Gun Control

[BellaBlack]

Not quite sure if I can post a thread in here..I've seen other non mods do it so here goes..no idea if there was a thread on this before also, I don't remember seeing one for 2007. If there was, I suppose a mod can delete this.

Under recent events like the VT shooting, a lot of thoughts have been said about this topic in the VT thread and I wanted to seperate it so it could be easier to post about.This way, we can leave the VT thread only related to the shooting and news about it..on here we can go more in depth. Post away.

[*Ashlee*]

Its okay to start threads about an issue bella :)

ITs a good topic in light of recent events

[Ashlyn]

This issue is clearly not black and white.

I wish we didn't have guns -- at all, that we could just remove them from the face of the planet magically, but as that's not actually a viable solution, I'm quite torn.

On one hand, it's too damn easy to get a gun, and a gun did this shooting, and I really wouldn't feel safer if it was LEGAL to have guns on campus up until the point when somebody started shooting, but then again, I hate the idea of the only people having them being people getting them off the black market or something.

[Heather]

Actually, accessibility to firearms depends on the state.

I am a fan of the 2nd Ammendment, I wont deny that. But I wish the government would enforce the laws already in place. They dont, and that is a point of contention with me.

If they had enforced the laws in VA, the shooter would never have been allowed to purchase a gun, and this whole nightmare could have been avoided.

[Jon]

Sadly before I saw the light, I did a speech on gun control for the debate team. Yes, at a point in my life I was a liberal and a democrat. Shocking to many of you as that may sound. (I am from California afterall, the state that has a Governor masquerading around as a Republican.) Anyways, looking back what is wrong with guns? Remember the old adage, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Lets say we used Ashlyn's idea and guns magically disappeared, is that going to stop people from killing others? What's next get rid of knives.....or anything else that can be used as a weapon? I don't like the term "gun control" because yes as Heather pointed out, the government needs to do its job, controlling guns is not the problem. Secondly, I don't like gun control because I like the freedoms we possess including what is stated in the 2nd amendment. (Remember I did a huge speech on gun control so I know what it states and am not going to get into an argument over something such as the "in a regulated militia" or whatnot) What I will argue is, though I don't own a gun, I don't see anything wrong with wanting protection. I live in a nice rich area I suppose one could say, so it isn't riddled with crime thus I do not need one, but many others are not as lucky or fortunate as myself and may need a gun for protection for their families. I see nothing wrong with that. Again it's the people who pull the trigger on the gun that kills others. Guns do not magically shoot and kill, thus why I think it's a joke to say gun control. No offense Bella. I just think we need to call it "people control." Because that's what it boils down to. If people had some self-control, we wouldn't be debating this topic about guns, would we? I think not.

[Ashlyn]

I agree with you to some extent, Jon. (and I never thought I'd say that.)

Had more serious action been taken in regard to this man's mental health after several warnings, the gun wouldn't have even been an issue.

That being said, I hate the argument that people would just kill with knives or something. First off, if acts as though we should make allowences for the fact that people are just going to kill anyways, and give them an easier weapon. As terrible as it sounds, I think guns are a cold and detatched way of killing in comparison with a weapon like a knife. Scared kids in high schools with intention to murder hide behind their gun. I don't think there is a chance in hell that if guns didn't exist, we'd have kids bringing knives to school and killing 30 people.

That being said, it's not really a valid argument since guns aren't just going to go away.

[Jon]

I agree with you to some extent, Jon. (and I never thought I'd say that.)

Had more serious action been taken in regard to this man's mental health after several warnings, the gun wouldn't have even been an issue.

That being said, I hate the argument that people would just kill with knives or something. First off, if acts as though we should make allowences for the fact that people are just going to kill anyways, and give them an easier weapon. As terrible as it sounds, I think guns are a cold and detatched way of killing in comparison with a weapon like a knife. Scared kids in high schools with intention to murder hide behind their gun. I don't think there is a chance in hell that if guns didn't exist, we'd have kids bringing knives to school and killing 30 people.

That being said, it's not really a valid argument since guns aren't just going to go away.

Well I will take that, no matter how little extent it is! Anyways, I agree if someone took care of his mental issues, it would not have happened. To me, if the "people control" as I put it, was done, he would have been in a hospital being taken care of, instead of killing people on a campus.

See I can see your point about knives, but I use that as an example, is killing someone with a knife or baseball bat better than a gun? Killing isn't killing isn't it? I just think in our society, there are those who have a tendency to want to harm others. They don't need to have a gun to do so is what I truly believe. A gun MAYBE a quicker way to do it, and I say maybe, because I can argue tere are ways just as quick, but again killing is killing no matter how the manner is done. We shouldn't make allowances you're right, but the problem is you and I both know that taking a gun away from someone won't stop him or her from killing if that is their intent. I won't comment on the cold and detached way of killing, I really don't know what to say. Not having killed someone.....I think any way is cold ;) But getting back to the point, even if guns were taken away, people will still kill is what I believe. I mean its the people, not the guns like I said. I don't want to bring up 9/11 but lets use that as an example. They had no guns, and yet they hijacked a plane with what? Box cutters. They slashed the throats of some of the attendants if not all. I mean did not having guns stop them? No. And why not? Because their intent was to kill by any means necessary. I just think not having guns in society won't stop the ultimate root of the problems. Like I said, I don't own a gun, but even if I did, I have no evil thoughts of wanting to kill. That's the bottomline, that guy and I'd rather use another team than "guy" for him had his purpose to kill. I doubt not having a gun would have stopped him. There are so many other ways, I guess my other belief is say no guns existed, you never know what else may be in place of guns......maybe things much worse Chemical and biological warfare? We would never know how society would be without guns, but I doubt it'd make us any better or safer.

[BellaBlack]

Thanks Ashlee, good to know it was okay to post this :)

[Manon]

i agree that guns dont kill people, people kill people. but guns help. I think it's easier to kill 32 people with a gun then with a knife.
And of course, we dont know what a society without guns looks like, and i dont think we should ban them entirely. Cops should be allowed to have them, but it shouldn't be so easy for normal civilians to just get them

[jillian]

the issue with people owning guns is about 99% of them are not used in crimes. the majority are from guns owned by people that didn't get them through legal channels. also, the gun laws in place are very strict, they are just not enforced. hence part of the problem. also, part of the issue is undoing what's been done. if you think by outlawing guns tomorrow everyone will just turn thiers in you are in for a rude awakening.

also someone posted in the last thread peope don't hunt anymore for food and it's just a sport - visit the south once in a while. we still do.

[oclover24]

the issue with people owning guns is about 99% of them are not used in crimes. the majority are from guns owned by people that didn't get them through legal channels

That's true.

[Heather]

also someone posted in the last thread peope don't hunt anymore for food and it's just a sport - visit the south once in a while. we still do
So do we...and Im in the Mid-Atlantic.

[oclover24]

...and the Midwest.

;)

[M&M Vermelha]

Not long ago we had a referendum about guns.

I don't believe putting away guns stops crime here. If anything, I can only say less people would get hurt by accident inside their homes, which was one of the arguments used while we were having the referendum.

I just feel strongly about your right to defend yourself and your family.

I wouldn't feel any safer, legal guns aren't the problem here. The crazy guy who kills someone over a cellphone or an ipod is will still be killing because our government does nothing efficient to control the crime. It's all very hypocrite, really.

Give me a decent army, a decent police force, and a decent public segurity policy and I'll consider changing my mind about gun control.

Edit facing new info... lol. Now I'm going to therapy! lol At least I'm not the only crazy one, I've called 4 friends already and they all believed the referendum had forbid guns. lol

[Heather]

Well, I grew up with guns in the house from an early age. They werent for hunting, they were for protection. My dad taught my brother and I about them, and would make us watch when he cleaned them, so that we know they werent toys.

Im against outlawing firearms in any way, shape, or form. Taking away guns just means that ordinary citizens can no longer protect themselves. Because criminals will always find a way around the law.

[danyjoncew]

Not long ago the people here decided to forbid our population to buy guns and I still feel violated for that.

What? Vestido, the "no" option won, meaning the commercialization of guns was NOT forbbiden.

[M&M Vermelha]

What? Vestido, the "no" option won, meaning the commercialization of guns was NOT forbbiden.

Uh? Was that something different for each state? You can't buy guns here at Rio de Janeiro. At least not legal ones.. you can, however, buy some very few types for hunting. You could keep you old gun, but not buy new ones.

o.O I was sniffing around google and I must ask why the hell I heard otherwise from teachers and all the gun houses I knew were shut down? lol It's like learning about Tiradentes all over again.. ahuahaua. Seriously, I went away right after I voted and came back about two weeks later, I had no access to tv and all that yadda yadda, when I came back my teachers were still complaining. lol Actually, not last week my college teacher was insane because his house was robbed and he couldn't buy a gun. I'll need therapy for this one!! lol

[Kari]

Gosh, I was so determined to just shut my mouth regarding this and make a nice and clean cut with this, but I really cannot.

Of course, guns do not kill people. Guns do not commit crimes. Guns do not have destructive or criminal energies.
But guns are after all lethal weapons that have the purpose to kill.
And I think that America has an extremely irresponsible way of dealing with those weapons. And yes, I do see something that is wrong with owning a gun. Because owning a gun also includes the thought of using it. It increases the readiness to make use of this weapon and when a weapon is easily available it will more easily be used.

In Germany there was so far one school massacre, in Erfurt. It is a few years ago, nothing alike happened before or since.
Nobody can simply go and have weapons here. People who made their hunter's license and police men can privately own them.
Happens that the young man who commited the massacre in Erfurt was the son of a police man and weapons were easily available for him.

I think in society there should not be this perverted relation to weapons. Making it look like they are harmless or just to be used for protection is naive.

[danyjoncew]

Well, as I was telling Audrey, I think we should all win a gun when we were born... wouldn't that be cute as hell? Our baby books would have pictures of our first gun and awww our parents would teach us how to use it, such a sweet family moment . Then we could all kill each other and get rid of the human race... Mother Earth would be thankful.

[everwoodisfab]

I hate guns. It is naive to simply state that 'people kill people', guns make it alot easier, 32 people would not have died in Virginia if the killer was armed with a knife or another close contact weapon. I read an interesting article on the subject recently:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2059528,00.html

[M&M Vermelha]

I still think if all lived on the ideal world, maybe.. but I can't ignore the fact we just don't. I'm not saying we should all carry a gun every second of the day, but you have the right to defend yourself.

My state is dangerous and so is my city. I don't feel safe on the streets and often I don't feel safe at home, even though my building has security and my neighborhood isn't particulary dangerous. My mom says how much she would like to live in a house for YEARS and I still tell her she can go by herself, because if I'm this unsure in a building, there is no way in Hell I'll be able to sleep inside a house.

We tend to think it wouldn't happen with us, only with the distant friend, but violence is close and real.

I hate guns. It is naive to simply state that 'people kill people', guns make it alot easier, 32 people would not have died in Virginia if the killer was armed with a knife or another close contact weapon. I read an interesting article on the subject recently:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...059528,00.html

The guy was crazy, you can't actually use this example. He spent time planning everything, if he didn't have a gun, he would have used a bomb.

Blame the aggressive culture, the loneliness and extreme individualism... and every other thing you can remember that would make the guy feel accepted and happy, but the gun wouldn't have stopped him.

[everwoodisfab]

^ yes violence is close and real but guns contribute a lot to the problem. To say violence is close and real and then say you should carry a gun for protection is hypocritical in my opinion. I feel that this desire to keep guns for protection may represent a lack of faith and trust in law enforcement which worries me slightly. Wouldn't it make more sense to devote more time to trying to improve public faith in the police than 'taking to the law into your own hands'?

[M&M Vermelha]

I feel that this desire to keep guns for protection may represent a lack of faith and trust in law enforcement which worries me slightly. Wouldn't it make more sense to devote more time to trying to improve public faith in the police than 'taking to the law into your own hands'?

I said that on my first post, I don't believe in my law enforcement to keep me safe. And even if I did, if a guy breaks into your house, waiting the police to arrive isn't the best thing ever, is it?

I don't think we should carry a gun around because, for startes, here not so many people are ready to react, and the time between reaching for your gun is kinda precious. That would mean more people would die on a robbering that maybe would develop a lot easier without the presence of another gun, but not because you'd be able to take the matter with your own hands.

Actually, self defense is a right assured by my constitution.

There is a difference between finding out your daughter was raped and going after the guy with a gun and killing the guy who is currently raping you.

[Heather]

Well, the founding fathers obviously felt that the right to defend yourself, and bear arms was a crucial right, because it was one of the first ammendments to the constitution. And like I said before, Im all about protecting and upholding the constitution.

There are strict gun laws in the US, but like I said before, the US government doesnt enforce them. And that, in my opinion, is the problem.

[everwoodisfab]

I'm sorry if this is in any way incorrect, my knowledge of American politics does have alot of holes in it :) but wasn't the right to bear arms in the American constitution created because of a lack of a standing army? Which makes it slightly redundant now.

[Heather]

No..they were two completely seperate clauses in the 2nd ammendment. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers as outlined in the Federalist Papers, and other documents, you will find that they felt that the right to defend yourself against aggression was a pivotal freedom.

And (big shock, here) I agree with them.

I hate how people blame guns for violence, when the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Do you realize that when it comes to guns, it is the only time that people blame an inanimate object for the actions of a person? Knives are just as deadly. Should they be outlawed as well?

And about the VT killer...one of the gun control laws (not being enforced) includes an extensive background check. Had that been done, they would have known about his past history, reports filed against him, and his psychological unbalance. Obviously, it wasnt done. Like I said before, if the laws that currently exist were strictly enforced, alot of instances like this could be avoided.

[Kari]

well, other countries don't have that in their constitution and still people can live pretty well.

[Isley]

Um as Kari, I didn't think I should say anything here. but oh well.

But guns are after all lethal weapons that have the purpose to kill.
And I think that America has an extremely irresponsible way of dealing with those weapons. And yes, I do see something that is wrong with owning a gun. Because owning a gun also includes the thought of using it. It increases the readiness to make use of this weapon and when a weapon is easily available it will more easily be used.

You just got to the core of my point, Kari.

Owning a gun does mean that you have considered using it once. And in my mind, hand guns are only made for one thing so I really do not see the point of a normal person to own them. It is far more difficult to go and kill someone with a knife than a gun. And I really do not understand the argument of prohibiting knifes, I mean, it's a household article used in everyday life, you can't really say that about guns. In my country there is a strict law on handweapons, and in my opinion it should be even stricter.

It scares me when people have gotten used to guns like a thing in everyday life, and that it's normal to just own it, just to be safe. For me, that is what makes things UNSAFE, I cannot think of a more scary thought than knowing that everybody out there has a gun and can kill me at any given time.

Even though it's easy to say that and that in the aftermath of the VT tragedy, I think America should look at itself. I mean, there are sigificant issues within the country that must be dealt with, the gun issue being one thing. And if it's about enforcing the laws, why the hell isn't that done?! Man, a law is there to make a statement and be upholded.

[everwoodisfab]

^I agree with you, it is naive to say that guns are not at least part of the problem in America when there have been so many shootings. Also it would terrify me to have a gun in my home or to know that someone near me did.

No..they were two completely seperate clauses in the 2nd ammendment. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers as outlined in the Federalist Papers, and other documents, you will find that they felt that the right to defend yourself against aggression was a pivotal freedom.

Sorry I don't think I was really clear in what I was saying, I meant that the two things are linked. The constitution was written when there was no standing army so the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves against agression was strongly connected to the lack of military defence. Also isn't it a little tautological to say you have the right to defend yourself against agression with agression? I find the idea of the constitution a little odd, it was written in the 18th century, society was very different, not all of it can be applied to society today.

[M&M Vermelha]

That's just as idealistic as a law we have here that every citizen can stop a crime by Saying, 'Please, sir, do no move while I call the police'. Self defense is not doing every cops job.

[Isley]

I agree Mabli-Fion. Not everything in a constitution should be a given, considering the society at that time. Take the second paragraph in the Norwegian constitution about jews, in the early 19th century for instance, stating that no jew could come into or stay the country. It reflected the thoughts at that time but the law was changed at the mid-19th century because it became clear that the law was unfair, discriminating and simply, not right.
Im not saying that everything in the law is wrong or anything, god no, but some certain laws should maybe be taken with a pinch of salt and some sceptisicm.

[Heather]

You cant really say that anything in the Bill of Rights no longer applies in modern society. Because thats simply not true. Every single ammendment in the Bill of Rights is a fundamental part of American life, and American society.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Freedom of religion (not from religion), freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to assemble and petition. All a fundamental part of our society.

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.
There seems to be a little confusion on this, so let me break it down for you. Since there was no standing in army in the 1780s, they felt that the right to a standing militia was a vital one.

Also, the 2nd Ammendment refers to laws that they suffered under Britian, and made it clear that the right to bear arms was vital, and should not, under any circumstances be infringed.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Refers to the Quartering Act, and how something like that would never happen again in North America.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Rights against unlawful search and seizure, in reference to the Intolerable Acts, and still pretty relevant today.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Double jeopardy, and self incrimination. Pretty relevant in today's legal system. How many times today do you hear, "I plead the fifth"?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The right to a speedy trial, and the right to face your accuser. Pretty relevant in the current legal system.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Maybe you should ask OJ if this still applies today. :sarcasm:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
No cruel or unusual punishment. There is a reason why hangings are no longer practiced, and very few states still use the electric chair.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The rights of the people shall prevail. Thats pretty much a right that has no time limit on it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Anything not outlined in the Constitution shall be decided by the people of the nation...ie, the voters.

Seems to me that all of those rights, including the 2nd ammendment, still apply today, and are in fact, timeless rights. Hence the name, the Bill of Rights.

[Ashlyn]

Freedom of religion (not from religion)

It's a bit off-topic, but I really hate that saying. It's pretty much the exact same thing, and it often ends up being something the religious right manipulates. It's a word difference, and I really doubt our founding fathers wanted one religion to dominate this country in the way it does.

Sorry for my off-topic bit, that particular phrase just grates on my nerves.

I completely agree that the Bill of Rights is not, in it's entirety, outdated. Many of the things included go into our fundamental rights as American citizens.

That being said, SOMETHING has to change as far as gun control goes in this country, because, clearly our current system isn't working for us. I'm not saying we should re-word the Bill of Rights, but we should take into account the fact that the forefathers probably couldn't have imagined weapons like this, and certainly not the idea of American children being murdered by other American children thanks to their easy availability.

[oclover24]

Today, we were trying to explain the second ammendment to a German exchange student. Basically, as my classmate said, "Americans like guns."

[everwoodisfab]

That being said, SOMETHING has to change as far as gun control goes in this country, because, clearly our current system isn't working for us. I'm not saying we should re-word the Bill of Rights, but we should take into account the fact that the forefathers probably couldn't have imagined weapons like this, and certainly not the idea of American children being murdered by other American children thanks to their easy availability.

That's what I was saying, not that the entire Bill of Rights is outdated.

[Isley]

Well, the founding fathers obviously felt that the right to defend yourself, and bear arms was a crucial right, because it was one of the first ammendments to the constitution. And like I said before, Im all about protecting and upholding the constitution.

There are strict gun laws in the US, but like I said before, the US government doesnt enforce them. And that, in my opinion, is the problem.

Isn't that a bit contradicting? In the constitution it says that you have a right to defend yourself and hence owning a gun. But the US also has strict gun laws? I mean, when you're allowed to own a gun and aren't police, or has recieved it through a hunter's license, how can that be strict? and if some states prohibits certain handweapons doesn't that cross with the right to defend yourself? OK, this is seriously starting to confuse me. Someone, enlighten me.

for me it's absolutely foreign to be allowed to own a gun. And i'm not talking about the hunter's rifle. Hand guns. But I can understand the mentality of owning a gun if you live somewhere crime thrives and where walking on the street without a gun can mean the difference between life and death.

I think the second amendment in many ways creates paranoia.

[M&M Vermelha]

I'm not sure if it's the same, but theoretically to buy a gun you have to be old enough, go thru several tests to make sure you aren't a random crazy person and have your background checked out. At least that's what I read about how it's done here, again, theoretically, here it's a long-lonnnng process to get your license to own a gun.

And even so, you have the right to own one, but not walking around on the streets getting in and out public buildings. Which makes sense to me, because even if someone tries to rob you on the streets, a regular citizen isn't ready to act like a cop and grab the gun on the exact moment s/he should, and trying to react to something like that and failing means getting yourself into way deeper problems than having your cellphone taken away.

[Isley]

M&M Vermelha, are you talking about the US or Brazil? Just want to clear that up. ;)

The only thing I meant is that I understand the mentality of wanting to protect yourself . But ordinary citizens should still not be allowed to go places with a gun or even be owning it in the first place in my opinion.

It is easy to understand that humans often think and act irationally when put under extreme pressure. Like say, if you were being robbed, and you had a gun ("just for protection") the margins on the situation turning into disaster because you irationally pick up your gun to "protect yourself" , is way higher than if you hadn't had a gun.

and if it theoretically is such a long process and backup- checks are always done, how did a unstable, mental patient manage to get a gun with no problem at all?
juuust a question.

[M&M Vermelha]

Brazil.. I'm not sure how you buy a gun at US or where you can take it.

I agree with you about taking the gun everywhere with you, but I see no problem to have one inside your home.

[jillian]

yeah, in the us unless you have a concealed carry you pretty much cannot have a gun outside your house. if you transport it (say to a range for practice) it has to be unloaded and in a locked compartment (eg not just tossed in the glove box).

[oclover24]

Minnesota (my state) has a conceal-carry law, but most places ban hand guns anyway.

If the US banned hand guns, that wouldn't do anything. People would just buy hunter's rifles and use those instead. A determined person is not going to let the law stop them.

[Isley]

that says a lot about the gun culture in the US. And IMO that is a great deal a part of the problem.
But it would make it harder to get hold of guns.

[oclover24]

^ Yes, I agree, it would make it harder. But to those who want to do it, they still will.

[Heather]

That being said, SOMETHING has to change as far as gun control goes in this country, because, clearly our current system isn't working for us. I'm not saying we should re-word the Bill of Rights, but we should take into account the fact that the forefathers probably couldn't have imagined weapons like this, and certainly not the idea of American children being murdered by other American children thanks to their easy availability.
You cant reword something that is a fundamental part of not only our legal system, but our society as well. It doesnt work that way. And the founders were all about personal freedoms, so I dont think the fact that firearms have changed would have mattered to them in the least.

The point is, the no matter what the laws are, criminals will always find a way around it. So even if guns were outlawed in the US, Columbine and VT still would have happened, because those type of people dont care about legal channels. All you would be doing is punishing law abiding citizens, and that is not something Im okay with.

Id also like to point out that my father has been a gun owner for over 20 years, and the only time he actually used them, was for target practice. Because he was never put in a situation where his family was at risk, and the use of them was needed. But if we were, he could have and would have used them to defend us. Thats a right that cant be taken away. You have a right to defend your family against violence.

[Ashlyn]

But that logic doesn't really work.

Underage drinkers will always find alcohol -- should we do away with the drinking age? Cars are always going to be available to people who can't legally drive... should we let everybody drive?

The fact that they're going to do it anyways is hardly an excuse for lax laws that make it easy & legal.

I understand why rewording or changing the Constitution seems unnacceptable.

But these tragedies that continue to occur in the USA are also unacceptable, and SOMETHING has to change.

[Heather]

Drinking and protecting your family from physical and psychological harm are completely two different things. You cant make that type of comparison. We're talking about a basic American right, here. One that goes back as far as our nation does. You cant take something like that away, because of the few who are intent on destruction. Because, the repercussions of that would be disastrous.

Its not a coincidence that Britain's crime rate sky rocketed as soon as guns were outlawed.

It's a bit off-topic, but I really hate that saying. It's pretty much the exact same thing, and it often ends up being something the religious right manipulates. It's a word difference, and I really doubt our founding fathers wanted one religion to dominate this country in the way it does.
Actually, the first ammendment clearly states that not only do all American citizens have the freedom to believe whatever the choose, but the free exercize of it. They go hand in hand. So, to say that religion has no place in American society is completely false. Its freedom OF religion. Not that people dont have a right to practice whatever religion they choose, or none at all, if that is their choice.

Id also like to add, that Congress opens every session of Congress with a prayer. Thats quite telling, in my opinion.

[everwoodisfab]

The point is, the no matter what the laws are, criminals will always find a way around it. So even if guns were outlawed in the US, Columbine and VT still would have happened, because those type of people dont care about legal channels.

I don't neccasssarily think the perpertrators of Columbine and VT are criminals... well obviously they ARE in that they have done hideous things, but I don't think they neccassarily have criminal minds, they were depressed mentally unstable students who may not have known how to get a gun if they were not so readily available. A lot of crime is conducted by people who don't sit and plan it, and haven't been criminals in the past. Easily accessible guns are there for the criminals as well as those that want to defend themselves so doesn't that mean that the people who purchase them in defense would have a lot less need to if they were not so readily available anyway?

Id also like to add, that Congress opens every session of Congress with a prayer. Thats quite telling, in my opinion.

Doesn't that condradict the idea of freedom of religion?

[Kari]

Maybe one cannot reword the Bill of Rights.
I don't care. If a society has a real problem with something like that, and face it or nor, but this way of dealing with firearms is plain irresponsible, it needs to adapt to it in some way.
And it totally is relevant that firearms have changed. I mean, the founding fathers won't care, I assume. They are pretty much dead.
But that is exactly why their convictions, as noble and wonderful as they were for their time, are not necessarily what should be the fundament of a legal system.

[Ashlyn]

Drinking and protecting your family from physical and psychological harm are completely two different things. You cant make that type of comparison. We're talking about a basic American right, here. One that goes back as far as our nation does. You cant take something like that away, because of the few who are intent on destruction. Because, the repercussions of that would be disastrous.

Protecting your family isn't all that guns can do though, as we've seen in recent weeks. This isn't a matter of people trying to take away the safety of Americans. This isn't coming about because big brother wants to make sure they're the only people with the power to kill. This is coming about because children are dying, and we can't keep things the same.

Its not a coincidence that Britain's crime rate sky rocketed as soon as guns were outlawed.

Outlawing them isn't the only choice, though I'm not saying we should rule them out. I'm just saying we can not accept our current level of gun control, considering how many people have died thanks to flaws in our system. We should have stricter & better enforced laws, certainly. We should also try to tackle mental health issues better in our schools.

Actually, the first ammendment clearly states that not only do all American citizens have the freedom to believe whatever the choose, but the free exercize of it. They go hand in hand. So, to say that religion has no place in American society is completely false. Its freedom OF religion. Not that people dont have a right to practice whatever religion they choose, or none at all, if that is their choice.

Freedom of Religion can therefore mean Freedom From Religon, if your OF is Atheism, eh? I think I jumped on you a bit to quickly. That phrase is usually stated by people who practically think America is a theocracy -- southern baptist pastors pushing a hellfire & brimstone platform. I have a volatile reaction to that crap.

Id also like to add, that Congress opens every session of Congress with a prayer. Thats quite telling, in my opinion.

I'd agree that it's quite telling, but I'd say that it's telling of a problem in our society. American is NOT a Christian nation, and the more we push one god into our social space, the more draw strict boundries between religious and non-religious Americans, which isn't good for ANYONE.

[Kari]

Well, as a matter of fact and as much as it scares me. America is a Christian nation by now.

Well, if it was for me, gun should simply not be legal.
But I am oh so ready to compromise. But I think the very least that must be asked is that there is a psychological evaluation of the person who wants to buy a gun. Call me a control freak, maybe that is against your conception of civil rights, but I think it is absolutely necessary.

And the argument that crime rates automatically go up and stay up with the outlawing of guns...well, I won't even bother to go into it.

[danyjoncew]

You know when someone had too much coffee and can't stop saying nonsense stuff? That's me right now... so do yourself a favor and don't even read this post :lol::lol::lol:

Well, I'm staying away from this thread, cause I really don't feel like getting into this discussion here. And I won't bother writing long and the best arguments, but since I can't seem to control my big mouth, I'll just say that I still feel like number of cases where legal guns have been used in the wrong way >>>>> number of cases where having a gun saved someone. But for starters I don't even have oficial numbers and I'm not American, so..

And I do feel the most free knowing that guns are under control than I'd be knowing that anyone around me could get a gun whenever they wanted.

[jillian]

america isn't a christian nation until it's a law. it's not. as a matter of fact it's nigh on impossible to find a christmas tree not called a "holiday tree."

And the argument that crime rates automatically go up and stay up with the outlawing of guns...well, I won't even bother to go into it.

i'd love to have you do so, otherwise it just looks like you have no way to refute it.

[Heather]

Well, as a matter of fact and as much as it scares me. America is a Christian nation by now.
America was founded by Christians. They didnt want a theocracy, but they never denied the existence of a higher power, or their adherence to it. Look at the Declaration of Independence. There are references to God in the first paragraph. The founders believed in that higher power, and that resonated in the government they founded. The first ammendment wasnt meant to deny religion, whatever faith it may be, but rather to say that it should be seperate from the government. That unlike England, the head of the state, would not dictate religious mandates. The history of religion in America goes back to the Puritan colonies. Its a long and convoluted history.

To get back on topic.

Ive said it several times already, the problem isnt the laws, the problem is the lack of enforcement. And the murderers of Columbine were most definitely criminals. They acquired their weapons illegally, through the internet, if memory serves. That is not following the laws of Colorado.

[Webeh]

i'd love to have you do so, otherwise it just looks like you have no way to refute it.

Do you mind if I ask which crime rates went up with the installation of gun control? And where again?

This is just an interesting occurrence. In Canada, gun control didn't really have a huge effect on the overall crime rate. (That's because, most of the overall crime rate consists of theft, drug possession, sexual solicitation, etc. Not a huge gun presence there.) But, when you parse it down to individual crimes, gun control did have a significant effect on the rates of robberies. (They went down a lot.)

ETA: Wait a minute, wasn't the "where" London, England? (I vaguely remember someone mentioning this here.) I remember the crime rate experienced a massive increase with the establishment of CCTV (1970s-1980s). Was this around the same time as gun control?

[oclover24]

I read something in USA Today today, and I'll sum up the writer's opinion...

Do we ban cars because people get into car accidents due to drunk driving, inattentive driving, etc? Do we get rid of food because obesity kills people?

[Heather]

Do you mind if I ask which crime rates went up with the installation of gun control? And where again?
It wasnt due to gun control...it was due to the outlaw of fire arms. And if memory serves, it was in Britain. Their crime rate skyrocketed right after that law was passed.

Gun control, and downright outlawing them are two completely different things. And it wasnt in the 70s or 80s. It was under Tony Blair, I believe, so fairly recent. Gem had made a post in here, commenting on how the crime rate had increased after the law was passed...but you would have to search to look for it.

Its like Ive been saying. Criminals will always find a way around the law. That is the nature of a criminal. Thomas Jefferson knew that in the 18th century.

I read something in USA Today today, and I'll sum up the writer's opinion...

Do we ban cars because people get into car accidents due to drunk driving, inattentive driving, etc? Do we get rid of food because obesity kills people?
Interesting argument :)

Ive often said that when it comes to guns, it is the only time we blame an inanimate object for the actions of another.

Of course, those who are against guns dont want to hear that. :lol:

[Heather]

Isn't that a bit contradicting? In the constitution it says that you have a right to defend yourself and hence owning a gun. But the US also has strict gun laws? I mean, when you're allowed to own a gun and aren't police, or has recieved it through a hunter's license, how can that be strict? and if some states prohibits certain handweapons doesn't that cross with the right to defend yourself? OK, this is seriously starting to confuse me. Someone, enlighten me.
When the Constitution was drafted, it was under the idea of federalism. That was before the Civil War.

Ok...mini history lesson. After Britain lost the war, there was period of time where the colonies were The Confederate States of America. Basically, each state had its own laws, its own currency, etc. Imagine it like the EU of the 1780s. There was a main government, but it really had no power. They couldnt tax, they couldnt force the states to do anything they chose not to.

After they realized that system wasnt working, the founders called the Constitution convention in Philadelphia. After many months, they drafted the US Constitution and (eventually) each state signed. At that time, each state had to defer to the federal government, and federal laws.

It went on that way for years. Until the Civil War.

Now, revisionists will tell you, that the Civil War was all about slavery. It wasnt.

It actually started when Andrew Jackson was President in the 1820s, and escalated after that. It wasnt about slavery. It was about state's right. Which was more vital? The rights of the states, or the rights of the federal government.

It all came to a head in the 1860s.

The way it stands today, is that the federal government dictates the laws, but it is up to each individual state to decide in what manner those laws will be enforced.

Hope that cleared it up for you. :)

Its really a complicated concept, and pretty convuluted through the years. I tried to sum it up as easily as possible. :lol:

[Jon]

When the Constitution was drafted, it was under the idea of federalism. That was before the Civil War.

Ok...mini history lesson. After Britain lost the war, there was period of time where the colonies were The Confederate States of America. Basically, each state had its own laws, its own currency, etc. Imagine it like the EU of the 1780s. There was a main government, but it really had no power. They couldnt tax, they couldnt force the states to do anything they chose not to.

After they realized that system wasnt working, the founders called the Constitution convention in Philadelphia. After many months, they drafted the US Constitution and (eventually) each state signed. At that time, each state had to defer to the federal government, and federal laws.

It went on that way for years. Until the Civil War.

Now, revisionists will tell you, that the Civil War was all about slavery. It wasnt.

It actually started when Andrew Jackson was President in the 1820s, and escalated after that. It wasnt about slavery. It was about state's right. Which was more vital? The rights of the states, or the rights of the federal government.

It all came to a head in the 1860s.

The way it stands today, is that the federal government dictates the laws, but it is up to each individual state to decide in what manner those laws will be enforced.

Hope that cleared it up for you. :)

Its really a complicated concept, and pretty convuluted through the years. I tried to sum it up as easily as possible. :lol:

So what are you into again...History? I would have never guessed that. ;)

Thank you for the history lesson Ms. Heather :)

I actually forgot quite a lot of that until you refreshed my memory. Most people I remember always thought the Civil War was all about slavery which as you stated was not.

[Heather]

Well, I wasnt a history teacher for nothing, Jon.

Besides, anyone who knows me at FB, knows I am a complete history geek. :lol:

Theres actually this really good book called "What We Fought For". Its letters of Confederate soldiers, and their thoughts and feeling on "The War Against the States". Irionically, slavery is hardly mentioned.

Thats not what they were fighting (and dying) for.

[Isley]

I read something in USA Today today, and I'll sum up the writer's opinion...

Do we ban cars because people get into car accidents due to drunk driving, inattentive driving, etc? Do we get rid of food because obesity kills people?
Isn't that a bit ludacris to say? I know, these are not your words and I'm not debating your opinion here or anything, just the writer's.

I think that is a pretty stupid comment to make. When these three things: Guns, Food and Cars have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Food is vital. Cars is an object yes, but are also pretty vital in dailyday life and has absolutely no reason to be gotten rid of. If we are gonna play the "inanimate object" card, then let's just ban all such object shall we? When you think about it, if a car and food is dangerous, think about what a punch to the head with a telephone can do!
Oh my god come on! that is just paranoia to the fullest.
The only thing i can agree on with that argument is that it's not the gun that pulls the trigger. And guns really can't be compared with stuff like this, and that is what scares me, people thinking of a gun, being as harming/harmless as food/cars.

[Jon]

Isn't that a bit ludacris to say? I know, these are not your words and I'm not debating your opinion here or anything, just the writer's.

I think that is a pretty stupid comment to make. When these three things: Guns, Food and Cars have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Food is vital. Cars is an object yes, but are also pretty vital in dailyday life and has absolutely no reason to be gotten rid of. If we are gonna play the "inanimate object" card, then let's just ban all such object shall we? When you think about it, if a car and food is dangerous, think about what a punch to the head with a telephone can do!
Oh my god come on! that is just paranoia to the fullest.
The only thing i can agree on with that argument is that it's not the gun that pulls the trigger. And guns really can't be compared with stuff like this, and that is what scares me, people thinking of a gun, being as harming/harmless as food/cars.

WRONG. I can make a car as harmful as a gun. Heck a car is MORE harmful than a gun if used properly. But the fact of the matter is, neither a car nor a gun is dangerous unless a PERSON uses it in a dangerous manner. A gun IS as harmless as food as a car, it's the person who is NOT harmless. Stop blaming a gun for killing people, people kill people. I mean you take a pack of people, a car can run over them quicker than a guy can shoot them all. No guns just means other ways for people to kill other people. I hate inanimate objects being blamed. Getting rid of guns will not do anything to stop violence and killing.

[Kari]

Somebody might be the most self-righteous person I ever met.

The thing is, however, that cars do not have the purpose to kill.
They have the purpose to move you from A to B. Yep, they are very dangerous, they are even more dangerous when irresponsible people drive them. That is why it takes a lot of time and money to get a driver's license here in Germany, why you have to take a First Aid course, why you have to undergo a psychological test once you did something really dangerous.
And all that for a thing that does not have the purpose to kill people.

Guns, however, are made to hurt, to kill. Don't tell me it isn't so, because if we use them just to scare others off or to defend ourselves, we can very well go without the ammunition. And the argument that weapons originally were used for hunting does not work here either. If it were only the hunting weapons that are being sold over the counter that would maybe be another story, but it is not restricted to that.
And if you buy a gun, you think or thought at least once, about using it, and you have the possibility to use it. And a guns use is not to move from A to B but in the last consequence it is to hurt somebody.
So that comparism is, as Maddy pointed out, pure nonsense.

[danyjoncew]

I agree with Kari.

MP3 players don't listen to music by itself, but are made for listening to music.
Digital cameras don't take pictures, but are made for you to take pictures.
Pencils don't write poems, but are made for you to write.
Vodka doesn't get you drunk by being around you, but is made for you to drink it.
Guns don't shoot people and animals, but are made for what? Ballet dancing?

I hardly even see shooting someone as a self-defence action.

As for Brazilians who might read this:

* Most crimes are committed for pointless reasons, add a gun and results are uggly.
* A third of illegally-possessed guns have a legal Brazilian origin. Most of these are low caliber and either unregistered or stolen.
* Brazilian authorities recommend that people should not resist to a robbery since, according to studies and press accounts, a robber will simply shoot to kill when a threatened person resists.
* A life cannot be replaced and the pain of loss and the guilt of becoming a killer cannot be erased through yet another death.

Por um Brasil sem armas.

[Heather]

I really think that this is one of those issues were people just need to agree to disagree. Its not a black or white issue, there is tons of grey, here. And people who support the right to own guns, will never change their minds. Just like those who support gun control wont change their opinions either.

Its a sensitive topic, and a personal one, because its about personal freedoms.

So, I think we should all just agree to disagree.

[danyjoncew]

I agree with that statement, Heather. It goes all the way back to simple and deep moral values, some of them that we can't even explain: you think that way because... well, you do!!

Such as what your definition of things like freedom and security are and what your rights should be in consequence. We can dance around a lot of topics regarding guns and I think in the end it would all come to simples questions that admit only yes/no answers that are related to very personal beliefs.

[Kari]

I don't really agree in this case, but it is the only think we can do.

[Heather]

I know we agreed to disagree on this, but I wanted to post this speech by Charlton Heston. It does a pretty good job of why Conservatives feel the way that they do on this issue.

Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.

I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No, it is just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776. These words may not play well at the Press Club, but it's still the gospel down at the corner bar and grill.

And your efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, to deride it and degrade it, to readily accept diluting it and eagerly promote redefining it, threaten not only the physical well-being of millions of Americans but also the core concept of individual liberty our founding fathers struggled to perfect and protect.

So now you know what doubtless does not surprise you. I believe strongly in the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, for what I think are good reasons.

The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain ten of what the constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on.

It doesn't recognize color, or class, or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors, or editors, or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate.

That's why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime. The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule.

We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.

You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.

I agree wholeheartedly ... a free press is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all.

Either you believe that, or you don't, and you must decide.

Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. That's a "big brother knows best" theater of the absurd that has never boded well for the peasant class, the working class, or even for reporters.

Yes, our Constitution provides the doorway for your news and commentary to pass through free and unfettered. But that doorway to freedom is framed by the muskets that stood between a vision of liberty and absolute anarchy at a place called Concord Bridge. Our revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the people's guns. They didn't succeed: The muskets went out the back door with their owners.

Emerson said it best:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world."

King George called us "rabble in arms." But with God's grace, George Washington and many brave men gave us our country. Soon after, God's grace and a few great men gave us our Constitution. It's been said that the creation of the United States is the greatest political act in history. I'll sign that.

In the next two centuries, though, freedom did not flourish. The next revolution, the French, collapsed in the bloody Terror, then Napoleon's tyranny. There's been no shortage of dictators since, in many countries. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of tens and tens of millions of their people.

Ah, the joys of gun control.

Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder. Yet in essence that is what you have asked our loved ones to do, through an ill-contrived and totally naive campaign against the Second Amendment.

Besides, how can we entrust to you the Second Amendment, when you are so stingy with your own First Amendment?

I say this because of the way, in recent days, you have treated your own -- those journalists you consider the least among you. How quick you've been to finger the paparazzi with blame and to eye the tabloids with disdain. How eager you've been to draw a line where there is none, to demand some distinction within the First Amendment that sneers "they are not one of us." How readily you let your lesser brethren take the fall, as if their rights were not as worthy, and their purpose not as pure, and their freedom not as sacred as yours.

So now, as politicians consider new laws to shackle and gag paparazzi, who among you will speak up? Who here will stand and defend them? If you won't, I will. Because you do not define the First Amendment. It defines you. And it is bigger than you -- big enough to embrace all of you, plus all those you would exclude.

That's how freedom works.

It also demands you do your homework. Again and again I hear gun owners say, how can we believe anything the anti-gun media says when they can't even get the facts right? For too long you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semiauto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time.

That's why you have very little credibility among 70 million gun owners and 20 million hunters and millions of veterans who learned the hard way which end the bullet comes out. And while you attacked the amendment that defends your homes and protects your spouses and children, you have denied those of us who defend all the Bill of Rights a fair hearing or the courtesy of an honest debate.

If the NRA attempts to challenge your assertions, we are ignored. And if we try to buy advertising time or space to answer your charges, more often than not we are denied. How's that for First Amendment freedom?

Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a wepaon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.

As a veteran of World War II, as a freedom marcher who stood with Dr Martin Luther King long before it was fashionable, and as a grandfather who wants the coming century to be free and full of promise for my grandchildren, I am ... troubled.

The right to keep and bear arms is threatened by political theatrics, piecemeal lawmaking, talk show psychology, extreme bad taste in the entertainment industry, an ever-widening educational chasm in our schools and a conniving media, that all add up to cultural warfare against the idea that guns ever had, or should now have, an honorable and proud place in our society.

But all of our rights must be delivered into the 21st century as pure and complete as they came to us at the beginning of this century. Traditionally the passing of that torch is from a gnarled old hand down to an eager young one. So now, at 72, I offer my gnarled old hand.

I have accepted a call from the National Rifle Association of America to help protect the Second Amendment. I feel it is my duty to do that. My mission and vision can be summarized in three simple parts.

First, before we enter the next century, I expect to see a pro-Second Amendment president in the White House.

Secondly, I expect to build an NRA with the political muscle and clout to keep a pro-Second Amendment Congress in place.

Third, is a promise to the next generation of free Americans. I hope to help raise a hundred million dollars for NRA programs and education before the year 2000. At least half of that sum will go to teach American kids what the right to keep and bear arms really means to their culture and country.

We have raised a generation of young people who think that the Bill of Rights comes with their cable TV. Leave them to their channel surfing and they'll remain oblivious to history and heritage that truly matter.

Think about it -- what else must young Americans think when the White House proclaims, as it did, that "a firearm in the hands of youth is a crime or an accident waiting to happen"? No -- it is time they learned that firearm ownership is constitutional, not criminal. In fact, few pursuits can teach a young person more about responsibility, safety, conservation, their history and their heritage, all at once.

It is time they found out that the politically correct doctrine of today has misled them. And that when they reach legal age, if they do not break our laws, thay have a right to choose to own a gun -- a handgun, a long gun, a small gun, a large gun, a black gun, a purple gun, a pretty gun, an ugly gun -- and to use that gun to defend themselves and their loved ones or to engage in any lawful purpose they desire without apology or explanation to anyone, ever.

This is their first freedom. If you say it's outdated, then you haven't read your own headlines. If you say guns create only carnage, I would answer that you know better. Declining morals, disintegrating families, vacillating political leadership, an eroding criminal justice system and social mores that blur right and wrong are more to blame -- certainly more than any legally owned firearm.

I want to rescue the Second Amendment from an opportunistic president, and from a press that apparently can't comprehend that attacks on the Second Amendment set the stage for assaults on the First.

I want to save the Second Amendment from all these nitpicking little wars of attrition -- fights over alleged Saturday night specials, plastic guns, cop killer bullets and so many other made-for-prime-time non-issues invented by some press agent over at gun control headquarters that you guys buy time and again.

I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it, or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals:

Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails.

That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.

Please, go forth and tell the truth. There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship your god, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere, without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.

If you don't believe me, just turn on the news tonight. Civilization's veneer is wearing thinner all the time.

Thank you.

Delivered by Charlton Heston at the National Press Club, September 11, 1997 © 1997- National Rifle Association of America

[Isley]

Wow. I can't say I agree with anything of that but I respect it because it's an opinion.

Though I felt it was very unnecessary to put in:
Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not.

I do not think it is right to claim such things when you clearly see well functioning and FREE nations with this philosophy. I mean, I do not feel any less free because I cannot wear arms, I actually feel more free.

[Heather]

Well, the first thing that every dictator in history has done, was to confiscate firearms, and outlaw them. Its alot easier to control people when they cant fight back.

And if you feel more free, more power to you. But I like knowing that if someone attacks me, tries to mug me, or worse. I can fight back.

Like Thomas Jefferson said, "A criminal is more likely to attack an unarmed man, than one who may be armed."

I prefer having the choice about whether or not I chose to be a gunowner. Similiar to my stance on abortion. I dont want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do with my body. And I dont want anyone telling me how I can or cannot protect myself against a criminal.

[M&M Vermelha]

It's easier if you have people ready to give up on their rights as well.

If there is something I've always admired about Americans is how you never back out. You are raised to be ready to fight for your rights, something I must say that as a brazilian, I'm ashamed to say we almost never do.

I don't like the idea of having power focused on military and police either, even more considering my country endured a military dictatorship and knowing how corrupt my police force is, but it's mostly because for me it's all very utopian.

But even if I didn't, even I did believe you can have an unarmed population without having any troubles at all, I would never be able to picture the same being applied for US. Not when you consider its history... you don't fight for something and later on just dismiss all the effort you did.

It may seem extreme, but then again, that's how I believe you should deal with somethings. Making concessions is easier than actually standing by what you have, and that's exactly how you wake up one day noticing you have just about nothing left under your control.

You would not believe the amount of people who still say here that they miss our dictatorship, just because they had no idea of what was happening, that's how deep you can have people deluded.

[Heather]

Well said.

And yes, as a rule, Americans are almost obsessed when it comes to personal liberties. It goes back to how our nation was founded. Its definitely a lesson that Conservatives have not forgotten.

[Kari]

why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.
ban me for this, if you like, but I think I never felt that big a urge to cut off somebody's private parts.

We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.
By giving pretty much every egoistical, corruptile and vengeful person out there who wants it a gun without further consideration. Over the counter? That is most paradox.

I am obsessed with personal liberties. I don't need a gun as a matter of fact.
And there are enough non-dictatorial communities who go well without arms.

[Heather]

Maybe you should take a deep breath, Kari. :lol:

[Heather]

Guns, however, are made to hurt, to kill.
So are knives. And they have been around alot longer than guns. Should they be banned as well?

[M&M Vermelha]

And some sports like jujitsu, and bombs, and alcohol or any inflammable product, and some drugs..

If you consider the idea of acting on self defense.. I would sure as well wish I'm using something meant to hurt.

[Kari]

Oh, I am quite alright, Heather.
But full of energy as well :)

[Heather]

lol...good to know, Kari. :heart:

[danyjoncew]

So are knives. And they have been around alot longer than guns. Should they be banned as well?

I don't think knives are made to hurt. I use them in the kitchen all the time :lol:.

If you consider the idea of acting on self defense.. I would sure as well wish I'm using something meant to hurt.

Let's say the only situations I'd consider defending myself like that would be rape/kidnap/something against my friends and family.That would mean you would have to anticipate it in order to get the gun and use it properly and there's no way of anticipating. Of course I can imagine someone breaking into the house, you could hear something, get everybody together, get the gun....... but I'm not in Holywood or in a war zone and I still believe in most cases the gun would do a bigger mess. If anything, I think that people living in the countryside should have that right, maybe.

Perhaps that's it, I don't want to defend myself like this. Throw a punch, knee some nuts... ok, I'll do it if I have to. If that's not enough, than I'd rather die than seriously hurt anyone, pretty much because I'd never be able to live knowing that I shot a person. As naive as it may sound. I just don't think I have the right to, period. I've always been like that. Put Hittler, Saddam, GWB in front of me and give me a gun... as much as I joke about it, I would not be able to shoot.

[Heather]

I don't think knives are made to hurt. I use them in the kitchen all the time
Knives were made to cut through flesh. Before the invention of firearms, how do you think people killed each other?

[danyjoncew]

Yeah, I know. But not nowadays.

I want this http://www.windycitynovelties.com/Epaysoft/prodimages/11552_detail.jpg gun :lol:.

[M&M Vermelha]

I want this http://www.windycitynovelties.com/Epaysoft/prodimages/11552_detail.jpg gun :lol:.

May I say what the hell? lol

Let's say the only situations I'd consider defending myself like that would be rape/kidnap/something against my friends and family.That would mean you would have to anticipate it in order to get the gun and use it properly and there's no way of anticipating. Of course I can imagine someone breaking into the house, you could hear something, get everybody together, get the gun....... but I'm not in Holywood or in a war zone and I still believe in most cases the gun would do a bigger mess. If anything, I think that people living in the countryside should have that right, maybe.

Well, I believe it's a big mess if you react to something of the sort while on a bus, at a bank, but at your own home not as much, specially if you consider something at night, you'd probably have more time to reach for you gun and actually do something. I wouldn't go as far as getting everybody together, either. I actually know more than one person who reacted, my father being one, and I'm not sure of what would have happened if he didn't own one at the time.


Perhaps that's it, I don't want to defend myself like this. Throw a punch, knee some nuts... ok, I'll do it if I have to. If that's not enough, than I'd rather die than seriously hurt anyone, pretty much because I'd never be able to live knowing that I shot a person. As naive as it may sound. I just don't think I have the right to, period. I've always been like that. Put Hittler, Saddam, GWB in front of me and give me a gun... as much as I joke about it, I would not be able to shoot.

It's just different, Dany. Put Hittler in front of me and I wouldn't kill him, I'd call the police to do their job, because as much as person might not be a good human being, it's not my place to judge and execute. Now give me a gun and put a guy pointing one to one of my family members or even to me, and I'd kill him. I'd never be able to live with myself if I shot a innocent person, but on self defense? Sure as Hell I would. It's just different.

I wasn't born to be a martyr, I'd die kicking as much as I could. lol

For a good amount of time I dreamed joining the army or something like that, to be on special operations, and use fancy guns.. but then I grow up and I found out how ignored and poor our army is.. lol. Reality sucks sometimes.. lol.
I've never liked the idea of sacrificing 100,000 to make sure we don't kill 10.

Heather, how are you doing? I hope things get better soon.

[Heather]

Yeah, I know. But not nowadays.
But thats my point, knives were created with the intention of hurting, maiming, killing. People still use them today as a weapon. Just because they are now primarily a kitchen utensil, doesnt make them any less dangerous than a gun.

Im doing much better, thanks. It looks like we got our miracle after all. :)

[danyjoncew]

Aren't you judging someone guilty and executing them when you kill this person? I just think every human life is equal. I don't think I, my friends, my family... have more right to live than a pathetic disgusting criminal. Would I probably use the gun if I could save a life? Yes. Would I still believe I had no right to? Yes. Would I feel dead inside for it? Yes. Would I feel awful if someone I know shot another person to save me? Yes again. Just take soldiers, for example. They are there in a kill or be killed situation, that doesn't stop soldiers going through psychological hell. It's not that I want to be killed :lol:. My way of "kicking as much as I could" is demanding security from our government, making noise, trying to solve things smoothly and hopefully inspire other people to do the same. Also, that's too much of a personal way of seeing the world I have and add very few to this debate.

I think the possibility of being in one of these situations is too remote to justify giving everybody the right to buy a gun.

Confetti for miracles \o/.

[M&M Vermelha]

You know what I'm talking about, Dany.

It's just different, even if you stop and read the law we have, it's different. We'll end up going back to Heather saying it's just something we have to agree to disagree, because what you are saying is just too idealistic to me. And I'd only go back to saying I wasn't born to be a martyr, because if I could, I do whatever I could to defend people around me against something of the sort, even people I don't know all that well, if I could do something, I would.

And of course it's a traumatic event, so yes, I'd have nightmares and everything else, but I wouldn't feel guilty, because I wouldn't believe I did anything wrong.

And remote? Seriously? I live at Rio de Janeiro, every single way I take to college is closed every now and then.. and you live at Belo Horizonte, and I know for a fact you are close from violence as well. I lived in houses for about 10 years, and in each one of them someone broke into it. That's why nowadays I refuse to live in one, I'm a apartment only kinda a person.

Anyway, Heather, I'm so glad for you! :dancing: :dancing: I did pray, even though it had been awhile since I did something of the sort. I'm really really happy for you! I'll join Dany and throw confettis for conceded miracles!

[danyjoncew]

Nah, I don't really care about the law :lol:. I agree that it's not a very realistic way to stand, but these are just my morals, I can't change them, they are part of who I am. And unlike you, I would feel guilty.

And yeah, I think it's remote possibily. I can't take Rio as a normal example.

So I actually agreed when Heather said we would have to agree to disagree. Because sometimes we can debate over facts get more information etc, some other we just have to understan we might see and feel the things differently.

Some people here believe they have the right to fire a gun to defend their lives, some other don't.
Some people, knowing how many people die every day by unnecessary shootings, still think mostgun owners are able to keep a gun safe and not use it in a heat of a moment, some other don't.
Some people feel like a right is being stolen from them by forbbiding guns, some other don't.

And so it goes.