I'm tired of hearing this particular argument against the Second Amendment:
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is a problem I often see with people saying getting rid of the 2nd would eliminate gun crime. The guns are already out there, so it would be kind of difficult to get the guns from the people that don't care about what is or isn't legal. You would only be disarming the people that criminals would see as targets, leaving the innocent defenceless against the criminals.
Also, to the people saying that since we barely stand a chance against the gov't in gun-power we should surrender the gun-power we have: Why would we want to give the gov't a greater advantage against us?
Also,Also, to the other people that says the gov't becoming tyrannical is highly unlikely, I still think that we should be able to wage war on/defend against them even if it is highly improbable to be necessary.
Also, to the people saying that since we barely stand a chance against the gov't in gun-power we should surrender the gun-power we have: Why would we want to give the gov't a greater advantage against us?
Also,Also, to the other people that says the gov't becoming tyrannical is highly unlikely, I still think that we should be able to wage war on/defend against them even if it is highly improbable to be necessary.
The harm, as I see it, is that the restrictions you're suggesting wouldn't actually do that much to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of Joker types. The ONLY people who would be affected would be the law-abiding. Criminals get their hands on things they're not supposed to all the time... unless you think your local crack dealer is acquiring his goods through a licensed distributor.AquaAscension said:
See, the many are your allies here. Most people have no desire whatsoever to kill, even if they're told it's ok/needs to be done. (Case in point, the tradition of handing out a blank or two to firing squads.) As amusing as the above scenario where gun proliferation turns everything into a free-for-all, it's not bloody likely. I'm FROM Tucson; you know how many people there pack heat? So where are the news stories about responsible gun owners not shooting anybody? There are THOUSANDS of guns in that town. Only ONE nutjob misused his.
And that's the true tragedy of this situation, and many like it. As opposed to lamenting how our society could produce such an ill individual (almost a statistical certainty, considering the populations we're dealing with), we'd rather try to find an easy answer. Hey, guns! Oh, drugs! Ah, community college!
The world is not a nice place. Occasionally, shit happens. There's not much we can do about that. However, we CAN make a decision on how we handle our own safety, and let me tell you from personal experience, the cops aren't always around...
That guy is a rare example. Only people who want to be caught or want to die would use a legally purchased gun to commit a crime. This could be easily fixed with mental evaluations and background checks which a fully support. I think every sane man or women with no criminal background should be able to purchase firearms unrestricted, but the greater restriction should be put on who fits with in that definition.BobDobolina said:
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, usually interpreted to mean American citizens have a right to possess fire arms.drummodino said:
The exact text reads: "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."
Do the Australians have anything like this?
No, Australian constitutional law generally only deals with delegation of power between state and federal government, terms of elected government, etc. It generally does not deal with the rights of private citizens, that is generally left for federal treaties, state level legislation and the judiciary.Bwown said:
Gun control is wholly a state issue but states have shown more unity in policy over the last twenty years, getting a small caliber bolt action rimfire suitable for shooting rabbits, foxes, clay pigeons, etc is is still pretty easy, but all states generally make you give a justification before you get anything bigger and do not let you have a semi-auto centrefire rifle or pump action shotgun unless you need to shoot feral camels or something.
General public attitude is for gun control, Australia has only had one major shooting spree (not surprisingly just before the current gun control was enacted) and I think gun control is considered responsible for that, although one could argue that there weren't any before that shooting spree either. There are always people who find government restriction to be an unwelcome intrusion to their lives, especially since gun control was traditionally so lax.
The biggest justification to Australian gun control currently is the United States, generally speaking the average gun toting American "patriot" is perceived to be more of a threat to a democratically elected and progressive American president than to a hypothetical tyrant. A gun is also more likely to end up in the hands of an inner city petty criminal with a direct application for it than it is to end up in the hands of an freedom loving intellectual with only an abstract ideal to uphold and absolutely no idea about how to conduct guerrilla warfare against tyranny either way.
Australia does however have a well regulated Militia called the "Army Reserve" which provides training in firearms, physical fitness and military tactics to citizens and of course issues automatic rifles during training.
Your second argument undermines your entire point.
If the US government wanted to opress the US population their main tool would be the army and police force. Both of which are made up of US citizens.
So the people who need weapons already have the legal ability to carry them. I'd find it very odd if the majority of the army and police force decided to put their government before their family and friends.
If the US government wanted to opress the US population their main tool would be the army and police force. Both of which are made up of US citizens.
So the people who need weapons already have the legal ability to carry them. I'd find it very odd if the majority of the army and police force decided to put their government before their family and friends.
You're arguing an entirely different point now. Loughner bought his weapon from a licensed gun store. The restrictions I'm talking about are background checks and a short waiting period. Please, tell me a situation in which a law abiding citizen would need a gun RIGHT THEN. Don't tell me in a situation like the one that just happened. No one, NO ONE, would hear the gunshots, run off to a gun store, stand in line, make the purchase, then return only to shoot people. Here's one more problem with the theory that packing heat everywhere makes people safer:ReverendJ said:
As a martial artist, I know that the best defense is a good offense. If I wait around to throw strikes and just try to counter all day, I'm probably going to get beaten. Thus, I want to be the one to throw the first strike in order to win. The person who attacks first has the advantage. These same rules apply to a gunfight. If you fire first, you have a much higher chance of winning. Problem with this? In a fight, you have a chance to counter a fist. With bullets, you have far less of a chance.
I get that guns are good for defense, but where was this mighty defensive force of gun owners last Saturday? In Arizona which has one of the most relaxed gun control laws - in Arizona which sold a gun to a man too dangerous to attend community college - in Arizona where the target was a gun owner who championed the rights of gun owners, in Arizona, where was the hero with the gun to put an end to the villain's rampage? The answer you're looking for is either "I don't know" or "There wasn't one."
This subject again? A bunch of kids with no real world experience outside of mom's basement and whose entire knowledge of firearms comes from Counter-Strike are sharing their opinions on the world. Spectacular.
Can't we go back to talking video games?
Can't we go back to talking video games?
I believe it would restrict law-abiding citizens more than it would criminals. I have upclose and personal experience with the illegal gun trade. I have bullet holes through my back that came from guns you can't even legally purchase in the united states. The kind of 'choppers' most of these people have aren't coming through any sort of legal channel.BobDobolina said:
He was inside the Walgreens, didn't make it outside until after everything was over. See, a lot of folks thought it would be inappropriate to take a gun to see a congressperson, as people freak out about that sort of thing.AquaAscension said:
If you'd been reading the thread, you'd see that it wasn't MY choice of analogy; it was someone else's example, I used it for clarity in my response. Doesn't change the fact that limitations on gun purchases don't mean squat to certain elements.Sknyjdwb said:
I am, however, amused at the assumptions here. You know, several years back, there was a law passed to allow guns into establishments that serve alcohol in AZ. Oh, how the anti-gun folks screamed and cried, the impending violence was going to be unimaginable... and nothing's happened since. Not a single bar-related shootout. But it was common sense!
NO. Common sense is that most people are law-abiding, rational individuals not looking to kill anyone. Look, if you want to trust your safety to others, that's fine. I, on the other hand, know that police response times aren't always the best. I've had to call the police before, for violent individuals and occasionally someone waving around a gun, and the best response I ever received was an hour. (Yay, Tucson P.D.)
Now, as for ease of access, I'd like to point out the hardware currently making it's way into Mexico, fueling the drug-violence on the border. None of it from licensed dealers, so... where's it coming from? Oh.... yeah. The nonexistent "Criminal Field."