The 2nd Amendment and criminals.

[Yossarian]

RayManKiller3: "If the government wanted, it could take your freedoms right now. Who is going to stop it? America is too developed for any real civil war to be successful against the government."


Then there goes popularity ratings and the functioning of society, so much for next elections...And our men and women in uniform and law enforcement are citizens to...

Anyway the post earlier saying that you can rather talk or work you way out of a confrontation with an armed criminal is the most ridiculous thing I have thus far heard in our debate.

So I am supposed to appeal to a thug's good nature at gun or knifepoint or in a out numbered situation involving tire irons?

"Excuse me mister thug sir, but you do not need to grab my wallet and most definitely need not to rob me, use your good nature and....wait, you don't need to chamber a round...what are you ,... I know your good, just use your good mora........"

Also, alcohol was deemed dangerous to society, and has a very close relation to certain criminal activity, and it was banned, and look what happened there...

I do however support the notion that we need to find a medium, a medium between safety, and personal freedoms, a freedom thought of since the ideals behind the Revolution. We already made concessions to wards taxing....almost everything it seems, but allot of gun owners vote, pay their taxes, obey the speed limit and do basic duties of being a good citizen, why should they give up a legally owned and non hazardous (it takes a trigger puller to make it dangerous, do not forget this) part of their own protected property?

Based on a assumption that we do not know about and how it will work if at all in this country? We have unique problems, this is not Holland, this is not China, this is the U.S., with a legal history of regulations preceding our issues that make them truly and American issue to tackle.

As on banning....we just don't know.

 

[RayManKiller3]

RayManKiller3: "If the government wanted, it could take your freedoms right now. Who is going to stop it? America is too developed for any real civil war to be successful against the government."

Anyway the post earlier saying that you can rather talk or work you way out of a confrontation with an armed criminal is the most ridiculous thing I have thus far heard in our debate.


Also, alcohol was deemed dangerous to society, and has a very close relation to certain criminal activity, and it was banned, and look what happened there...

I am not sure where you got anyone saying you can talk or work your way out of a confrontation with an armed person. I know for certain I didn't say that, as that would be stupid. That works only if the criminal has a conscience or is not too far into what he is doing.

I was saying how it is much easier to defend oneself when the attacker has a melee weapons as it requires them to be close. I didn't say that it will be easy to fight them off, just easier than a person shooting at you then running off.

As for you comparing alcohol to gun trafficking; it is quite irrelevent. I still stand by that guns are more complex to design. If someone has the money, equipment and knowledge to design a gun for themselves, they shouldn't need to do criminal work. Like I said earlier, alchohol is too broad and virtually anyone can get their hands on some beer/wine/liquor even when it is illegal.

Controlling chemical substances is much more difficult than regulating how many people are able to obtain firearms.

 

[5.56X45mm]

I am not sure where you got anyone saying you can talk or work your way out of a confrontation with an armed person. I know for certain I didn't say that, as that would be stupid. That works only if the criminal has a conscience or is not too far into what he is doing.

I was saying how it is much easier to defend oneself when the attacker has a melee weapons as it requires them to be close. I didn't say that it will be easy to fight them off, just easier than a person shooting at you then running off.

As for you comparing alcohol to gun trafficking; it is quite irrelevent. I still stand by that guns are more complex to design. If someone has the money, equipment and knowledge to design a gun for themselves, they shouldn't need to do criminal work. Like I said earlier, alchohol is too broad and virtually anyone can get their hands on some beer/wine/liquor even when it is illegal.

Controlling chemical substances is much more difficult than regulating how many people are able to obtain firearms.

I built a AK series rifle in my garage for sh£ts and giggles. It was a Yugoslavian M90A Underfolder chambered in 5.56x45mm. Took me a total of thee hours. Had it up and running and sold it for $700 to fund another project. Total investment in the gun was under $300. I can build a single shot rifle or shotgun with twenty dollars worth of parts from Home Depot. A firearm is not rocket science and the majority of design out on the market are updated designs from the turn of the century. The only difference is simply the material currently used. A Browning Tilt Barrel is a Browning Tilt Barrel just like a duck is a duck no matter what color you paint the damn duck in.

As for the banning of firearms. It has been done. Washington DC and Chicago had a total ban on the ownership of firearms for the last 30 years. Their crime rate sky rocketed within those last 30 years while the rest of the nation dropped. Washington DC was not known as the Nation's Murder Capital for nothing. It was illegal for someone to be in possession of a firearm; yet criminals were contently arrested with firearms. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS! THEY BREAK THE LAW! Same with Chicago and other anti-gun locations in the USA.

The moment the US Supreme Court told Washingotn DC that it's total ban was unconstitutional and allowed the legal ownership of firearms in Washington DC, the crime rate dropped by thirty percent. Those numbers don't just happen because criminals suddenly develop a heart and stop robbing and assaulting people. It happens because they suddenly go "Uh oh, the guy I might rob might shoot me. I'll go somewhere else."

Machines Guns have been legally registered with the Federal Government since 1934. Under the National Firearms Act (the law that governs machine guns); you must send off a form the the federal government, pay a $200 tax, and have a background check done on you before, and wait until you get government permission to take possession of the firearm. There are over 500,000 legally transferable machine guns on the US market right now. Guess how many legally owned machine guns have been used in the commission of crimes.

Two. Yes, that's right.... TWO!

One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.

As for the dreaded .50 Caliber sniper rifles. The ones that California, NY, and NJ banned. None have been used in the commission of a crime. NONE!

Now if that's the case, why do certain locals claim that they are the main weapon of criminals? Why is it that the Clinton Era Assault Weapon Ban failed? Because of the weapons that were banned under that law, less then 1% of the guns used in crimes were the weapons that were banned. AR-15s, AK-47s, etc..... all of the dreaded Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles and pistols! OH NO! Yup.... according to a ten year study by the FBI, less then 1% of the banned weapons were used in crimes. Now, remember folks. These weapons were still out on the market. Either they were preban weapons or they were made for LEO/GOV/MIL purchase only. But they weren't used because they were banned. They weren't used becuase criminals likes little tiny cheap compact pistols.

Not rifles, not GLOCK pistols, not S&W revolvers. But little tiny cheap .25ACP caliber pistols. Guns that cost less then $100 new. The reason why? Because they're criminals. They use guns as tools and throw them away and ditch them when they need to because they are usually convicted felons and under Federal and State law, convicted felons can't own firearms because they're convicted felons. What's a convicted felon? Someone that has been found guiltily of a crime in which the punishment results in 366 days or more in prison. Bank fraud, murder, rape, domestic violence, robbery, mugging, car jacking, cocaine poss. or sale, child molestation, etc... those are all felony crimes. Usually your average criminal is a convicted felon because they break the law more then once and yet they still manage to get guns in banned areas and continue to break the law with their possession and continue to commit crime with them. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS! CRIMINALS BREAK THE LAW!

Look at England, a nation in which has pretty much outlawed the majority of firearms. A nation in which you need to jump through so many hoops to simply get a simply single shot shotgun for bird hunting. A nation in which it is a island with no land borders to other nations with less restrictive gun laws. They have had a staggering rise in crime; violent crime to be exact. Crimes commited with firearms. Yet there have been numerous government bans and confiscations for the law abiding subjects (they're not citizens because they are disarmed, but that is another issue) and yet criminals still get their dirty little paws on guns. They're not easily being imported across a land border. They aren't being air dropped by allied powers that support the criminals like the UK did back in WWII to the French Underground. They're are there because criminals never registered their guns and never allowed the government to turn get them. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS! THEY BREAK LAWS!

Canada, England, and Australia have shown the USA two things.

1. Bans don't work and registration leads to confiscation.
2. Criminals still get them and they still break the law.

So in the end, why should the law abiding citizenry be restricted in ownership of firearms? If laws only restrict the law abiding then what is the point of restricting them to their choice of self defense when criminals will break the law anyways. Why make something illegal for no reason?

As for the 1st Amendment argument. Yes, I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater for no reason. The logic behind that is that I am endangering the public through the creation of mass panic. That is a legal restriction because my rights end at your door step. My rights do not include ending your rights nor possibly endangering you.

I can how ever walk down the sidewalk and claim that aliens abducted me and forced me to destroy the World Trade Center with my mind. Just as you have the right to not listen to me or have an opinion that I'm an idiot.

I should have the right to have the means to protect myself. A firearm gives me those means. I'm not talking about a nuclear device, chemical weapons, or even a grenade. I'm talking about the right to own and carry a pistol for my self defense and the defense of my loved one.

The 2nd Amendment is regulated just like the 1st Amendment. But under Constitutional Law, it must be the minimalist regulation and it must have a damn good reason like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Simply restricting it because you feel that it isn't need doesn't fall under those reasons.

 

[senojekips]

I built a AK series rifle in my garage for sh£ts and giggles.

I seriously doubt that you "built" it. I would say that you assembled it from factory made parts. To build one would take many hundreds of hours and require a very serious foundry and machine shop with appropriate tooling, plus a knowledge of and access to all the right steel alloys, otherwise your life would be at risk every time you attempted to use the weapon.

 

[RayManKiller3]

hmm, so you telling me, you were able the whole constuction of it yourself in only 3 hours? That seems a little exaggerated. It takes even specialist who makes guns for their life a more time than that.

You guys love your firearms I see and that is why you defend it. If you guys didn't care for firearms I am sure your picture would be different? I own no weapon and feel no need to own one. I do like the design of guns, but I don't think having it legal so a few can defend themselves and more die as a result of it is a good sacrifice.

Like I keep saying; guns are so easy to grab off the street thanks to the legal availability of it.

a source reports that somewhere near 500,000 guns is reported stolen or lost each year. You can't tell me that isn't alarming. I am not sure how true that source is though, because the only site I was able to find that stated it was wikipedia.

Though lots of people discredit wikipedia, it is actually a good source of fast information. Most of the time it is true in what it says.

 

[MontyB]

I built a AK series rifle in my garage for sh£ts and giggles. It was a Yugoslavian M90A Underfolder chambered in 5.56x45mm. Took me a total of thee hours. Had it up and running and sold it for $700 to fund another project. Total investment in the gun was under $300. I can build a single shot rifle or shotgun with twenty dollars worth of parts from Home Depot. A firearm is not rocket science and the majority of design out on the market are updated designs from the turn of the century. The only difference is simply the material currently used. A Browning Tilt Barrel is a Browning Tilt Barrel just like a duck is a duck no matter what color you paint the damn duck in.

OK I am not going to quote all of that primarily because no one deserves to be put through that twice, so instead I will pose this...

Illegal guns at some point must have been legal guns where do you think all these illegal guns came from and why is there so many that it frightens Americans into thinking they need one for "protection".

Just to start the ball rolling I will present this...

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.

While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Now as I am not one to argue with the ATF would it not indicate to you a complete failure all systems relating to firearms management, it is not hard to see how nutters and criminals get firearms there is simply nothing in place to stop them.

 

[Yossarian]

hmm, so you telling me, you were able the whole construction of it yourself in only 3 hours? That seems a little exaggerated. It takes even specialist who makes guns for their life a more time than that.

You guys love your firearms I see and that is why you defend it. If you guys didn't care for firearms I am sure your picture would be different? I own no weapon and feel no need to own one. I do like the design of guns, but I don't think having it legal so a few can defend themselves and more die as a result of it is a good sacrifice.

Like I keep saying; guns are so easy to grab off the street thanks to the legal availability of it.

a source reports that somewhere near 500,000 guns is reported stolen or lost each year. You can't tell me that isn't alarming. I am not sure how true that source is though, because the only site I was able to find that stated it was wikipedia.

Though lots of people discredit wikipedia, it is actually a good source of fast information. Most of the time it is true in what it says.

Little kids in Pakistan have their assault products cobbled together, by hand mind you, packaged and ready for smuggling even paid for, all in a matter of about 12 hours, ready for the hands of the Taliban, Chechen foreign fighters, or international thugs who have their dirty little paws in a syndicate somwhere...not that hard, hey quality is not great, but what are you going to do, report them to the better business bureau?

Point withstanding, criminals even here, like the idea of a disarmed populace, if I was a thug, and those who say you have equal odds disarming a attack by other means.

(THIS IS IN NO WAY A THREAT FROM ME, JUST AN EXAMPLE)

I would casually shoot you why you try negotiating, grabbing you butterfly knife or tennis racket or whatever. And there you have it, how would you like to know you just died by a $125 knock off of a knock off brand pistol in wait for it.....

A legally disarmed juristiction...

Oh dear , what now?

Guns don't kill people, drugs don't kill people, cars don't kill people, its the choices we make that kill people. You might as well outlaw the human race to prevent criminal activity, can't say we already outlawed crime, since thats been in effect for most of recorded history.

Banning guns, does not constitute a means to end firearm related crime, in fact, once again if I was a thug, and suspected you my have a Tarus snub nose in you dresser drawer, or 870 Express Pump action behind the store counter or bedroom closet door, I keep right on walking past you home or business before I come crawling in.

Even thugs don't like getting shot.

And what Mr. 5.56x45 stated, is the solid grounds I am looking for, look into the national crime database or some U.S. State Websites, lots of nifty little information straight from the tap as well.

 

[MontyB]

And what Mr. 5.56x45 stated, is the solid grounds I am looking for, look into the national crime database or some U.S. State Websites, lots of nifty little information straight from the tap as well.

The problem is that 5.56 is addicted to firearms I suspect that he breaks into a cold sweat if he hasn't handled one for a couple of hours, he persists in using inaccurate data to justify his case and because he copies and pastes from websites dedicated to the cause they always look "proper"

Here for example is the 2008 analysis for the UK:

Analysis: UK gun crime figures

By Dominic Casciani
Home affairs reporter, BBC News


What do we really know about the extent of gun crime in England and Wales?
During 2007, nine young people lost their lives in shootings, including the killing of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool.
According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.
But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

for the rest read...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Now I guarantee you that he will point out the 18% increase but I bet he will not tell you that it was an increase of 10 in a population of 80 million people, when you have such low numbers any variation is a noticeable percentage.

As for Australia well I can't find the statistics but Snopes.com have done a decent job at shooting holes in his case with this...

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

 

[Seehund]

Myth: Guns don't kill people, people do.

This frequent pro-gun slogan is something that, upon reflection, seems entirely true. But it's not.

In actuality, the first half of this slogan is demonstrably false; guns do indeed kill people. But the point that the gun lobby is surely trying to make is that they do not kill people by themselves; they require a human to pull the trigger.

This argument is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that guns make it much easier to kill people. Guns do this in two ways: enhanced ability and feasibility. We can see the enhanced ability from suicide statistics: the most successful suicide attempts are those that involve firearms. And this greater ability also makes murder feasible in a greater number of circumstances. To anyone entertaining murderous impulses, a gun makes it feasible to attack larger people, multiple people, people from a distance, from secrecy, etc. No one in their right mind would try to rob a bank with a knife. But a gun inspires confidence of success in a would-be bank robber, allowing a crime to occur when it wouldn't have otherwise. A wit once described this irrelevancy thus: "Fingers don't kill people, bullets do."

 

[rattler]

The problem is that 5.56 is addicted to firearms I suspect that he breaks into a cold sweat if he hasn't handled one for a couple of hours, he persists in using inaccurate data to justify his case and because he copies and pastes from websites dedicated to the cause they always look "proper"

Atta boy! I am all with you re: Addiction (and have posted the stats at the beginning of the thread in detail over nations) but some people ignore them (or dont even read all posts and just write an answer to the last post). This is why I basically stopped responding in such threads (not a *good* example as I responded 4x+ in this one, but then, I never got a feed back, which also makes my point of how useless it is to respond to people who always only read/respond the last post).

*You* have a point, for sure: 10 (!) homicides with gun in the UK, compared to 18.000 in the US (2007)? For the record, we had 3(!) in Spain in 2009, 46 million inhabitants (NOTE plz that Spain until now - will change this year - is fairly liberal in gun control for European standards: You apply, you dont have antecedents; Here goes your gun permit, after about 6 month. In my village almost *everybody* - 70%, medium age 56 - owns a legal gun).

Whatever my stance on gun control would be, those data would start me THINKING about whats wrong in the US, and dont tell me that thinking does not - on the long run - lead to solutions..

Rattler (completely neutral but open-mouthedly flabbergasted on the issue)

 

[George]

Gun murders are rare in China & Japan, & cited for thier strong gun Laws, but gun deaths in the Chinese-American & Japanese-American communities are low despite the lax gun laws. Perhaps some just aren't into killing with guns. It should be noted that despite The Right to keep & bear shall not be infringed, there are between 20,000 & 25,000 gun laws on the books @ the Federal, State & local level.

 

[MontyB]

Atta boy! I am all with you re: Addiction (and have posted the stats at the beginning of the thread in detail over nations) but some people ignore them (or dont even read all posts and just write an answer to the last post). This is why I basically stopped responding in such threads (not a *good* example as I responded 4x+ in this one, but then, I never got a feed back, which also makes my point of how useless it is to respond to people who always only read/respond the last post).

*You* have a point, for sure: 10 (!) homicides with gun in the UK, compared to 18.000 in the US (2007)? For the record, we had 3(!) in Spain in 2009, 46 million inhabitants (NOTE plz that Spain until now - will change this year - is fairly liberal in gun control for European standards: You apply, you dont have antecedents; Here goes your gun permit, after about 6 month. In my village almost *everybody* - 70%, medium age 56 - owns a legal gun).

Whatever my stance on gun control would be, those data would start me THINKING about whats wrong in the US, and dont tell me that thinking does not - on the long run - lead to solutions..

Rattler (completely neutral but open-mouthedly flabbergasted on the issue)

Oddly enough you bring up the one area that I find myself more or less in agreement with 5.56 and in disagreement with Seehund, guns are not the problem they are a symptom of a much larger societal problem which I believe stems from the 2nd Amendment itself.

Most Western nations have lived with the idea of firearms as tools for decades, we know they are good for hunting and pest control but having a firearm is no different to owning a car or a set of golf clubs, my brother owns them for killing rabbits and opposums on his farm, I collect them but in reality I don't need them (What am I going to with an MP-44 in a city of 500,000), essentially they do not mean anything.

However there is something about the American psyche that elevates firearms from just an item to something close to a national symbol, look at the number of people in this thread alone that seem to think they need one for protection yet outside of a professional environment how many of them have actually been in a situation where they needed one (or even know someone that did), the counter argument to this has been "better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it" yet the same people laugh at the idea of Scuba kits or parachutes in cars yet the risk is almost the same.

Basically the problem is a mental one.

 

[5.56X45mm]

OK I am not going to quote all of that primarily because no one deserves to be put through that twice, so instead I will pose this...

Illegal guns at some point must have been legal guns where do you think all these illegal guns came from and why is there so many that it frightens Americans into thinking they need one for "protection".

Just to start the ball rolling I will present this...



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Now as I am not one to argue with the ATF would it not indicate to you a complete failure all systems relating to firearms management, it is not hard to see how nutters and criminals get firearms there is simply nothing in place to stop them.

The ATF is currently under Congressional investigation for it's part in the death of a US Border Patrol Agent. The BATFE has been running a program called Project Gunrunner in which ATF has forced legal FFL holders to perform illegal straw sales. The firearms sold were to be used to track them to supposed Mexican gangs. Instead two of the guns sold under ATF's watch were used in the murder of a US Border Patrol Agent. Also BATFE is under the magnifying glass for targeting legal gun owners, pushing to expand the "sporting purpose" clause, and other issues of gross violation of Federal Law and authority.

Also PBS has been proven to be on the side of Anti-Gun politics. They had a person claiming to be a pro-gun activist on one of their radio programs. That person actually had a history of funding and chairing anti-gun groups.

 

[5.56X45mm]

Oddly enough you bring up the one area that I find myself more or less in agreement with 5.56 and in disagreement with Seehund, guns are not the problem they are a symptom of a much larger societal problem which I believe stems from the 2nd Amendment itself.

Most Western nations have lived with the idea of firearms as tools for decades, we know they are good for hunting and pest control but having a firearm is no different to owning a car or a set of golf clubs, my brother owns them for killing rabbits and opposums on his farm, I collect them but in reality I don't need them (What am I going to with an MP-44 in a city of 500,000), essentially they do not mean anything.

However there is something about the American psyche that elevates firearms from just an item to something close to a national symbol, look at the number of people in this thread alone that seem to think they need one for protection yet outside of a professional environment how many of them have actually been in a situation where they needed one (or even know someone that did), the counter argument to this has been "better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it" yet the same people laugh at the idea of Scuba kits or parachutes in cars yet the risk is almost the same.

Basically the problem is a mental one.

A mental one you say? It's not the fact that it's about firearms...... It's about freedom of choice and freedom from restriction. Firearms are simply a common segment of the Bill of Rights that are attacked by those that wish to limit us of our freedoms and force us into bondage. Most Gun Laws in the USA can be traced back to Jim Crow and Anti-Immigration Laws. Just as with Poll Taxes, Segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement.... the further restriction on the rights of the citizenry is something that is always a threat.

The United States of America was not founded on the belief that the people get their rights from government. But that the government gets it's limited authority of power from the people. Our rights aren't granted to us by the government. They are rights we are born with; the government is simply a force that is trying ti further restrict and regulate those rights.

Rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to keep and bear arms, right to privacy, right to be secure on one's person and in their home, right to travel, right to worship, right to freedom of thought and the right to education, right to pursuit happiness (profit), and other rights.

New Zealand, England, Japan, Spain, Russia, Croatia, etc.... they are all nations founded on the belief that the government is the source of power and rights. Governments that trace their power form those of Kings and Dictators. That is why the rest of the world fears the American view.

We view that we have the right to bear arms no matter what someone else says. My home is my kingdom and I am my own king. I bow to no one nor will I force others to do so. No one is my lord, master, and god.

Remember.... I have lived under the wonders of Government Control and it was a fate close to death. My family didn't risk my life and their own to come to the USA for a simple reason. We came here for one reason.

Freedom

Nothing more and nothing less. Here we have achieved what was impossible in Cuba. I have achieved what is impossible in even the majority of Europe. The rest of the world keeps telling me that I should be more like Europeans and other more civilized nations. If that's the case then I should remember that it was Europe that nearly killed itself twice in two world wars and it was Europe that has enslaved entire countries of people under the banner of Socialism. It was Europe where the idea of ethnically cleansing entire groups of people became civilized. It was Europe where the idea of disarming the people and herding them into ghettos became civilized.

Most of the Western World is a child of Europe. Except America.... while we have screwed the pooch ourselves. We aren't afraid to say we did. We still have been far better in the idea of civil rights and freedom then the rest of the world.

If the idea of freedom and a lack of oppression is a mental disorder. Then consider me a prime candidate. Because I suffer from a want of more Freedom and a want of less government (someone else's) control.

I'll make you a deal. You can keep your little world and I'll stay in the USA. If you cross to my side I will only shoot you on Tuesdays that have a date on odd numbers and that the weather is slightly chilly with a crisp breeze. Any other day will be a swift kick in the rear.

You have a right to your opinions just as I have my own. But the moment your opinions cross over from the realm if idea into the world of trying to restrict my rights..... it's personal.

 

[-- Dusty]

For the Americans here-
Now it's the 2nd Amendment being attacked by the government. What happens when it then becomes your freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Or even the right to vote? Or most importantly, the right to seek a redress of grievances without fear of threat or harm? What then?

 

[RayManKiller3]

To anyone entertaining murderous impulses, a gun makes it feasible to attack larger people, multiple people, people from a distance, from secrecy, etc. No one in their right mind would try to rob a bank with a knife. But a gun inspires confidence of success in a would-be bank robber, allowing a crime to occur when it wouldn't have otherwise. A wit once described this irrelevancy thus: "Fingers don't kill people, bullets do."

THANK YOU!!! With less guns come less confidence in crimes. For pete's sake Yos; I didn't say you can talk an attacker out of it or use a butterfly knife. The thing is, there will always be firearm related crimes, there is no true stopping it; the point is lowering it. Too many are dying a year for the bull crap people call "freedom". There is no such thing as true freedom unless you want to go to some place like Somalia. Lawless places like that show that freedom should be limited for the wellbeing of the majority of the people.

Freedom can be dangerous to the mental stability of a nation if it goes too far. This is what I fear for my country. Unlike the "Right to bear arms" the other Bill of rights don't come with a tremendous sacrifice of human lives, so it would be impossible to take those rights away legally.

I wish I can go back in the past and punch whoever was the first idiot that decided to give U.S citizens the right to bear arms in the amendments.

 

[Yossarian]

I wish I can go back in the past and punch whoever was the first idiot that decided to give U.S citizens the right to bear arms in the amendments.

I do see the firearm and its application as an appliance, you can kill with it yes, if used improperly, however you can do the same with the automobile and heavy machinery or even certain sporting equipment.

As for the U.S. comparing to other countries that allow gun ownership, or at least for those who keep insisting on it, let's look at Switzerland, where able bodied people are mandated at least three months conscription, and carry their weapons home, thats right, military firearms in the closet or behind the sofa.

And the violent crime rate?

0.7 Per 100,000 citizens in 2008...

I will not stand for the monopolizing of firearms only to criminals, many places and even in past America, firearms were tools of many trades, crime will always be on of them, but to deny the means to at least install the agruement that psychology of firearms possesion,you are enhanced in your means of force projection, then in terms of self presevation of one's liberties the law abiding citizen shall not be denied.

Yes, that’s right, that agurement for psychology can run deep both ways.

Also, I would gladly shove anyone out of the way if they intended to punch any of the founding fathers who installed the 2nd, no, I would not shoot you contrary to what you may wish to think, no I would not proceed to attack you.

It's hard to think about the vast majority of firearms not used in crimes isn't it? When you are done cringing up on that, and get done chewing it, get back to me.

 

[senojekips]

As for the U.S. comparing to other countries that allow gun ownership, or at least for those who keep insisting on it, let's look at Switzerland, where able bodied people are mandated at least three months conscription, and carry their weapons home, thats right, military firearms in the closet or behind the sofa.

And the violent crime rate?

0.7 Per 100,000 citizens in 2008...

This is another perfect example of both mine and MontyB's reasoning that there is a serious problem with the US approach to firearms, their ownership and usage.

Guns in the US are not the problem, it's a poor "cultural attitude" towards firearms and their place in society.

This attitude has been actively fostered by the Second Amendment, or at least the interpretation of it by US pro Firearms supporters.

It would appear to me that they, and 99.95% of these loonie who feel they must carry a firearm to be safe, see themselves as being in "The Wild West". The main thing wrong with their reasoning being that even in the Wild West it was found over 100 years ago, that the only way to cut down on the gratuitous shootings was to stop the carrying of firearms in towns. This was fireams control.

You can argue all you like about only leaving the bad guys armed, why was this not the case back then. Or if it was the case, how come it led to a more peaceful society.

No,... you'll never convince me that everyone being armed to the teeth will bring about a more law abiding public. Either way your argument doesn't make sense, it comes back to, "Cultural Attitude".

 

[MontyB]

A mental one you say? It's not the fact that it's about firearms...... It's about freedom of choice and freedom from restriction. Firearms are simply a common segment of the Bill of Rights that are attacked by those that wish to limit us of our freedoms and force us into bondage. Most Gun Laws in the USA can be traced back to Jim Crow and Anti-Immigration Laws. Just as with Poll Taxes, Segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement.... the further restriction on the rights of the citizenry is something that is always a threat.

The United States of America was not founded on the belief that the people get their rights from government. But that the government gets it's limited authority of power from the people. Our rights aren't granted to us by the government. They are rights we are born with; the government is simply a force that is trying ti further restrict and regulate those rights.

Rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to keep and bear arms, right to privacy, right to be secure on one's person and in their home, right to travel, right to worship, right to freedom of thought and the right to education, right to pursuit happiness (profit), and other rights.

New Zealand, England, Japan, Spain, Russia, Croatia, etc.... they are all nations founded on the belief that the government is the source of power and rights. Governments that trace their power form those of Kings and Dictators. That is why the rest of the world fears the American view.

We view that we have the right to bear arms no matter what someone else says. My home is my kingdom and I am my own king. I bow to no one nor will I force others to do so. No one is my lord, master, and god.

Remember.... I have lived under the wonders of Government Control and it was a fate close to death. My family didn't risk my life and their own to come to the USA for a simple reason. We came here for one reason.

Freedom

Nothing more and nothing less. Here we have achieved what was impossible in Cuba. I have achieved what is impossible in even the majority of Europe. The rest of the world keeps telling me that I should be more like Europeans and other more civilized nations. If that's the case then I should remember that it was Europe that nearly killed itself twice in two world wars and it was Europe that has enslaved entire countries of people under the banner of Socialism. It was Europe where the idea of ethnically cleansing entire groups of people became civilized. It was Europe where the idea of disarming the people and herding them into ghettos became civilized.

Most of the Western World is a child of Europe. Except America.... while we have screwed the pooch ourselves. We aren't afraid to say we did. We still have been far better in the idea of civil rights and freedom then the rest of the world.

If the idea of freedom and a lack of oppression is a mental disorder. Then consider me a prime candidate. Because I suffer from a want of more Freedom and a want of less government (someone else's) control.

I'll make you a deal. You can keep your little world and I'll stay in the USA. If you cross to my side I will only shoot you on Tuesdays that have a date on odd numbers and that the weather is slightly chilly with a crisp breeze. Any other day will be a swift kick in the rear.

You have a right to your opinions just as I have my own. But the moment your opinions cross over from the realm if idea into the world of trying to restrict my rights..... it's personal.

I bet you were playing with firearm while writing that weren't you, there was one within arms reach at the very least.

New Zealand, England, Japan, Spain, Russia, Croatia, etc.... they are all nations founded on the belief that the government is the source of power and rights. Governments that trace their power form those of Kings and Dictators. That is why the rest of the world fears the American view.

I really hope you historical knowledge has taken a step forward from the 18th Century because New Zealand and England are constitutional monarchies, I assume Japan is to, Spain I couldn't tell ya and Russia and Croatia are run by the Mafia for all I know.
All that being said New Zealand elects a government to represent us therefore the source of power by default is with the people not those it elects.

As for why my ancestors came to New Zealand I suspect it was simply to build a better life but it could just as easily have been a love of sailing or just plain bored at home but in the end I know it wasn't for freedom because they were already free.

If the idea of freedom and a lack of oppression is a mental disorder. Then consider me a prime candidate. Because I suffer from a want of more Freedom and a want of less government (someone else's) control.

The idea of freedom and lack of oppression is a wonderful thing but then so is cleanliness until it becomes obsessive compulsive and I think some of you are candidates for OCD therapy.

I'll make you a deal. You can keep your little world and I'll stay in the USA. If you cross to my side I will only shoot you on Tuesdays that have a date on odd numbers and that the weather is slightly chilly with a crisp breeze. Any other day will be a swift kick in the rear.

Well I will make it easy for ya, Tuesday 15 March 6:30am at LAX, only there 3 days but I am sure you can get a day off shooting Reno 911 to try fulfill your wishes.

This is another perfect example of both mine and MontyB's reasoning that there is a serious problem with the US approach to firearms, their ownership and usage. This attitude has been actively fostered by the Second Amendment, or at least the interpretation of it by US pro Firearms supporters.

It would appear to me that they, and 99.95% of these loonie who feel they must carry a firearm to be safe, see themselves as being in "The Wild West". The main thing wrong with their reasoning being that even in the Wild West it was found over 100 years ago, that the only way to cut down on the gratuitous shootings was to stop the carrying of firearms in towns. This was fireams control.

You can argue all you like about only leaving the bad guys armed, why was this not the case back then. Or if it was the case, how come it led to a more peaceful society.

No,... you'll never convince me that everyone being armed to the teeth will bring about a more law abiding public. Either way your argument doesn't make sense, it comes back to, "Cultural Attitude".

Exactly.

 

[George]

The Founding fathers couldn't envision a nationally distributed newspaper like USA Today, news magazines like Time, US News, & Newsweek, couldn't envision the telegram, phone, radio, texting, much less the Internet. Does that mean only local papers are free of political censorship under the 1st?