Are you willing?

[GoldenRivet]

Wonder how this thread migrated to guns even though guns were never mentioned in the original post...

Sure guns is a fraction of it, but so is speech, having a trial, being free from illegal search etc.

@skybird, it is NOT worded in a manipulative fashion... the question is simple

"would you give up some of your constitutional rights to feel safer?"

no motive or agenda... unless of course the school teacher asking the question had them.

certainly none here, just want to know what my comrades think at subsim.

So you either would be willing to give up on one ore more rights, or you wouldnt. There really isnt a grey area or a fuzzy line to walk where constitutional rights are concerned, one either wants specific rights or they dont... its really that simple.

[Armistead]

Well, Presidents and Governors have shown they have no problem denying our rights using martial law. In the last decades they've added so much language, they can do about what they want. Like the house to house searches they did during Katrina, taking legal firearms from legal holders.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Wonder how this thread migrated to guns even though guns were never mentioned in the original post...

General Topics

[CaptainMattJ.]

No. But you dont seem keen on wanting to rid yourself of regulation of firearms, right? To simply say "anyone who wants a gun can own one no questions asked". Theres a line, although fine, between regulation and banning. The american People have spoken and it doesn't look as though your praised assault weapons are going anywhere. Even after a knee-jerk "ban on assault rifles" after a horrific incident, the bill to ban assault rifles was ultimately cut down until all it did was try to close the gun show loophole, which IMO is absolutely required. Otherwise what is the point of having background checks and licenses if you just circumvent the system by buying at gun shows.

We've already demonstrated the uproar that would happen in the event of an assault rifle ban. But the NRA is getting up in arms over the closing over the gun show loophole. And frankly that's ridiculous, the gun show loophole should absolutely be closed, or else whats the point of having all these regulations if you just go around most of it.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

No. But you dont seem keen on wanting to rid yourself of regulation of firearms, right? To simply say "anyone who wants a gun can own one no questions asked". Theres a line, although fine, between regulation and banning. The american People have spoken and it doesn't look as though your praised assault weapons are going anywhere. Even after a knee-jerk "ban on assault rifles" after a horrific incident, the bill to ban assault rifles was ultimately cut down until all it did was try to close the gun show loophole, which IMO is absolutely required. Otherwise what is the point of having background checks and licenses if you just circumvent the system by buying at gun shows.

We've already demonstrated the uproar that would happen in the event of an assault rifle ban. But the NRA is getting up in arms over the closing over the gun show loophole. And frankly that's ridiculous, the gun show loophole should absolutely be closed, or else whats the point of having all these regulations if you just go around most of it.

FYI the gun show "loophole" is a falsehood in nearly every single state the state laws require that a background check be performed at gun shows only handful of states do not have this requirement and even in those local laws in many cases does require a BG check.The only loophole to waiting periods and background checks is via private sales.

The underlying problem is the violence not the guns.Until a reasonable way to solve this issue is generated nothing is going to change.People ignore by and large violent crimes that occur with weapons other than firearms.There are more homicides by stabbing in the US than any other method yet you do not hear anyone wanting to ban knifes and edged weapons do you?

This kid in Texas told the cops that he had fantasized about stabbing people and cutting their faces of so he could wear them as masks since he was a small kid.In this case even if there where no guns available it would have had no effect on the end result.It also shows that a person cam have severe mental illness and hide it for many years.


The entire problem with the background check is that it will only keep a person that is a registered criminal or a person that has been deemed mentally unfit by a judge from legally purchasing a firearm.

So in the end it really will not have any effect on either criminals or crazy people that have not been deemed unfit from acquiring a firearm.The background "expansion" should offend both pro and anti gun folks.

The reason that gun owners precive the extension as threat is because they know that it is BS and that in truth is is nothing but a baby step to further stricter controls.People that dislike firearms think that no one should own them period and of course dislike anything that does not do exactly that.

Personally I have libertarian leanings and think that by and large people should do what they want to do as long as they are not harming others.At the same time I do not think that a person that dislikes firearms should try to keep a law abiding person from owning them.My view is that rights should be allowed to all humans at birth I do not give a flying "ducK" if the nation I live in allows them or not they will not take away my rights any of them.

There are more homicides by stabbing in the US than any other method

Source please - this seems to say otherwise:


Edit - Stats for 2007-2011 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8. In 2011 there were 8,583 homicides involving firearms, compared to 1,694 for 'knives and other cutting instruments'.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Wonder how this thread migrated to guns even though guns were never mentioned in the original post...

Simply because there is only one right that's been all over the news, here at least.

Would you like to talk about abortion?

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Source please - this seems to say otherwise:


Edit - Stats for 2007-2011 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8. In 2011 there were 8,583 homicides involving firearms, compared to 1,694 for 'knives and other cutting instruments'.

That is correct I admit but you should also note that you are most likely to be killed by an acquaintance rather than a stranger.If you add all known types listed they equal 5790 excluding the number for acquaintance (2,700) if you added the two 8490 people where killed by someone that they knew compared to 1,481 persons murdered by a complete stranger in 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-10

In this light I propose that having friends,family members,and any other form of acquaintance is hazardous to public safety and having such relationships should be illegal.

Why not look at the entire complied statistic rather than part of it.And if you remove or make one weapon harder to acquire the only stat that will change is the weapon used.Do you think that people will stop killing simply because one tool goes away?

And why not compile a stat that showed the total number of firearms in the US and then how many people get murdered by a firearm and also separate homicides from suicide which the FBI does not do?To me suicides are separate because that person would have killed themselves regardless. If they did the ratio of firearms legally used compared to those used to murder would be very very low.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Simply because there is only one right that's been all over the news, here at least.

Would you like to talk about abortion?

How about gay marriage? Should two lesbians that are married and had in vitro fertilization be allowed to have an abortion?Double whammy that one.

Personally I think that they should be allowed both to be married and to have an abortion.Of course if two people paid the costs to have in vitro they would only choose
abortion under an extreme circumstance.

Stealhead, all I was doing was pointing out that you had your statistics dead wrong. I'm not interested in facile debates about the merits of banning friends and family. They aren't designed to kill people, guns are. Anyway, I'm a Brit, and this is a US issue, so carry on making ridiculous analogies. I'll carry on feeling glad I don't live in the perpetual fear that some US forum members seem to, or at least claim to...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

How about gay marriage? Should two lesbians that are married and had in vitro fertilization be allowed to have an abortion?Double whammy that one.

Personally I think that they should be allowed both to be married and to have an abortion.Of course if two people paid the costs to have in vitro they would only choose
abortion under an extreme circumstance.

It's not whether you think it should be allowed. This discussion is about rights. To bring that into this discussion we would have to talk about who has what actual rights in both cases, and whether those rights would be given up in exchange for something else, expressly something involving safety.

I know you were being facetious. Considering the actual topic wasn't even about rights, but giving up Liberty in exchange for Safety, it probably was aimed mainly at the gun question, and we should probably stay there.

[razark]

Hasn't American society already decided that it is good to take away certain rights so that others can feel safer? Otherwise, once a felon is released from prison (after serving their full sentence), they should immediately have all rights restored, including that right to keep and bear arms.

Or is it a case of "My liberty should not be given up for safety, but I'm fine if your rights are given up for my safety."?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by razark

Hasn't American society already decided that it is good to take away certain rights so that others can feel safer? Otherwise, once a felon is released from prison (after serving their full sentence), they should immediately have all rights restored, including that right to keep and bear arms.

There are a few of us who believe that to be the proper course.

Or is it a case of "My liberty should not be given up for safety, but I'm fine if your rights are given up for my safety."?

That's an excellent point.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Would you like to talk about abortion?

Originally Posted by Stealhead

How about gay marriage?

Should two homosexuals be allowed to carry weapons on their way to a rally that denounces religion if they intend to continue on and get an abortion?

(I think I hit every button)

Oh, While each are wearing either an Obama or a Romney t-shirt.

(missed one)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Should two homosexuals be allowed to carry weapons on their way to a rally that denounces religion if they intend to continue on and get an abortion?

(I think I hit every button)

Oh, While each are wearing either an Obama or a Romney t-shirt.

(missed one)

No. Gay people should not be allowed to wear Romney T-shirts. The Constitution says nothing about any of those. Also it doesn't specifically say they can own weapons. It also doesn't meantion Creation or Evolution, so those are not allowed either.