Don't apologize...was just supporting your post and was too lazy to repost the links.zhoomout said:
Forget the zombie apocalypse
- Thread starter AntiThom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Whether or not this has already been stated, I dont know. Perhaps we all need a refresher...
The US Constitution itself calls for the people themselves to have the right to their own weapons, originally to be able to take action in case the government ever got a little too overbearing (Kinda like how England was which lead to the whole Revolution thing). This one goes out to all you rednecks when I say the Constitution protects your right to carry around your little assault rifles...but at the same time it doesnt since it doesnt specify. All it says is "keep and bear Arms" (WTF was an assault rifle back then?)
The Constitution is riddled with loop holes, which is where all our liberal friends come in with the notion of gun control. Personally, I'm not afraid of B Rock or his little vice lackey when they bring up the idea of national gun control or whatever, because ultimatley it is not their decision to do jack shit. Congress will never ratify an Amendment that imposes national gun control, so dont worry and continue stocking for the zombie apocalypse.
What about state laws!?! This is where I might sweat a little. Heres why. States could impose individual state laws for gun control. But, if it gets to be too much, the Supreme Court (charged with interpreting the Constitution) could take the case and strike it down deciding the law violates a Constitutional right (Unconstitutional) and thus, bye bye gun law. BUT, if Obama gets to nominate enough justices to the Supreme Court in his term, he could get enough liberals in there to help impose gun control...then again conservative judges on the Court could decide to hold off retirement (or in some cases, hold off death) until a Republican gets elected again...kinda like how Justice Ginsberg held off retirement during the G W Bush years to ensure a Democrat will be replacing her in the Court...
What the hell am I saying here? The situation is like every other issue here in America: Nothing is going to happen for a long time. Both sides on the issue are evenly matched. High profile situations like the VT shootings will get everybody started and gun control will make some ground, but when everyone calms down and gets their common sense back, it goes right back to before: square 1.
You can argue until youre blue in the testicles, but at the end of the day all that matters is what is written: "The American people have a right to bear Arms." As ambiguous as it is, it IS all we've got to work with. Period.
Alright children, what does all that hubub mean? Its a 2 parter: 1) a well regulated Militia. Simple enough, no? National Guard! Sheriff! Police! Whatever! 2) the rights for people to keep and bear arms themselves! Thats you and me, Bubba!Amendment II to the United States Constitution said:
The US Constitution itself calls for the people themselves to have the right to their own weapons, originally to be able to take action in case the government ever got a little too overbearing (Kinda like how England was which lead to the whole Revolution thing). This one goes out to all you rednecks when I say the Constitution protects your right to carry around your little assault rifles...but at the same time it doesnt since it doesnt specify. All it says is "keep and bear Arms" (WTF was an assault rifle back then?)
The Constitution is riddled with loop holes, which is where all our liberal friends come in with the notion of gun control. Personally, I'm not afraid of B Rock or his little vice lackey when they bring up the idea of national gun control or whatever, because ultimatley it is not their decision to do jack shit. Congress will never ratify an Amendment that imposes national gun control, so dont worry and continue stocking for the zombie apocalypse.
What about state laws!?! This is where I might sweat a little. Heres why. States could impose individual state laws for gun control. But, if it gets to be too much, the Supreme Court (charged with interpreting the Constitution) could take the case and strike it down deciding the law violates a Constitutional right (Unconstitutional) and thus, bye bye gun law. BUT, if Obama gets to nominate enough justices to the Supreme Court in his term, he could get enough liberals in there to help impose gun control...then again conservative judges on the Court could decide to hold off retirement (or in some cases, hold off death) until a Republican gets elected again...kinda like how Justice Ginsberg held off retirement during the G W Bush years to ensure a Democrat will be replacing her in the Court...
What the hell am I saying here? The situation is like every other issue here in America: Nothing is going to happen for a long time. Both sides on the issue are evenly matched. High profile situations like the VT shootings will get everybody started and gun control will make some ground, but when everyone calms down and gets their common sense back, it goes right back to before: square 1.
You can argue until youre blue in the testicles, but at the end of the day all that matters is what is written: "The American people have a right to bear Arms." As ambiguous as it is, it IS all we've got to work with. Period.
No I have never been mugged, nor plan to. I try very hard to never become a victim. I dont go to the shady parts of town, I rarely walk anywhere after dark, if I do I scrutinize every person I see and I put an effort into looking for any sign of danger, I try to stay in well lit areas, and keep a nice barrier around myself. Its about mindset, you have to be observant and cautious. Sure there may come a day when I may let my guard slip, or someone doesnt look like a thug, or whatever. That day I will probably comply if I feel that no bodily harm will come to me either way, but if I see some one trying to sneak or approaching me, I will ask them to stop and try to walk away from them. If they still come at me, then I will protect myself.rossatdi said:
So okay, there were two officers shot in those years, how many other people were shot? How many criminals were shot by other criminals?
All you could ever want to know:Naterstein said:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/
EDIT: just so you don't have to bother reading through, 59 homicide victims overall in 2006/7 compared to 49 the period preceeding. Can't be bothered to read through to find numbers shot at with or without injury.
EDIT2: Doh, it was right there on the web page. 566 serious injuries & fatalities.
I agree the "right to bare arms" was a good idea in 1787 but in 2008/9 with a society like the ones america has is not the society where i should be allowed to buy a 9mm with my milk.
Colombine,Viginia Tech,Red Lake high? i wonder if guns had have been strictly watched i doubt all them people would have to have died in vain.
What do you honestly need an assult rifle/deagle for? honestly its not like your living in Iraq and you would need that level of protection.
Colombine,Viginia Tech,Red Lake high? i wonder if guns had have been strictly watched i doubt all them people would have to have died in vain.
What do you honestly need an assult rifle/deagle for? honestly its not like your living in Iraq and you would need that level of protection.
Yes, criminals will get there hands on guns if they really need to, but why make it easier for them?AntiThom said:
Yeah go ahead be an idiot, talk about how the government spies on you and how they're going to read our brainwaves and blah blah blah. Don't buy into all that crap it doesn't matter. It only matters when they install a camera in your living room and arrest you when you say something bad about them while you're in the bathroom thinking out loud. Get over the conspiracy crap, it's all just that, crap. There were illegal phone taps, I'll grant you that, But it isn't a conspiracy to keep you from thinking your own thoughts or from speaking what's on your mind. You still have the freedom to travel anywhere in the country, do any job that will hire you, and say what you want no matter how rediculous.hypothetical fact said:
Wow, paranoid. I walk often through central London late at night. I walk the 20 minutes home from my tube station down back alleys over a park, at night. Thank fuck for the UK, and Harrow (safest borough in the city!). The one time I was mugged was at 3.50 ish, on the way home from school.Naterstein said:
Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'm not adressing you as an American, I'm adressing the subject as an American issue. The topic is mostly about gun control in America, after all, and my post, while in response to you, was directed at everyone.awmperry said:
Therefore, I adressed the post towards America in contrast with my own country, which is Sweden, incindentally. It was not against you personally.
You call me paranoid, but I have yet to be a victim of a violent crime, or any other crime IIRC. I am not scanning the horizon, sheepishly crossing the street, otherwise cripple by fear. I am aware of my surroundings and I am aware of those who are around me, this should be second nature for any human.rossatdi said:
No. Almost anything can be used to kill people with, almost anything isn't a weapon. There's a bit of a difference there. A sword or a gun is a weapon. An axe or a knife are tools very suited for use as weapons. A pen, while useful in killing people with, is, and always will be, just a tool.
Oh yeah, that law is DEFINATELY going to pass...even though it says right on this little piece of paper...oh bugger...what was it called? Oh right! the constitution. You see the government takes this paper VERY seriously and the 2nd amendment clearly states they can't take our guns away...so relax man! relax!
I would personally appreciate it if you read this entire post before respondng for the sake of integrity.David Allen said:
First of all,I have nothing against Mexicans. On average, they aren't any worse than we are. But if we increased Legal immigration and then pumped up border security, we could let them in, AND seriously hamper smugglers. And how exactly are we supposed to know a crook has an un registered black market handgun, if he keeps it under his mattress? Yeah, we can question him after we catch him, but the same method would theoretically stop the sell of weed. Doesn't change the fact a lot of weed is sold here. Secondly, I don't think America is better than other countries. We are dumber and more courrpt in many ways. Our tendency to appoint oppressive dictators over South American countries that make decisions we don't like is just evil, for example. The government's putting a restriction on watts in car headlights rather than lumens is another good example. That doesn't automatically mean the traditional stance on gun control in America is wrong also, however.
In America, we have almost no border security. Which is both why so many mexicans can simply walk over the border and also why all bans and control laws fail here.Michigan- which used to have the number one murder city(Detroit)had gun control. They decided to pass right to carry laws. Citizens suddenly had the right to carry guns everywhere. The crime rate dropped, and it has stayed low. In new england, the state with the lowest crime rate is Vermont. They have the least gun control. The state with the highest, (I believe it is massachussets) has the most gun control. What's more, while the states in New England with the highest crime rate aren't a COMPLETE inversion of the states with the least gun control, they are pretty close.
Morever, when the Supreme Court overturned many of the gun control laws in Illinois, Obama's home state, the crime rate was LOWERED. It was also estimated by the Washington state police that 95% of all crimes are commited with guns that are stolen or purchased off the black market. Of course bans would remove the "stolen" ones, but not the BM ones.
It has to do with smugglers. Smugglers simply sell crooks the weapons on the black market....only border security stops the black market. Of course the black market is everywhere, but here it is rampant, we have a ludicrous lack of border security. If you read my post on page 5, you would have seen nobody wants to increase legal immigration...which would allow us to actually have useful gun control and let more people into this country. Moreover, the Proven Facts I mentioned in guns increasing the crime rate? Mentioned on page 5 also. Please do research before opening your mouth. Gun Control can't function until smugglers are shut down. Teflon Coated bullets are illegal in all 50 states, and yet people still have them here. Why? Smugglers. Smugglers have the run of the place because of the lack of border security.
Now you have assumed I am dumb, irrational, and paranoid, as well as blinded by patriotism. I'm not. Other countries do many things better than America, such as how Britain transports voting ballots(much less suceptible to mishaps) and how Europe in general has more Public bathrooms. However, when Michigan passed right to carry, the crime rate there dropped. In New England, the lowest crime rate state is Vermont....which has the least gun control. So....no. I'm sorry, but you would need to change a few things before gun control becomes viable here. We can learn a lot from other countries, since many of the ways we do things is stupid. In many cases, my countries actions are downright evil, such as appointing dictators over south american countries, because they made choices we didn't like. America isn't a better country, it's just a country. That doesn't change the fact that Vermont is the lowest crime rate state in new england. It also doesn't change the fact that Michigans crime rate fell after passing right to carry.
That said, you have a right to your opinion, and I don't even blame you for phrasing it rudely, since you thought you were helping the cause with your tirade. But I do blame you for failing to do research. Have you ever heard of Ranch Rescue? Formed because the cops don't do much to stop smugglers here. Just because Australia enforces it's laws doesn't mean America does. So please, do research in the future.
Ah, good 'ole social commentary about one country's political and social scenes by someone from another country who doesn't have a clue. Get's me every time. I especially loved the part where you act as though your criminals are more "civilized" than others. How droll. I believe that, by their very nature, one does a criminal act because they're not civilized. Maybe I'm just crazy, I don't know. I also loved the parts where you assume someone here would kill their victim to hide their identity and that, were you to be robbed, that you not having a gun would guarantee your life not being taken. Seems as though you've been watching too many cop dramas. Then there's the "you're too violent" bit. That really had me rolling on the floor laughing. I'd kindly ask you to look at your own past, especially those involving your religious organizations, and then tell me we're to violent. Oh, and as for that last part about our voting rights, I guess you're not aware that we can actually vote for whomever we wish. We're not limited to either the democratic or republican picks. I'm afraid to say, many here seemed to have forgotten that fact, but we're still granted that right. One final note, I've voted in every election that's taken place in my lifetime (that I was legally able to anyway), and not once did I "need a gun" to do it or enforce my decision, as you seem to think we do.Silver said:
Vigormortis, you would be right about the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about if it weren't for the fact that every one of those places I "assume" stuff, it was responses to what other people have said.
And yes, criminals can be more or less civilized than each other. The idea that all criminals are exactly the same is laughable, criminals just like everyone else are a product of their upbringing and the culture around them. If that culture is like Americas, they're going to be different than if that culture was like in Sweden.
About killing people to keep their identities hidden that was a response. Not something I made up. A response. Go look it up if you want to, it doesn't mean that it was my opinion, or my belief that it happened. I also don't believe not having a gun is a guarantee to get away, especially not in America.
And yes, America IS a violent country. You're not getting ut of that one. Sure, my country HAS been violent, several HUNDRED years ago, it's not anymore. And even that was far from the violent history of America. I don't see how it's relevant. Back when we were the most violent America didn't exist. Should I bring that up? That the whole discussion is moot since America used to not exist?
I never said you needed a gun to enforce your vote. I responded to the nutjobs claiming they need guns to keep their government in check, as if it was some malevolent being out to get them where it hurts the most, and not what they had themselves elected, still subject to the laws of the country. Granted, I don't know how can be changed in the four-year period, and how many laws can be changed to fit their liking, but it would seem unlikely that the government in America could start oppressing their subject just because you didn't have a gun in every home, and every government official sat shaking in their seats, fearing someone will disagree with their decisions and come blowing off heads.
I admit that I was wrong about one thing though. I was under the impression that those were the two choices you had to vote for, after I heard an American say he didn't vote for Obama, but against the other dude, by voting for Obama. It didn't seem like much choice was given.
And yes, criminals can be more or less civilized than each other. The idea that all criminals are exactly the same is laughable, criminals just like everyone else are a product of their upbringing and the culture around them. If that culture is like Americas, they're going to be different than if that culture was like in Sweden.
About killing people to keep their identities hidden that was a response. Not something I made up. A response. Go look it up if you want to, it doesn't mean that it was my opinion, or my belief that it happened. I also don't believe not having a gun is a guarantee to get away, especially not in America.
And yes, America IS a violent country. You're not getting ut of that one. Sure, my country HAS been violent, several HUNDRED years ago, it's not anymore. And even that was far from the violent history of America. I don't see how it's relevant. Back when we were the most violent America didn't exist. Should I bring that up? That the whole discussion is moot since America used to not exist?
I never said you needed a gun to enforce your vote. I responded to the nutjobs claiming they need guns to keep their government in check, as if it was some malevolent being out to get them where it hurts the most, and not what they had themselves elected, still subject to the laws of the country. Granted, I don't know how can be changed in the four-year period, and how many laws can be changed to fit their liking, but it would seem unlikely that the government in America could start oppressing their subject just because you didn't have a gun in every home, and every government official sat shaking in their seats, fearing someone will disagree with their decisions and come blowing off heads.
I admit that I was wrong about one thing though. I was under the impression that those were the two choices you had to vote for, after I heard an American say he didn't vote for Obama, but against the other dude, by voting for Obama. It didn't seem like much choice was given.