It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

[Snowlock]

And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that. - Eddie Izzard




So that makes it okay...

Wow. Eddie Izzard. Impressive.

"So that makes it okay"

Yes that's exactly what I am saying. As long as you have a gun, it is okay to murder people who piss you off. How inciteful of you to come to the conclusion I was getting at.

 

[MrBrau1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

Unless you're one of the 154........................

so the 9000 dead are just a tax to subsidize the 154?

 

[Snowlock]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

so the 9000 dead are just a tax to subsidize the 154?

I guess you'd have to ask the 154 and their families. I'm not ready to make that determination.

 

[Zoots]

Wow. Eddie Izzard. Impressive.

"So that makes it okay"

Yes that's exactly what I am saying. As long as you have a gun, it is okay to murder people who piss you off. How inciteful of you to come to the conclusion I was getting at.

No need to be nasty and sarcastic. I only said what I inferred out of your comments. Eddie is just a stand up comedian, I know. But he is right! even though he obviously wasn't seriously arguing against guns. Guns do kill people! They make it a lot easier to finish somebody off in seconds as opposed to worrying about effective stabbing techniques or strangling moves and what not. Just point the pistol and shoot! And then the good people have to own guns to protect themselves from the bad people. It's a cycle. Just completely take guns away from society! Only have the police and other law enforcement authorities have access.. is what I'm saying.

 

[Snowlock]

No need to be nasty and sarcastic. I only said what I inferred out of your comments. Eddie is just a stand up comedian, I know. But he is right! even though he obviously wasn't seriously arguing against guns. Guns do kill people! They make it a lot easier to finish somebody off in seconds as opposed to worrying about effective stabbing techniques or strangling moves and what not. Just point the pistol and shoot! And then the good people have to own guns to protect themselves from the bad people. It's a cycle. Just completely take guns away from society! Only have the police and other law enforcement authorities have access.. is what I'm saying.

I took what you said as nasty because you edited my post to fit your comments. I said in the specific instance of domestic violence that most likely the murderer would be a killer anyway whether there was a gun or not. You made the face as if to say I was condoning gun violence which is asinine.

And just like it was first impossible to prohibit alchohol and after that drugs, it'd be impossible to prohibit guns. Some guns are already illegal, and some bullets too; and we can't even stop those.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And if the day ever came that law enforcement and the military were used to supress the population what then?

And that gets to the the root of it; if you take away people right to bear arms then there it is that much easier for a tyrannical regime to tread on the rights of it's population without concequence. Gun ownership is a liberty, like many liberties it is double edged and there are negative concequences when people are irresponsible but the security that is gained by removing weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens is at the expense of liberty and it will not prevent criminals from getting illegal weapons (as there are other channels for them to be obtained).

It seems Americans appreciate their right to bear arms, I only hope that in future it is matched by equally fervent belief in the right to free speech (against government and religious institutions) and religious freedom (no persecution on promotion of any religious beliefs).

 

[Zoots]

I took what you said as nasty because you edited my post to fit your comments. I said in the specific instance of domestic violence that most likely the murder would be a killer anyway whether there was a gun or not. You made the face as if to say I was condoning gun violence which is asinine.

Oh okay. No I didn't think you meant that! Sorry if my edit gave the wrong impression.

Yes, the killer wants to kill primarily... and may do it with anything, not necessarily a gun. But the whole fact that guns make it so much easier to do the job is I think scary. I don't have any numbers to back it up but I'm sure guns help in increasing murder numbers just for that one reason!

 

[BVS]

And just like it was first impossible to prohibit alchohol and after that drugs, it'd be impossible to prohibit guns. Some guns are already illegal, and some bullets too; and we can't even stop those.

Besides Hollywood Movies, how often do you see these banned weapons?

This isn't like alcohol or drugs.

 

[Snowlock]

And if the day ever came that law enforcement and the military were used to supress the population what then?

And that gets to the the root of it; if you take away people right to bear arms then there it is that much easier for a tyrannical regime to tread on the rights of it's population without concequence. Gun ownership is a liberty, like many liberties it is double edged and there are negative concequences when people are irresponsible but the security that is gained by removing weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens is at the expense of liberty and it will not prevent criminals from getting illegal weapons (as there are other channels for them to be obtained).

I agree with you on the part about guns being a liberty that's a double edged sword. I wish though that people who think like me, or somewhat like me, would drop the reasoning of guns being used to defend against tyrannical governments. If all of the sudden Hilary seized the US by force and imposed a fascist state, us freedom fighters with hand guns would be no better off than those without. You can't stop a tank with a handgun.

 

[BVS]

And if the day ever came that law enforcement and the military were used to supress the population what then?

This really is the weakest of gun control arguments. This was an issue when the military and the citizens all had the same technology, but this is no longer true.

How is my handgun going to stand up against the police, or military weaponry?

Hi, I'm the military I have a tank and a rocket launcher, how about you? Um, I have a .22 and Honda civic.

 

[deep]

And if the day ever came that law enforcement and the military were used to supress the population what then?

IEDs plus yankee ingenuity

nuff said



plus, we have reenactors
all over practicing and just waiting for the day

 

[BVS]

If all of the sudden Hilary seized the US by force and imposed a fascist state, us freedom fighters with hand guns would be no better off than those without.

I'm sorry, but there's something funny about Hillary running a martial law fascist state.

 

[Irvine511]

You've kind of argued the other point here. If you can teach your kid not to swallow bottles of pills, drink bleach or push others down the stairs or get drunk and driver their car into a tree when they're 16 or any number of things that parents teach their children not to do, you can teach them not to handle the gun. Or teach them to handle the gun correctly.

i might have not expressed my point in the best way -- i was trying to say that you can teach children gun responsibility, just like you can tell them not to drive drunk or swallow bleach, but many of them are going to do it anyway no matter how good the parenting. it's the presence of the gun in the household that leads to accidents, or an angry, unstable child resorting to using the gun to, say, blow away a sibling who's pissing him off.

or, should you get a suicidal teen, they can blow their brains out.

you can save someone who's slit a wrist or swallowed some Tylenol and followed it with a fifth of vodka, but you can't put someone's brains back in.


[q]Crap, irving, looks like we're gonna get into it here and I'm gonna need to combine threads.[/q]

i think it's been very respectful.


[q]Domestic incidents are exactly the type of incident that the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" was made for. If the gun wasn't around in the case of a domestic incident, most definately a knife (or whatever) would be used. These are cases were the killer isn't driven to use a gun on someone; they're driven to kill. Gun's just the quickest way.[/q]

but that's why guns are so dangerous. they are so quick, and so effective, that the heat-of-the-moment impulses can result in death. you're going to have a much better chance of surviving a stabbing, or a beating, than of getting shot. 2/3rds of all spousal murders are done with guns. it's not so much that people kill people but that people use guns to kill people, and guns make people much, much, much better at killing people.

Yes it is. But basic economics says that the supply will always rise to fill the demand. Criminals or those that desire to be criminals will always be able to get guns so long as guns are made. Or if they can't will just use something else that is legal.

i agree, in theory, but up until the moment he entered the campus with the guns in tow, Cho did nothing illegal. had it been much harder to acquire guns, had -- and i think this is totally rational -- his time in a hospital ward been noted on his permanent record and disqualified him from being able to purchase a gun, he would have had a much tougher time getting his weapons.

i think that banning guns won't stop legitimate criminals -- the gangs, the Tony Sopranos of the world -- but i think it would do much to reduce the number of domestics that result in muder.

what do the gun crime statistics of the UK and Australia tell us?

 

[Vincent Vega]

And just like it was first impossible to prohibit alchohol and after that drugs, it'd be impossible to prohibit guns. Some guns are already illegal, and some bullets too; and we can't even stop those.

That's a great logic, isn't it.
Because, murder is illegal, speeding is, robbery and theft is, but it still occurs.
You can't prohibit it, it still occurs, so why not legalizing it?

 

[Irvine511]

IEDs plus yankee ingenuity

nuff said

ouch.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sorry, but there's something funny about Hillary running a martial law fascist state.

agreed. Rudy is way, way more autocratic.

 

[Vincent Vega]

And if the day ever came that law enforcement and the military were used to supress the population what then?

And that gets to the the root of it; if you take away people right to bear arms then there it is that much easier for a tyrannical regime to tread on the rights of it's population without concequence. Gun ownership is a liberty, like many liberties it is double edged and there are negative concequences when people are irresponsible but the security that is gained by removing weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens is at the expense of liberty and it will not prevent criminals from getting illegal weapons (as there are other channels for them to be obtained).

It seems Americans appreciate their right to bear arms, I only hope that in future it is matched by equally fervent belief in the right to free speech (against government and religious institutions) and religious freedom (no persecution on promotion of any religious beliefs).

Hm, interesting. In most countries gun owners make up only a very small amount of citizens, and there are strict laws and restrictions on gun owning.
Still we found ways to implement systems to reduce the risk of getting overrun by our own state, like every other industrialised country.
There is no need for guns in every household, and if it should ever get so far I think it's too late anyways.

 

[Snowlock]

That's a great logic, isn't it.
Because, murder is illegal, speeding is, robbery and theft is, but it still occurs.
You can't prohibit it, it still occurs, so why not legalizing it?

No, the logic is, guns are a civil liberties, one of the original intents of the forefathers of this country. If we're going to take it away we better not do it lightly. If we do take it away, will it be worth it? I say no because it's going to happen anyway (gun proliferation I mean). I'm not a big fan of messing with the constitution just to try something out.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Oh, I forgot, the Holy Constitution, meant by the forefathers never to be adjusted at all. Never to be changed at all.
And the right to bear arms, that's the key of the Constitution, right?

 

[BVS]

No, the logic is, guns are a civil liberties, one of the original intents of the forefathers of this country. If we're going to take it away we better not do it lightly. If we do take it away, will it be worth it? I say no because it's going to happen anyway (gun proliferation I mean). I'm not a big fan of messing with the constitution just to try something out.

And I'm not a big fan of holding on to antiquated, unjustifiable rights just for status quo sakes.

 

[Snowlock]

Oh, I forgot, the Holy Constitution, meant by the forefathers never to be adjusted at all. Never to be changed at all.
And the right to bear arms, that's the key of the Constitution, right?

If you're dissing the consitution I'm not sure what to say as it's pretty much universally recognized as the strongest blueprint to set up a country ever created by people a lot smarter than you or I. In fact, your own consitution was based in large part on ours (assuming you're in germany)

I don't think I need to defend it as its success pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not a big fan of messing with the constitution just to try something out.

as an aside, many in the pro-gun camp (am assuming Republicans) seemed to be perfectly willing to fuck with the Constitution when it comes to relegating gay people to being 2nd class citizens.

but that's an aside, and not directly relevant to your position, but i do hope that the Republicans aren't going to warn us about messing with the Constitution, because that would be the very height of hypocrisy.

 

[BVS]

I think you missed his point. His point was the forefathers were intelligent enough to know things change and life evolves therefore designed the constitution able to modify with those changes that occur.

 

[Zoots]

[q]Domestic incidents are exactly the type of incident that the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" was made for. If the gun wasn't around in the case of a domestic incident, most definately a knife (or whatever) would be used. These are cases were the killer isn't driven to use a gun on someone; they're driven to kill. Gun's just the quickest way.[/q]

but that's why guns are so dangerous. they are so quick, and so effective, that the heat-of-the-moment impulses can result in death. you're going to have a much better chance of surviving a stabbing, or a beating, than of getting shot. 2/3rds of all spousal murders are done with guns. it's not so much that people kill people but that people use guns to kill people, and guns make people much, much, much better at killing people.

Exactly! I agree!

i think that banning guns won't stop legitimate criminals -- the gangs, the Tony Sopranos of the world -- but i think it would do much to reduce the number of domestics that result in murder.

That's a great point!

 

[anitram]

I love the talk of these magical law-abiding citizens who don't abuse guns.

Guy goes crazy, catches wife in bed with another guy, loses his mind, picks up the gun in his garage and shoots her. He used to be law abiding. (And btw, these cases aren't rare, I could cite a dozen just off the top of my head)

Stupid teenager and his 3 buddies go to a 7-11, they're horsing around, decide to be dumb and steal a 6-pack of beer, it goes wrong, one of them happens to have a gun, shoots the cashier. No previous history of criminality, no previous convictions, hey, maybe it was his buddy's gun - he just happened to be holding it.

9 year old boy finds one of his father's guns in the basement, plays around with it, accidentally shoots his sister and the family dog. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy owns house backing onto ravine, hates how neighbourhood cats and dogs wander on to his property. Sees a beagle taking a dump, picks up his gun to teach it a lesson and misses, shooting the mother of 3 who happened to be walking the dog. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy's business is crumbling, he's got debt collectors showing up, he's under stress, they're relentless, he orders them out of his store, they refuse, he picks up a gun and shoots. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy's wife tells him she's leaving him and the kids and is going to clean him out and by the way, his dick is small and she's repulsed by looking at him. He's enraged, picks up his hunting rifle, shoots her, the inlaws who live on the main floor of their house and then takes his own life.

Everyone is law abiding initially.

 

[Snowlock]

as an aside, many in the pro-gun camp (am assuming Republicans) seemed to be perfectly willing to fuck with the Constitution when it comes to relegating gay people to being 2nd class citizens.

but that's an aside, and not directly relevant to your position, but i do hope that the Republicans aren't going to warn us about messing with the Constitution, because that would be the very height of hypocrisy.

Well, as an aside, there are many in the anti-gun camp (am assuming Democrats) that seemed to be perfectly willing to legalize drugs because they think they are unbanable.

 

[Irvine511]

i suppose i'm beginning to think that there can be something of a phased withdrawal of guns. a tightening of what's legal and what's not. as well as an extensive background check that includes mental illness. and an extensive training course. i spent hours and hours getting certified for SCUBA.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, as an aside, there are many in the anti-gun camp (am assuming Democrats) that seemed to be perfectly willing to legalize drugs because they think they are un-bannable.

when you say "drugs," do you mean marijuana? or do you mean all drugs -- because i think marijuana should at the least be decriminalized, or at least a misdemeanor, but i am not an advocate of the legalization of drugs like meth or heroin.

 

[BVS]

Everyone is law abiding initially.

Exactly, that's why this thread is cracking me up. I mean just look at the reason this thread was started.

2 legal guns bought by a law-abiding citizen.

 

[Snowlock]

Leaving for work, and as much as I enjoy a good debate like this, I'm not staying on a friday to debate the rest lol. But this part I wanted to leave with till later:

i agree, in theory, but up until the moment he entered the campus with the guns in tow, Cho did nothing illegal. had it been much harder to acquire guns, had -- and i think this is totally rational -- his time in a hospital ward been noted on his permanent record and disqualified him from being able to purchase a gun, he would have had a much tougher time getting his weapons.

But stiffer gun control would do the exact same thing. I'm certainly not opposed to that. I'm not against waiting periods or making background checks more extensive or anything like that. I agree Cho could've probably been stopped from getting a gun. But I think gun control would've done that.

And before anyone says it, don't tell me he could've gotten a gun from a relative or stolen it if gun control stopped him. He could've done that anyway if guns were banned.