It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution..... - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-18-2007, 08:51 AM   #61
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 02:19 AM
I am STRONGLY behind gun control, I don't believe anyone outside of police and security should carry one (besides farmers on the land etc) I believe the ordinary "layman" is not equipped to responsibly carry a firearm and have the forethought and knowledge to decide when appropriate to display it (i also think this quite often of the police as well as another suspect lays dead instead of in custody from a policeman who shoots to kill instead of wound)

I believe in the world, no one had the right to take someone elses life. NO ONE. But sadly we have gun prevalent in society anf they're not going away.

While i do agree that people obviously have the right to protect themselves, protecting yourself with a gun is STUPID. A gun is a lethal weapon, 9/10 you point it at someone they're not going to make it (Especially as most people don't even now how the shoot the bloody things and just point it at their heads!) There are other ways you an protect yourself, and living in a society where gun ownership is outlawed, most times the assailent isn't armed themselves and therefore their is no need for lethal force.

I TOTALLY disagree with the fact that this dude walked into a gun shop showed his ID got a quick background check into his criminal history and suddent a handgun and 30 rounds of ammo - i mean, this is not normal? who would WANT to live in a society where this is NORMAL? I believe people wanting to own guns should be ruthlessly psychologically tested before being able to purchase a weapon. (well i don't believe they should be able to purchase them, but in the least!)


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


bluntly, i've never touched a gun, but i'd rather have one, than not, should, say, a Katrina-style disaster befall Washington DC and it's 48 hours before law and order is restored.

[/B]
but if you lived in a socitey where joe from the street can buy a gun and then decide to be all gun toting and robbing in a state of lawlessness, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself.

I just think the thought process of "right to bear arms" means 'i have the right to shove a gun in the face of anyone who tries to mess with me and then shoot them because im "protecting myself" is bullshit. Total scary mental bullshit.

But regarding the free right rant from AB - no. Freedom of speech is something not to be messed with.
__________________

__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 11:23 AM   #62
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


and what if we added to the mix
the same ratio of guns and munitions ratios to Blacksberg that Baghdad has?
I heard this from a CNN report and i was totally shocked at what they had to say about gun ownership.

They mentioned that there is over 600,000,000 firearms on the planet ( not just Baghdad! ).

The USA has 200,000,000 of them. 1/3 of the world's firearms .......this was not including military weapons.

The USA needs to DOWN-ARMS!
__________________

__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 11:33 AM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,288
Local Time: 10:19 AM
I've always thought American obsession with guns is weird. Other free and democratic societies do not express the same level of interest in guns and we're not missing anything. Right to bear arms...give me a break. It's an infringement of your rights? Yeah, so are about a thousand different activities, from things sanctioned by criminal law to those covered by tort law. I don't see how original intent can justify reliance on the 2nd amendment at all.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:20 PM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:19 AM
i am baffled by the gun culture as well.

but i have seen it. and i do not understand it.

my best friend sent me an email today, probably with the intent of starting a gun control debate with me. while i wasn't going to get involved -- and i think this particular issue is actually a poor example of a case upon which to base legislation -- he did write this, which i hope provides some sort of insight:

[q]But what I am hoping is that instead of launching on crusades against various things - sorry, but even if you were to ban guns in the state of Virginia, the only people who wouldn't have them are law-abiding citizens: it's just a fact - we actually take the opportunity to study this issue and find a way to prevent it. I.e. here, just as at Columbine, there were about 50 warning signs in the weeks/months prior - so why don't we look at ways of setting up alerts? These types of plays SCREAM out that there are serious internal issues - and even when you say hindsight is 20/20 - I would have been extremely leary about this... [/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:24 PM   #65
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Most likely nothing at all will be done anyhow...there's almost no political will to take on the NRA right now.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:33 PM   #66
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 10:19 AM
I have never understood the gun culture in America, nor will I ever.

When I was little, my dad had an old hunting rifle that he kept on the top shelf of a closet. I had to have it explained to me many times the bullets were far away and not actually inside the gun. Even still, the thought of that gun in the house terrified me.

I think it's time we look at other societies that are free and do not have these same issues and begin work so that we can be more like them. Why are we so obsessed with our right to bear arms? So we can uphold the "we're America, don't fuck with us" bad ass attitude? Yeah, just look at where it's gotten us. Columbine, the Amish school house incident, Virginia Tech. Dozens of lives snuffed out, for absolutely nothing.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:41 PM   #67
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]here, just as at Columbine, there were about 50 warning signs in the weeks/months prior - so why don't we look at ways of setting up alerts? These types of plays SCREAM out that there are serious internal issues - and even when you say hindsight is 20/20 - I would have been extremely leary about this... [/q]
So, basically, it's the school's/parents'/mental health profession's/anyone and everyone who recognized he was messed up's fault, for not seeing to it that he was put under lock and key so he wouldn't be able to get his hands on a handgun?

Right, there's a viable strategy.

Legally, colleges are quite limited in what they can do about students who seem to have psychological problems, unless perhaps they've made direct physical threats on others, talked about trying to kill themselves (or attempted to), or are flunking out. There is some leeway in interpreting those restrictions, probably more so at private schools, but the scope of authority for, e.g., forcing someone to attend therapy regularly (which won't do much good if the person resists therapy, anyway) is not great.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:50 PM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 08:19 AM
My father had a rifle and a pistol. It was just part of farm/country life where I grew up. In the 18 years that I lived in that house, I don't think either gun was ever fired for any reason. They were there for protection (the KKK were still quite active where I grew up and my Dad had black friends) and for hunting if that were ever necessary (he didn't hunt for sport). Now that's responsible gun ownership and probably closer to what our forefathers had in mind. Unfortunately, we live in a different world today.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
bluntly, i've never touched a gun, but i'd rather have one, than not, should, say, a Katrina-style disaster befall Washington DC and it's 48 hours before law and order is restored.
Same here. A friend bought a gun for that reason and when showing it to me I wouldn't even touch it, it freaked me out. Yet I respected his right to protect himself and trusted him with it. He eventually returned it, though, not quite comfortable with it himself.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 01:38 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
My question was rhetorical. Having been a revolutionary war reinactor, and a history major, I am pretty sure I understand what was going on. And I would add to your impressive understanding, that the British did indeed launch a few successful operations seizing the sotred arms in other towns. They also targeted foundries down by the Cape of Cod, where there was quite a cannon ball making facility.

I would again state that it was important to the colonists before, during and after the war, to protect their right to bear arms, for the very reason that they feared a strong central governement.

[Q]"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson[/Q]

Yep, very worried about the Native Americans. I wonder, in the Federalist Papers, does it mention that argument?

Well, Thomas Jefferson may not be worried about Native Americans, but thousands of colonist who had seen their people slaughtered over the years since the first settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts by Native Americans know better. So would any of the colonist who served with the British Military in 3 wars against the French and Indians. Town militia's were necessary for security from the start of the first settlements, otherwise the colonial movement would have been wiped out in the early 1600s. The militia's were never formed in order to protect the "right to bear arms" etc. 90% of the colonist were farmers and even in England their right to bear arms would be protected given what they did for a living, even without all the issues of settling lands with hostile natives and foreign powers just over the horizon.

The colonist prior to the events surrounding the Revolution did not fear the British government and regarded themselves as British and were in fact proud to be apart of the British Empire. The weapons the militia's had were for the protection of the towns as well as to keep militia's ready to support the British military if needed, as so often happened in 3 wars over 50 years fought against the French and Indians. Prior to 1763, no colonist thought of their weapons as a means to resist and revolt against the British Empire an Empire that up to that time they were proud to be apart of. The weapons were necessary for the militia's as well as for daily farm and frontier life.

The second amendment states:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


It did NOT say:


"As a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The British moves in late 1774 and early 1775 to sieze stores of ammo and supplies were about weakening a threatening military force in the form of the Massachusetts Militias. The British were not attempting to sieze all the muskets in every house, on every farm, in the state of Massachusetts. The colonist grievances against England from 1763 to 1775 had nothing to do with the "right to bear arms".

The colonist had always had a military force in the form of the militia's and they wanted to continue that method of protecting their security primarily through town militia's after the Revolution. Things have changed though, and today the United States has the second largest standing military on the planet and town and states have police forces. Unlike in the late 1700s, citizens can no longer legally obtain the weapons capability that Thomas Jefferson said was necessary to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 01:41 PM   #70
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
My father had a rifle and a pistol. It was just part of farm/country life where I grew up. In the 18 years that I lived in that house, I don't think either gun was ever fired for any reason. They were there for protection (the KKK were still quite active where I grew up and my Dad had black friends) and for hunting if that were ever necessary (he didn't hunt for sport). Now that's responsible gun ownership and probably closer to what our forefathers had in mind. Unfortunately, we live in a different world today.
Most everyone where I grew up owned guns too, or so it seemed...usually a rifle and pistol, like you mention. My parents had bad associations with guns and wanted nothing to do with them. I've no problem with hunters and their rifles; it is true that a small percentage of gun homicides are committed with them (about 4%), but that much I can live with. Sometimes I do feel torn on the guns-for-defense issue when listening to people who live in isolated rural areas--as a neighbor of my oldest brother's (who lives in the country outside Asheville) told him, "I live half a mile up a rutted dirt mountain road that leads to nowhere but me. If I see a car I don't recognize pull up, it's either someone lost or it's trouble, and the police are 20 minutes away." I can understand that; on the other hand, virtually all the murders that take place in that area happen either in town and start out as fights or robberies, or in the home and as a result of "domestic incidents."

Why are we so obsessed with the simple reality of being vulnerable, why is that so hard for people to come to terms with--to the point that we'll support the kind of easy access that makes our chances of being a victim of gun homicide skyrocket, just so long as we can say, But see, I've got one, too?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 05:20 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:19 AM
[Q]Well, Thomas Jefferson may not be worried about Native Americans, but thousands of colonist who had seen their people slaughtered over the years since the first settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts by Native Americans know better. So would any of the colonist who served with the British Military in 3 wars against the French and Indians. [/Q]

Again, you speak as if you are lecturing me. The settlers also did slaughtering if my memory serves correct. I have not said that there was no need for people to have had weapons.


[Q]n militia's were necessary for security from the start of the first settlements, otherwise the colonial movement would have been wiped out in the early 1600s. The militia's were never formed in order to protect the "right to bear arms" etc. 90% of the colonist were farmers and even in England their right to bear arms would be protected given what they did for a living, even without all the issues of settling lands with hostile natives and foreign powers just over the horizon. [/Q]

I never said militia's were formed to protect the right to bear arms professor. Stop doing what you do to every other poster in this forum. Stop putting owrds into my mouth.

[Q] colonist prior to the events surrounding the Revolution did not fear the British government and regarded themselves as British and were in fact proud to be apart of the British Empire.[/Q]

Well, you have got something right.

[Q]Prior to 1763, no colonist thought of their weapons as a means to resist and revolt against the British Empire an Empire that up to that time they were proud to be apart of. The weapons were necessary for the militia's as well as for daily farm and frontier life. [/Q]

And, when was the Constitution written? 1763? Wake up. The Constitution was written after the war when the thought of a tyrranical government disarming themwas on their minds.


[Q] "As a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".[/Q]

Ummm....glad to see you can read the text of the Constituion. I never said it said that, but I have read the first hand accounts of the debates that took place state by state, over each of the Ammendments. I have read the federalist papers. I would think that this is where the INTENT of the ammendment was discussed professor.

[Q] The British moves in late 1774 and early 1775 to sieze stores of ammo and supplies were about weakening a threatening military force in the form of the Massachusetts Militias. The British were not attempting to sieze all the muskets in every house, on every farm, in the state of Massachusetts. The colonist grievances against England from 1763 to 1775 had nothing to do with the "right to bear arms". [/Q]

I am a little surprised at your lack of understanding here with your military knowledge. I am just curious, exactly who do you think made up the militia? Where did the militia come from and where did they get their weapons?

The British moved on large concentrations of munitions because the farmers who made up the militias would not have had enough munitions to battle the superior forces.

Again, the reason the founding fathers wanted the new country armed was because without the success of the farmer/militiaman, the war would have been lost EARLY on.


Now you can post louder than me, longer than me, put words into my mouth, and twist my words, but the fact remains, there is a HISTORICAL RECORD in which the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS was debated, in each of the 13 colonies. There is a historical record of the men who said specifically why the ammendment was there.

-----------------------------

Side bar, you speak of the native Americans as if they were Al-Qaeda. Aside from King Phillips War do you have any other grudges towards them?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 05:35 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,288
Local Time: 10:19 AM
It is unacceptable in any civilized society that a person who has had a history of mental illness, hospitalization and stalking is allowed to purchase a gun. Imposing limits on his 2nd amendment rights is fully justifiable. And the idea that the other students should have been armed to defend themselves is ridiculous. Let's all die in crossfire. What intelligent human being would attend a university where everyone's packing?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-18-2007, 05:53 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
It is unacceptable in any civilized society that a person who has had a history of mental illness, hospitalization and stalking is allowed to purchase a gun. Imposing limits on his 2nd amendment rights is fully justifiable. And the idea that the other students should have been armed to defend themselves is ridiculous. Let's all die in crossfire. What intelligent human being would attend a university where everyone's packing?
If this is how you interpret my statements, I can only say that is not what I meant.

It is unacceptable that NOBODY filed an official police report about this student. They went to the police, but did not want to file an official report. And THAT is the heart of the problem in this country, not the fact that law abiding people can purchase a weapon. The heart of the problem is that school officials and joe average citizen are hampered with the threat of litigation and laws that are back asswards, protecting the criminal and not the victem.

When I was first married, three months into our marriage, our downstairs neighbor attempted to break in on my wife. He was unsuccessful. The police told my wife and I there was no evidence that he tried to get in on her so there was nothing they could do, other than tell us that we could get a restraining order. A process, that does little to bring sanity to an insane situation. It is his word against hers.

And as far as education, and schools rights.....The laws are not in the schools favor either when it comes to doing something about students that are potential problems for classmates.

The reality is, no gun law as framed by Virginia law currently stands would have changed a thing. However, the one thing that could have changed was someone having the intestinal fortitude to actually file some type of charges against him.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:01 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:19 AM
Hey Dread,

How many guns do you own?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 06:01 PM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:19 AM
should being admitted to a mental institution for any reason be enough to disqualify someone from ever being able to purchase a gun, much like being convicted of a felony disqualifies someone?

it seems to me that if we're going to kick people out of the military for being gay or we don't let anyone who's ever smoked marijuana work in some areas of the CIA, hospitalization seems a perfectly reasonable disqualification for handgun ownership.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com