Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 22 of 218 (550469)
03-15-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
03-13-2010 6:51 PM


It's about rights, not control
Is it fundamentally a better idea or a worse idea to allow citizens the right to bear arms?
I think I'm approaching this question from a different angle, cause for the most part I agree with Rahvin's statistical points (which he has presented evidence to support it on other threads about gun control - which you took part in, Hyro.)
But this thread, or your question IMO, has nothing to do with gun control.
To me the question deals with a rights issue. Should citizens have the right to bear arms? Well, yes. If arms are available, then tax paying citizens, who have no criminal record and are law-abiding, should be allowed to own them. Just like a knife, taser, ninja star (for the nerds), or any other "arms" sold.
They are responsible citizens, what gives anyone the right to tell them they can't buy it? I buy cigs, why? Because they legally make them and legally sell them. Don't want me to buy them? Stop making them.
Same with guns. You don't want citizens to own them? Stop making them. BUT, if they are made and sold legally, then what right does anyone have to restrict citizens who want to purchase them? The restriction should be placed (as with cigarettes) on the manufacturer...not the people buying a legally sold product.
With that said, I'm all for stricter gun control laws - as I have argued in the past.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 6:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 8:21 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 218 (550492)
03-15-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
03-13-2010 8:07 PM


Hi Hyro,
Reading other posts I noticed you elaborate more on your point.
Along the same lines is the necessity to shirk off the tyranny of an own oppressive government.
An argument for the necessity of owning a gun seems rather weak if you're making an argument that you need a gun to rise up against the government. Because, it would just be you doing it or, you and a small handful of people you get to join you (those who don't break under pressure or sell you out for leniency).
If you say here:
Hyro writes:
A police force is little consolation for most people. I agree that there needs to be a police force, but I feel sorry for anyone reliant on them. It's a false sense of security.
Then.....
If the police force - who is already organized, trained and paid to do the job of protecting it's citizens - in your opinion, is a "false sense of security," then how on earth are you and a couple of local yahoos with guns a true sense of security?
You have the inalienable right to defend yourself from harm. If a firearm best facilitates that need, then so be it. It should be the individual's right to decide that themselves. If others feel that it is more dangerous to possess a firearm in their home, they should be afforded the right to abstain.
Agreed. If guns are made and sold legally in the US then as a citizen of the US you should be allowed to buy it. It's that simple. This has nothing to do with criminals, the government, or personal protection. That would lead to a grey area with little, if any, good, agreed-upon statistical evidence.
You could then try, if someone like Rahvin wanted to, to legislate the manufacturers. But this is a worthless fight, with no outcome. It's too strong of an industry (politically) that trying to shut it down is next to impossible.
So the only thing you can allow citizens to vote on, and politicians to legislate, are the gun control laws. Some vote one way, some vote the other way. Who ever has more money can run a better campaign.
That's it. That's all that can be done with a legally sold product.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 8:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 8:56 PM onifre has replied
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 10:09 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 218 (550496)
03-15-2010 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
03-15-2010 8:21 PM


Re: It's about rights, not control
In the spirit of this, what are some suggestions you might have for manufacturers?
Well one, and I don't know if this is already done, but ensure that they meet ALL safety regulations current within one year of any gun sold. Whatever is being suggested (by PRIVATE firms) as the best safety features should be mandatory to follow.
And I stress, a private firm should handle the safety regulating.
With that out of the way, what more could you ask them to do? Make sure they don't sell it to the black market? It's almost laughable. As long as people work for these manufacturers, and people have motives to make more money, guns will be sold to the black market. Perhaps an automated, un-maned assembly and distribution at the manufacturer would work. Dunno...
But the thing to remember is, whatever regulation you decide to place on the manufacturer, the "how" is a major factor. How do you regulate an industry with so much political power? More so, an industry with half of the citizens of the US supporting it!
It's not like the cigarette people who are hated even by the smokers. Gun people LOVE manufacturers. Just ask any old timer what his favorite gun maker is. So there's a positive opinion of gun makers.
That's why I say in the post above that it would be next to impossible. It would be hard just to place strict restrictions on them, and it would certainly be completely impossible to ban them all together.
You'd have a better chance (but not a great chance) with cigarettes, and people hate those fucking things.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 8:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 29 of 218 (550503)
03-15-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2010 8:56 PM


When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
I'd prefer to be able to defend myself. Too, I'd rather not have to depend on the police.
I agree. But I don't give me, an untrained, possibly half-asleep, scared, disoriented person, any sense of security. I hope that if shit went down, and I happen to have a gun, shit ends up ok.
But (1) I'd rather the cops handle it and would make the most effort to get them there before confronting an armed person. (2) I'm as insecure waiting for the cops and hoping they arrive on time as I would be facing the armed person.
I wouldn't depend on them, and if I had to handle things I would, but with no sense of security at all dude.
I'd prefer to be able to try to defend myself. Its better to have and not need than to need and not have.
To me it's like religion, if it makes you feel better to know that you can defend yourself if the situation turned ugly, then cool. I agree that a weapon makes me feel a lot more secure in a rough area. But I also recognize that it's the same false sense of security that depending on the police gives, or having a security guard, or having a lock, an alarm or any of the other things we do. Bad people will get to do bad things regardless of most, if not all, preventive measures you take.
Bleh... two cliches in one post
Yeah, wud up with that queer? You talkin' like them fancy boys.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 8:56 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 31 of 218 (550512)
03-15-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
03-15-2010 10:09 PM


Re: Bloody revolution
Oni writes:
An argument for the necessity of owning a gun seems rather weak if you're making an argument that you need a gun to rise up against the government.
Hyro writes:
Why, if that's the reason why the amendment was created at all?
Because it's not then, it's now. 2010. It's not a good argument anymore. There are other arguments that are actually relevant. Like: Hey they legally sell the gun, fuck you, I'm buying it.
Or as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Yeah, but he didn't write it as a facebook status update, so it carries no weight these days.
If most every citizen were armed, and if the time ever came for a revolution, they would think very carefully. Because a few people can turn in to a few million overnight depending on the circumstances.
I presented this question before, who would "they" be who is thinking twice?
Since the government is "the people," as in regular folk who drive a Ford Focus to work, who is it that's gonna "get you" that you have to defend yourself from?
The government is not a dictatorship, and any uprising of a dictator would be crushed by the military. And, if in fact it was, some how (if Hollywood played out into real life), the military who rose up, sorry Hyro, but no one (not even a country) would stand a chance against the US military.
There are Germans out there right now scratching their temples, wondering how the Nazi's not only took power so quickly, but brainwashed so many of their brethren to resort to unspeakable crimes.
And that should home for you to some degree. One day you're with Batista, the next Castro comes charging in forever altering the lives of the Cuban people.
Do you think in either case, people owning a gun would have prevented these situations?
America since the time of its inception has been armed.
...had slaves, considered women second class, considered gays second class, didn't let minorities vote, segregated people...yeah, shit changes. I'm not armed. My parents were never armed. A lot of people I know live unarmed, a lot of people period live unarmed. So times have changed as far as that goes.
Right or wrong, it is so ingrained within the culture that not only is it the 2nd amendment (the amendment which ensures the protection of the 1st, in my estimation), but it has become a way of life.
That it's in the 2nd Amendment, yes, does mean we need to adhere to it. But that it's "ingrained in a culture" is not much of an argument, since so many bad things have been "ingrained in cultures" before.
It is doubtful they would ever relinquish their rights so quietly. Shame on them if they do.
Again, as a right to purchase I agree. You should be allowed to buy them so long as they are manufactured legally and sold in the US, like any other product.
But honestly, I think people would fight harder and unite more if you tried to stop making TV's. I know I would kick some culo if someone tried to take my TV. I'd shoot them right in the face.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 10:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-16-2010 7:27 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 39 of 218 (550572)
03-16-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
03-16-2010 7:27 AM


Re: Bloody revolution
It's always relevant, just like free speech.
And even with free speech, there are better and more relevant arguments by today's standards then when the amendment was conceived.
Yes, but it is only legal in the context of the amendment itself.
The 2nd amendment has to do with the right to bear arms, NOT the right to own a gun.
Shuting down gun manufacturers and banning the productions of guns does not, in any way, violate your right to bear arms. You'll just have to choose a different weapon.
Your question was: Should citizens be allowed to bear arms? And I answered, yes. So long as arms are legally sold (whether it is a cross bow, knife, sword, or, as long as they are sold, a gun).
That is your right, the right to bear arms, NOT the right to own a gun specifically.
Whomever may want to subvert your rights, foreign or domestic.
Let me then be more specific, because we were discussing the government and you claimed the citizens should bear arms in order to resist.
So, what branch of government, or office of government (like the Supreme Court or The House) do you think will be able to organize and rise up to where you, personally, would feel the need to defend yourself?
The government is always in danger of over-stepping its bounds, freedom is always a step away from being lost, etc. The "it can't happen to me" mindset is something people always say when they develop cancer, or are in the midst of a bear attack, or just lost a child in an auto wreck. It can happen.
Sure, things can happen, but within reason. The "government" is not a single entity, you know this. It is made up of 1000's of offices, departments, sectors, etc., so it's hard to imagine any kind of "united government movement".
It would certainly help push negotiations along. A bunch of ragtag, malnourished, not-well-trained resistance groups have been killing thousands of Americans for 2 separate decades (Vietnam & Afghanistan) for two sole reasons.
1. They're armed.
2. They're willing to fight for something they believe in
I don't believe this response even addressed what I asked. I asked if an armed public, which at the time cubans were armed, would have thwarted the efforts of Castro and Hitler, respectively?
I don't believe so, here's why:
Hitler fought against army(s) with massive weaponry, he would have wasted very little time taking out armed citizens. The casualties would have been higher. Plus, now average citizens, who bought into the propaganda, would have been shooting Jews in the streets.
Castro's uprising was political. He had the support of the people, and control of the army. He too would have wasted no time taking out armed citizens - which he did. Especially with the help of the Russians.
What's your reason for thinking it would have?
It doesn't bother me if you don't want exercise a portion of your freedom for whatever reason, but I do.
Wait, who says I don't excercise my right to bear arms? We simply use different weapons. I usually carry a knife to every bar or club I perform at. I'm pretty good with it too. So I do excercise my right.
Don't get wrapped up in gun ownership being the sole means of bearing arms.
Every now and again I like to take a consensus on how many people stand up for the right and how many people want to take it away.
I get that, but you're confusing your right to bear arms with your right to buy and own a gun. The two are not the same. Like I explained above, if guns would stop being manufactured that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, you still have the right to bear arms, just not that particular one because they don't make them anymore.
It would be the same as if they stopped making cross bows. How does that violate your right to bear arms?
This isn't about guns, it's about a right to arm yourself and defend yourself. That's what we fight to defend, that right, not guns.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-16-2010 7:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 67 of 218 (550807)
03-18-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
03-18-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Have you brought up Nazi's or Hitler yet in this thread?
Right off the bat, Message 6.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 10:48 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2010 1:31 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 107 of 218 (551119)
03-21-2010 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICANT
03-21-2010 1:55 AM


Re: Guns
Hi ICANT,
I can't find the amendment to the constitution that the states radified giving the federal government the authority to regulate anything about my gun ownership.
The constitution doesn't say anything about your right to own a gun, it gives you the right to bear arms. The federal government regulates guns because they are a weapon.
They are regulated through these acts:
National Firearms Act (1934)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act (1968)
Firearms Owner's Protection Act (1986)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994 - 2004) (now defunct)
Like I told Hyro, which he never responded to: If they made manufacturing guns illegal and shut down every gun manufacturer, IN NO WAY is the 2nd amendment violated. You still have the right to bear arms.
source
quote:
The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.
You have the right to weapons not guns.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2010 1:55 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 4:33 PM onifre has replied
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 4:53 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 123 of 218 (551427)
03-22-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 4:33 PM


Re: Guns
The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms which SCOTUS interprets to be handguns as well as long guns while allowing reasonable restriction on all arms and outright bans on unusual arms like tanks, fighter jets and H-bombs.
Thanks AZ (and Catholic Sci), I'll research it more but till then I stand corrected.
A question then: does the 2nd amendment protect the manufacturing of guns/firearms? (As in, it would be against the 2nd amendment to discontinue the manufacturing of firearms)
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 4:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:17 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 167 of 218 (551837)
03-24-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
03-23-2010 3:17 PM


No more drug raids
That's why the Feds can still arrest Californians for pot possession regardless of a prescription.
Not anymore
quote:
The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn't provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 3:17 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2010 2:02 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 169 of 218 (551855)
03-24-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rahvin
03-24-2010 2:02 PM


Re: No more drug raids
That's an executive decision to simply not enforce Federal law in States that have allowed it.
Word.
If Obama isn't re-elected (or hell, even if he just changes his mind one day), we could have the DEA arresting growers in Cali once again.
Such a waste of time and tax payer money. The fucked up thing is, these states where they have legalized it, it was legalized by tax paying voters. The voters who voted for the legalization are funding their own federal raids!
Lets face it, the only safe place to grow pot now is Farmville.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2010 2:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 179 of 218 (552143)
03-26-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
03-26-2010 1:50 PM


Holy Sky Cake!
But we are not as free today as we were 50 years ago.
You must be of the prefered color and gender.
What a really ignorant thing to say, ICANT.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2010 1:50 PM ICANT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 204 of 218 (552522)
03-29-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by ICANT
03-29-2010 4:56 PM


No Country for Old Men
Hi ICANT
I lived on a farm and worked on many farms. There was black and white working side by side. Each got paid the same amount of money. We went to the same Churches. We visited in each others homes in other words we were friends.
In fact in the 50's I employed a couple of the ladies that had washed my clothes when I was a little boy. They helped take care of my kids. Later I started doing construction work and moved all over the state of Florida. When I went home on the weekends I had to visit those ladies so they could see the boys and know how they were doing. If I missed them they were very upset and felt I did not love them anymore. Many of my uncles and aunts could care less if I visited them.
In our area we knew nothing of racial problems until it broke on the national scene.
Cool, but so what? There was less freedom in those days for the citizens of the US, that's a fact. Your farm story is great, but that wasn't reality for the rest of the country.
"McCarthyism." Do you believe there were no people in the US in the 50's that had communist or Marxists beliefs? Those and their offspring are the one promoting those ideas in America today.
And you say you don't buy into the propaganda?
What exactly is a "Marxist" belief, and what does Marx have to do with communism?
Perhaps you mean Russian ideologies or something like that. Russia was not communist, in fact, there has NEVER been a communist state.
Way to buy into the propaganda, ICANT.
You don't think we have segregation today. Listen to the statements of Rev. Wright.
There was LEGAL segregation, ICANT. That means there was less freedom. Period.
How does the opinion of that racist ass-clown matter in cases dealing with facts?
What is wrong with the woman in a marriage staying home and taking care of the home and children? What is wrong with the man being a man and providing a living for his family?
Nothing, as long as it's by choice.
You don't want people telling you what to do? Well, neither do women. When you said "people" you did mean to include women too, right?
Do you believe the government should take their hard earned money and give it to those that set around and never try to better themselves?
Question: Do you believe the people living in ghettos just sit around all day and do nothing? Do you believe they're just lazy and don't want to get out of the ghetto and are just waiting for a hand out?
Careful, you may start buying into the propaganda again...
All mankind is created with equal opportunities.
WTF!!! Wow. Ok. So let me get this straight, a kid born in Darfur has the same opportunities as a kid born in a upper-middle class family in the US?
Or visit a gentleman that lives in Miami who was second in command to Raul in the 80's and 90's in Cuba.
Who?
He was there when Castro took over in the late 50's and saw what absolute power could do.
Then he's quite ignorant on the subject, because Cuba was under absolute power with Batista as well. The power of the wealthy.
If you look at Cuba you will see those in power have anything they desire.
How is that different from the US, right now, today? Did YOU get a bailout, or just those with the power?
But the local population are not allowed to enter them must less buy anything no matter how much money they have.
Not true. At all. Over there, just like here, money buys you anything. They are not allowed to enter to spend Cuban dollars, but for American dollars, shit, come on in!
There is a big fellow about 225 lbs over 6' tall standing at the entrance to make sure the locals do not come in the stores.
Exactly that weight and height? He looked 6'3" about 250 to me last I was there.
They have to shop in the stores desginated for them to shop in.
Not true. They have to shop in stores designated for Cuban dollars.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2010 4:56 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 7:25 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024