Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
Thought I'd make a thread about the right to bear arms, and related topics.
For one, I'd like to say that one sentace cost John Kerry my father's vote:
"The first thing we need to do to get rid of terrorists is get rid our guns here in America." (Paraphrased from one of the presidential debates)
The right to bear arms is the right which holds all the other rights afloat. It is the right that turns a disgruntled and opressed population into rebellion. The freedom of speech is VITAL but without a weapon to back it up? Worthless. You're left standing in Tienamen Square (sp?) holding up your hand to a tank... powerful imagery, but that revolution solved nothing.
Our right to keep and bear arms is figuratively and litteraly our control of our own lives and government. This is about the ony issue I agree 100% with the conservatives on. From my cold, dead hands.
The right to bear arms does absolutly nothing to "hold afloat" the rest of the bill of rights. Do you honestly think your dads hunting rifle is gonna bring down an Abrams Battletank? Freedom of speech is where it all begins, followed by free press and peaceable assembly.
I personally own several firearms for hunting and trap shooting, all of which are registered with my insurance company. I don't think we need to ban firearms, but we do need to control them better. A Browning 7mm or .357 Ruger have practical uses. Uzi's don't. Their only purpose is to kill people.
Last edited by Shnookems; 12-08-2005 at 10:33 PM..
The right to bear arms does absolutly nothing to "hold afloat" the rest of the bill of rights.
Of course. Force could NEVER be used against a government. It has never happened in the history of the world, that citizens led an armed revolt. Ever. Don't let the history nuts try to fool you, all successful rebellions against government have come about by people who will tap the dictator on his shoulder and ask politely, "Hey, mind if we get some freedoms now?"
Of course. Force could NEVER be used against a government. It has never happened in the history of the world, that citizens led an armed revolt. Ever. Don't let the history nuts try to fool you, all successful rebellions against government have come about by people who will tap the dictator on his shoulder and ask politely, "Hey, mind if we get some freedoms now?
When was the last time that the differential in weapons technology between Government Armed Forces and the citizens so great? Without the Army on-side a popular uprising will never succeed, and as things stand tyranny is much more likely to have popular support than not. Espeically in a democratic nation with such a close link to its military.
Quote:
"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."
-- The Second Amendment To The Constitution of the United States of America
Whilst it is in the Constitution you should have a right to ownership. This is of course backed up with enforcing the 'Militia' bit: i.e. providing and ensuring that gun education is a part of the education of every child in the United States likely to come into contact with a gun. And big penalties for miss-use of firearms by the general public.
BTW, paraphrasing is bad, an accurate in-context quote is good. Too often have I seen paraphrasing on the Dii.net OTF completely miss the point that the quoted person was trying to make. For all I know JK may have been trying to denegrate the so-called violent 'gun culture' in the US.
EDIT:
As an aside, I find this by far the most interesting and sensible amendment - the 9th Amendment:
Quote:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Such a statement is the most significant link between modern-day American and British Law and is very important in any society where government interference is increasing rather than decreasing.
Last edited by Suicidal Zebra; 12-08-2005 at 11:23 PM..
When was the last time that the differential in weapons technology between Government Armed Forces and the citizens so great? Without the Army on-side a popular uprising will never succeed, and as things stand tyranny is much more likely to have popular support than not. Espeically in a democratic nation with such a close link to its military.
I think the populace of the US could take down the US Army if a war broke out between the two. It would be long and costly in lives, but the people would win in the end.
Quote:
Whilst it is in the Constitution you should have a right to ownership. This is of course backed up with enforcing the 'Militia' bit: i.e. providing and ensuring that gun education is a part of the education of every child in the United States likely to come into contact with a gun. And big penalties for miss-use of firearms by the general public.
My dad got me a BB gun when I was 10, and we went out behind the house with him explaining all the safety rules that applied to it. I whole-heartedly support education concerning guns. You just have to get around all those people who assume that teaching kids the ins and outs of firearms means you are giving them a license to kill people indiscriminately.
I also support harsh sentences for people who use a gun improperly. I'd support a triple-sentence on any crime where a gun was used.
"There are two parts to the second amendment, only the first bit matters."
Quote:
Whilst it is in the Constitution you should have a right to ownership. This is of course backed up with enforcing the 'Militia' bit: i.e. providing and ensuring that gun education is a part of the education of every child in the United States likely to come into contact with a gun. And big penalties for miss-use of firearms by the general public.
I don't disagree with you. Every child should be taught about guns, gun safety, and gun use. I agree that big penalties should come with mis-using firearms.
Quote:
Uzi's don't. Their only purpose is to kill people.
Which is the point. The Second Amendment does not exist for hunting. It exists for ensureing that the People of the United States can fight back against a corrupt government. The idea that the second amendment is there to protect hunters is absurd, and NOBODY who knows what they're talking about would use that as an argument.
We all heard the phrase "Guns don't kill people. People, kill people." What's a gun for, might I ask? So you join NRA, you have access to all kinds of weaponry, many of them powerful rifles. But how much power would you *really* need, to drop a deer?
*Right* to bear arms? This is sooo about fear. What is everyone so scared of, that they feel they need to tote a rifle by their bedside? We're afraid of each other, is that it? We're afraid some robber might break into our house at night and kidnap us. We're afraid of this and that. Afraid of situations which are possible but not probable. OK how about I go and register for the NRA, but i insist on buying a Sniper Rifle. I wanna kill the SOB before he ever saw it coming.
Here in Canada near everyone I know does not have a gun. We don't need one. I don't want to feel afraid to disagree with someone, for fear that they might point a handgun at my face and tell me to take back what I said. You need protection? Why not just learn Kung fu or something? Learn to fight with your words, and then *only if necessary*, with your fists. Why would you need to wield the power to end a life instantaneously, or at the very least confine the person to the rest of his life in a wheelchair, because the bullet you fired went through his spine?
Make no mistake. If I had a sniper rifle, I might be tempted to use it. Against any number of people who slighted me. Well I'm glad I don't have access to it, and never will.
Linear Mode
