Right to Bear Arms on Docket...
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
guns for everyone
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Justices Agree on the Right to Own Guns:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html
As a Libertarian, this is to me, is the best news out of Washingting D.C in a long time.
President George Bush sent his lawyers to defend the D.C. gun ban.
If you still consider yourself a Rebublican, it's time you read the U.S. Constitution.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html
As a Libertarian, this is to me, is the best news out of Washingting D.C in a long time.
President George Bush sent his lawyers to defend the D.C. gun ban.
If you still consider yourself a Rebublican, it's time you read the U.S. Constitution.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
the iron horse said:
the District doesn't need any more guns.
it's easy enough to get them in gun-totin' Virginia.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
DC will get hand guns
this court will ignore stare decisis
the activist judges appointed by Bush
Roberts and Alito
will over turn a decision from 1939
that said legislators could limit guns in their juristrictions.
this court will ignore stare decisis
the activist judges appointed by Bush
Roberts and Alito
will over turn a decision from 1939
that said legislators could limit guns in their juristrictions.
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
the iron horse said:
half heartedly
he was obligated to do so
all the while Cheney was working with his crack team to blow it to bits
and wait, Cheney is part of the executive
executive privilege applies to him
because he is an extension of the executive?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:
executive privilege applies to him
because he is an extension of the executive?
Cheney makes it very clear,
that he decides what the rules are that govern the executive,
because he is the executive who decides the rules that govern.
he leads because he is great,
and he's great,
because he leads.
MadelynIris
Refugee
I'm thinking of getting an M4 carbine.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
the iron horse said:
Do you believe that the Constitution is not a perfect document and can become outdated?
I mean, obviously the context of a militia vs a military has changed drastically. The times of the common man and the military having equal arms is over. So how does this affect your view?
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
BonoVoxSupastar said:
So basically, your view is that the Constitution is an utterly useless document and should be thrown away, and that the Founding Fathers were ignoramuses and fools?
(See how it feels to have your point of view mispresented....)
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
financeguy said:
Nice try, but I always have something to back up my statement, repeated comments, links, context, etc... now that "evidence" may be misinterpreted by me and others(according to you), but sometimes that burden lies on you to answer the questions we ask and clarify statements you give.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Another sidetrack.
What I am talking about is the fact that you consistently misrepresent the points of view of other posters, and, while demanding that other posters answer your questions, frequently fail to answer questions put to you.
I was hoping that if you were put on the receiving end of such treatment by making a deliberately absurd, laughable distortion of what you said, you would learn something about how to interact with posters whose point of view does not agree with yours - but sadly, you haven't.
So, why do you hate the Constitution?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
financeguy said:
Believe me I saw what you were trying to do, you just failed at it... Now if you ever had any consistant postings of mine that showed I disliked the constitution you would have had something to stand on...
To answer your question, I love the constitution. And one of the reasons I do love the constitution is that it is written very deliberately knowing it will evolve and correct itself. The constitution is written knowing it's not perfect.
And in the context of the 2nd amendment, I believe it to be completely outdated. I laugh at those that still use the old excuse that we have a right to bear arms in order to stand up against our government. That's great if the common man and the military still owned muskets, but we're talking about tanks vs. shotguns now. That part makes no sense anymore, it's no longer an arguing point. Therefore outdated and needs to be looked at...
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
anitram said:
The Supreme Court Court is not acting as activists judges in this case. This was brought to the Court by Washington D.C. bacause they lost the case in a lower court. The suit was brought against D.C. by a D.C. law enforecement officer who disagreed with the D.C. gun ban.
Some quotes on the Second Ammendment:
(Which I am sure the Justices are aware of)
"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."
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
"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)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
"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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"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)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)
"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])
"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])
"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New England)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]
"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]
"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")
"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")
"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
" 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
the iron horse said:
Well obviously all cases before the SCOTUS are there on appeal from a lower court. The definition of "activist judge" has nothing to do with this procedural rule so I'm not really sure what you're referring to here.
(For the record, I think the talk of activist judges is mostly BS - they're activist when they disagree with whatever your particular position seems to be. But, had they ruled otherwise, I have no doubt we'd hear crowing about what an activist court this has become.)
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
America can go on arming itself, so the world can continue spinning.
Thank God!
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Yes, every day I wake up and feel my freedom to be so infringed and can hardly cope with this essential freedom taken from me by my government. I'm so unfree.
Thank God!
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Yes, every day I wake up and feel my freedom to be so infringed and can hardly cope with this essential freedom taken from me by my government. I'm so unfree.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
anitram said:
What is the definition of an activist judge?
This gun issue...
Whatever they decided, I do not think this case is an example of "activists judges."
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Well they also have stronger freedom of speech protections, take the good with the bad.Vincent Vega said:America can go on arming itself, so the world can continue spinning.
Thank God!
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Yes, every day I wake up and feel my freedom to be so infringed and can hardly cope with this essential freedom taken from me by my government. I'm so unfree.
dazzlingamy
Refugee
I always thoughts that 'the right to bear arms' meant you know in self defence, like protecting the country and the like, not shooting someone cause they don't go yo drug money, or going on some killing spree cause you're depressed.
I also believe that people who want a gun for self defence, and not understand the gravatis of the situation. Shoot dead an intruder armed with a knife - wow, you're so brave, and now you've taken someones life. It just seems so unbalanced and wrong.
I also believe that people who want a gun for self defence, and not understand the gravatis of the situation. Shoot dead an intruder armed with a knife - wow, you're so brave, and now you've taken someones life. It just seems so unbalanced and wrong.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
So protecting your person and property doesn't fall under self-defence? A moot point, an argument based on the freedom to own a gun in principle rather than the conditional case of self-protection (which isn't clear) makes more sense.
If somebody has broken into a house with a knife and the person in the house is at serious risk then harming or killing them should generally fall under self-protection - it shouldn't matter if it is unfair. Would it be fair if you beat them to death with a hammer but wrong if you shoot them with a gun?
Self-defence should be proportionate, if somebody kills another person in self defence I fail to see what difference it makes whether they use a gun or any other tool. And again, just to reiterate that self-defence is a bad argument for gun ownership, if people need guns to survive then there are probably bigger problems.
If somebody has broken into a house with a knife and the person in the house is at serious risk then harming or killing them should generally fall under self-protection - it shouldn't matter if it is unfair. Would it be fair if you beat them to death with a hammer but wrong if you shoot them with a gun?
Self-defence should be proportionate, if somebody kills another person in self defence I fail to see what difference it makes whether they use a gun or any other tool. And again, just to reiterate that self-defence is a bad argument for gun ownership, if people need guns to survive then there are probably bigger problems.
Last edited:
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
A_Wanderer said:
The kind of speech that gets me in trouble here is so far of I can't really be bothered. Though I agree there is a legitimate argument for a full protection of freedom of speech, I wouldn't view this being worthy enough for everyone getting armed.
I don't feel so oppressed only because of some little freedom I have not. And this is like most other topics: I don't see the extremes as being necessary.
dazzlingamy said:
I would be cautious seeing a knife as something not that dangerous. A knife is as dangerous a weapon as a gun.
And in the case of self-defense, if I got attacked by someone with a knive I would not hesitate to shoot should I have a gun.
The danger I see here more is that with nearly everyone having a gun, or the risk of that being much higher, an intruder is more likely to be armed himself and both sides are likely to be more trigger happy.
Giving everyone the right to get the gun of his liking isn't in any way addressing the reasons for crimes being committed, has more or less zero effect on the crime rate and is rather increasing the likelihood of turning a crime into a tragedy.
But guns are neither reason nor solution for the problem of crime.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i look forward to getting held up at gunpoint as a result of this law.
A_Wanderer said:
Yes, because if you're being robbed in the middle of the night at knife point, amid all that chaos you are going to quickly and efficiently go downstairs to wherever you keep your gun safely locked away from your children, and proceed to aim at the intruder.
This scenario is one of the sillier arguments in favour of gun control.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The point that I was making was that self defence is self defence, that there really isn't a difference between shooting somebody that poses a threat to your life and beating them to death with a blunt object; the reason would be the same as would the end result. It was in response to a post that stated that a gun was an unfair advantage against a hypothetical knife wielding intruder.A_Wanderer said:
Your answer assumes that 1: the owner has a family, 2: that they live in a 2 story house 3: the gun is locked away far away from their bed. Your logistical argument is far too conditional to be a blanket case against guns as self-defence.
And guns for self-defence is a very silly argument for gun control.
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
What?
Gun control is a reasonable limitation in a civilized society. But this is really almost an irrelevant point in America, where the better question is - what makes the society that much more prone to gun violence (because gun ownership is not directly linked to gun violence aside from being an obvious prerequisite) with respect to other comparable western democracies.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
You said that self-defence was a silly argument in favour of gun control; that is a true statement, was it the intended statement?anitram said:
Last edited:
dazzlingamy
Refugee
no my point in self defence is, the aim of it shouldn't be death. Most people shooting a weapon are going to cause big problems cause they arn't aiming for the leg or arm or something, they just wildy shoot at the head.
Of course someone should defend themselves but there is a huge difference from knocking someone else out with a bat or tackling them and tying them up, or smashing them over the head with a glass, then shooting point blank at them. If you accidentally kill someone from them falling and cracking their head after you hit them, thats not your fault, but if you are using a lethal weapon, with really no regard, care of knowledge its all going to end much worse.
Of course someone should defend themselves but there is a huge difference from knocking someone else out with a bat or tackling them and tying them up, or smashing them over the head with a glass, then shooting point blank at them. If you accidentally kill someone from them falling and cracking their head after you hit them, thats not your fault, but if you are using a lethal weapon, with really no regard, care of knowledge its all going to end much worse.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Your examples of "reasonable" self defence include tackling and knocking out with a bat - they are things that people can't be expected to do (an averaged sized woman against an average sized man for instance). If somebody was threatening me with a knife tackling them would be the last thing on my mind, it would be suicidal. To even get close enough to strike them with a bat would be dangerous.
A proportionate response that ends up killing the agressor is not moral, but it shouldn't be criminal. That is what I take issue with; your implication that the right to protect ones life is trumped by an aggressors right to bodily safety. In cases of genuine self-defence fault should rest on the aggressor, not the victim. That when it comes to the absolute extreme of having your life directly threatened the response must aim to be non-lethal (as opposed to a frantic do as much damage to them if the opportunity arises - which it probably won't - response). If you have a strong moral opposition to violence in self-defense then it is fine for you to live your life accordingly; but to impose that upon other people would be wrong.
It is an argument independent of gun rights but one relevant for the right to protect oneself from harm. It is also so overtly simplistic as it glosses over what constitutes proportionality, if it extends to protection of property, how much somebody could have done being looked at retroactively etc.
A proportionate response that ends up killing the agressor is not moral, but it shouldn't be criminal. That is what I take issue with; your implication that the right to protect ones life is trumped by an aggressors right to bodily safety. In cases of genuine self-defence fault should rest on the aggressor, not the victim. That when it comes to the absolute extreme of having your life directly threatened the response must aim to be non-lethal (as opposed to a frantic do as much damage to them if the opportunity arises - which it probably won't - response). If you have a strong moral opposition to violence in self-defense then it is fine for you to live your life accordingly; but to impose that upon other people would be wrong.
It is an argument independent of gun rights but one relevant for the right to protect oneself from harm. It is also so overtly simplistic as it glosses over what constitutes proportionality, if it extends to protection of property, how much somebody could have done being looked at retroactively etc.
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
One should compare the number of people killed by self defense with a legal gun, to the number of people murdered with a legal gun...
I guarantee you self defense will lose...
I guarantee you self defense will lose...
Similar threads
