, but not enough to out weigh the terrible cost.

In the UK I used to have a licence for a shotgun for the purpose of pest control. I believe this is the ONLY valid reason for a member of the public to have a firearm.
As I no longer have any pests I no longer have the licence!

Firearms don't make killers, but they do make it easier to kill.
It is far more emotionally difficult to kill with a knife than a gun.

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Just so I can make sure I'm understanding you correctly: You're agreeing that the Bill of rights refers to individuals, not the collective. Am I right, or am I right?

You are correct, that is how I see it Yahoshua.