Our US government: Should they fear us or Controle?

[Superbeast]

My stance on gun ownership has always been this:

Completely restricting ownership won't help because those who need guns to commit crimes will get weapons anyway; a law won't stop them. Thus, the only people who have weapons would be the criminals. Not that the general populace needs high powered assault weapons (though they are admittedly very cool), just something to defend themselves with. A crook will think twice about robbing some place if there's the chance the owners have their own guns.

And I counter with escalation.

With an un-armed population there is less need for a criminal to carry a gun himself - a baseball bat or golfclub is sufficient to scare and have an advantage over most people. If they *do* have a gun then they are much less likely to use it - since they do not need to kill the person they are robbing them to prevent them being a threat (the gun works as an object to terrify the victim into submission). The result being the person gets robbed, but is left alive, and dogs make great preventative measures.

If the population is armed, then the criminal is more likely to be armed himself - as he needs it for protection against armed citizenry. He's also far more likely to kill his victim to prevent his victim reaching his own firearm while the theif flees. Yes, some theives will be detered - but no more so than in an unarmed population if the household owns a dog.

In an armed population the police need to be armed too (as the criminals are more likely to be carrying firearms in the first place) - and since the police wear things like bullet-proof jackets then the criminals shift to using armour-piecing bullets. If the police step up a gear then the criminals start using automatics (usually converted uzi-type weapons as they are easier to obtain and modify than automatics like assault rifles).

If you have tighter gun regulation they yes, only the criminals have guns - but it's far easier to monitor guns coming into the country and it's far easier to detect illegal firearms in a non-armed country than an armed country (since if you see a gun it could be lawful - so people may not report it, depending on state - whereas in Europe a gun is seen and the cops get called immediately). There's not eevn a large market for illegal firearms in the UK - they're rarely in the hands of average muggers/thieves and more in the hands of serious gangers and organised crime [like jewelery shop and bank heist type of crime])

Overall I am of the opinion that the risks of owning a firearm (from increasing the likelyhood of encountering armed thieves to having your own gun turned against you; and there's all the stuff about accidental shootings) outweigh the deterrance factor to potential thieves. I much prefer Europe/UK's handling of the issue than America's.

As I said earlier, all this is theoretical as it's impossible to implement in the 'States because of the sheer number of weapons in circulation and the fact a large percentage of people see obtaining firearms no different than buying a hammer or drill (and the whole history of carrying arms). Difference in culture and all that.

 

[Snella]

Come down to Philadelphia, you can illegally buy an Uzi for $600.

A government should fear its people, and fear its military even more.

 

[Blank Verse]

Lately it seems that our govornment has been restricting us more and more. It almost seems the people of the US are having less and less a say in law making. What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE! shouldn't we have a bigger say? Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check. Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect. Don't worry I'm not saying those are bad I'm just saying that our government has no right to do that. Yes it might be different from when our rights were made: we have stronger more destructive weapons. But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us.

Back to the origional topic: should our government fear us? It seems nowdays that the only time our officials is election day!

So please talk about this and tell me what you think!

Look at the White House then look at your wallet. Which-ever one is heavier usually wins.

Usually. The Supreme Court is rascally.

 

[Numb1lp]

That is a good point, except the "bad guys," you know, your mobsters, gangsters, mad men ect. all have guns and don't care about what the law says. So... if everyone has a gun, you can defend yourself against the people who would have them regardless of the law. Now, I'm not saying I should be able to put a light machine gun on my car or anything like that, but I should have the right to defend myself.

 

[Jedoro]

You know what? We pay our leaders' bills. We pay them to serve us, take care of us, and look out for our best interests. If they don't do the job right and/or well, we should impeach them and put someone else there who wants to give it a shot.

More on topic, until there's a police officer stationed at my house whose sole purpose is to protect my house from criminals, I'm not supporting a gun ban. Sure, M60's and such need to be regulated and licensed, but don't take my right to own a handgun or shotgun until you're willing to have someone serve its purpose.

Yes, I trust the police, I seek to become a police officer after college. But while there is still time when they aren't around to protect us, don't take the means for us to protect ourselves.

 

[Doug]

Lately it seems that our govornment has been restricting us more and more. It almost seems the people of the US are having less and less a say in law making. What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE! shouldn't we have a bigger say? Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check. Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect. Don't worry I'm not saying those are bad I'm just saying that our government has no right to do that. Yes it might be different from when our rights were made: we have stronger more destructive weapons. But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us.

Back to the origional topic: should our government fear us? It seems nowdays that the only time our officials is election day!

So please talk about this and tell me what you think!

Excuse me, but I should point out several things:

1) "Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check." - Maybe; although I believe the actual reason was to encourage gun usage in case WE the Brittish tried to retake our rebellious colonies again.

2) "What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE!" - Also, 'The People' in the early days of the US excluded Black Slaves, Women, and the poor.

3) "But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us." - I'm pretty sure than unless you have a budget that would make Bill Gates poor, you aren't going to be able to overpower the US army, or airforce, or marines. Just a guess, but well trained troops with heavy equipment, artillery, air support, and the best ground weapons money can buy will generally out perform any civilian militia and uprising.

4) "Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect." - I'm pretty sure the bill of rights didn't picture a world with AK47's, M16's, machine guns, or even the MAC-10. I'm pretty sure the concept of 'arms' and weapons they even could picture extended only to flintlock weapons, maybe with barrel rifling, that was still pretty inaccurate over any distance, and took over 30 seconds to reload for another shot.

5) The whole concept of 'guns keep us free' seems more than alittle daft. If the US government REALLY wanted or where trying to crack down on personal liberties, I'm pretty such you wouldn't be able to get a flight for all the Black helicopters rope laddering in SWAT teams every 8 seconds.

I really don't get American troubling obsession with letting everyone have guns. If America where a third or second world country like, say, Pakistan or Afghistan, I could understand; guns over there are largely needed for self defense on a frequent basis. But thats just me.

 

[Winter Rat]

I tingk dey shud Controle, hurr hurr hurr.

As soon as I figure out why spelling and grammar on this thread is the worst I've seen on the internet, THE INTERNET for god's sake, I'll figure out what I think about the gummint.

 

[Darkfreak]

Posted by-Doug
Excuse me, but I should point out several things:

2) "What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE!" - Also, 'The People' in the early days of the US excluded Black Slaves, Women, and the poor.

3) "But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us." - I'm pretty sure than unless you have a budget that would make Bill Gates poor, you aren't going to be able to overpower the US army, or airforce, or marines. Just a guess, but well trained troops with heavy equipment, artillery, air support, and the best ground weapons money can buy will generally out perform any civilian militia and uprising.

4) "Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect." - I'm pretty sure the bill of rights didn't picture a world with AK47's, M16's, machine guns, or even the MAC-10. I'm pretty sure the concept of 'arms' and weapons they even could picture extended only to flintlock weapons, maybe with barrel rifling, that was still pretty inaccurate over any distance, and took over 30 seconds to reload for another shot.

Ok... first off what you said in #2: Don't be nitpicky, I didn't mean that and out of 100 or so people your the only to point that out.

And about #3: What about the American revolution, We beat GB didn't we?

Then #4: As I said in my origional statment I didn't dissagree with "Regulation" and I even said we needed some!

But your other 2 points were actually quite valid!

Sorry I messed up the quote thing...

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

i didn't know blade sizes were in different legalizations (aka a 4 in. blade is legal while a 10 in is, HYPOTHETICAL). The only thing i can guess is conceeled weapons like some very brutal blades.

Ah, there goes my dream of having a car sized RPG sword, even though i hate the genra.

But yes they should fear us, we do technicaly control them, if we didn't pay taxes then they would have no money to do anything. So if the whole country stops paying taxes then the government will have no choice but to obey our wants and needs.

 

[cowbell40]

snip

Be realistic though. Criminals will never abandon their trusty firearms to try to rob stores with melee weapons. Once you stop using a gun to commit a crime, a ton of the intimidation is lost. The chance to be thwarted by whomever you are trying to rob increases exponentially the second you give up the huge advantage of using a firearm.

Even if the entire population is unarmed, criminals will still use guns. What makes you think they'll follow suit? They have no reason to do so.

Also, I don't see how by de-arming the nation you'd make it any easier to stop trafficking of weapons. It would require the same amount of effort as it would now (or more, I contend, because if firearms were made illegal to buy, illegal trade would skyrocket, making stopping trafficking harder (see: prohibition)).

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

Lately it seems that our govornment has been restricting us more and more. It almost seems the people of the US are having less and less a say in law making. What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE! shouldn't we have a bigger say? Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check. Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect. Don't worry I'm not saying those are bad I'm just saying that our government has no right to do that. Yes it might be different from when our rights were made: we have stronger more destructive weapons. But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us.

Back to the origional topic: should our government fear us? It seems nowdays that the only time our officials is election day!

So please talk about this and tell me what you think!

Excuse me, but I should point out several things:

1) "Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check." - Maybe; although I believe the actual reason was to encourage gun usage in case WE the Brittish tried to retake our rebellious colonies again.

2) "What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE!" - Also, 'The People' in the early days of the US excluded Black Slaves, Women, and the poor.

3) "But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us." - I'm pretty sure than unless you have a budget that would make Bill Gates poor, you aren't going to be able to overpower the US army, or airforce, or marines. Just a guess, but well trained troops with heavy equipment, artillery, air support, and the best ground weapons money can buy will generally out perform any civilian militia and uprising.

4) "Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect." - I'm pretty sure the bill of rights didn't picture a world with AK47's, M16's, machine guns, or even the MAC-10. I'm pretty sure the concept of 'arms' and weapons they even could picture extended only to flintlock weapons, maybe with barrel rifling, that was still pretty inaccurate over any distance, and took over 30 seconds to reload for another shot.

5) The whole concept of 'guns keep us free' seems more than alittle daft. If the US government REALLY wanted or where trying to crack down on personal liberties, I'm pretty such you wouldn't be able to get a flight for all the Black helicopters rope laddering in SWAT teams every 8 seconds.

I really don't get American troubling obsession with letting everyone have guns. If America where a third or second world country like, say, Pakistan or Afghistan, I could understand; guns over there are largely needed for self defense on a frequent basis. But thats just me.

3.)okay, now in some bill or ammendmenbt or whatever it says that the US military forces are not allowed to enter the US grounds except on their own bases and owned spaces (hay it rymes) unless an ouside force attacks. So that means unless russia (or some other country) invades the US the military is not allowed on US ground.

All internal problems are controled by the Natinal Gaurd, and guess what, all they do is sit on their ass all day doing nothing.

It also says that we have a right to an organized milita, so pretty much if someone made a big enough group of people, with enough traing, the PEOPLE could acually take over the White House, Many would probably die but it would get the point across that we want change.

So pretty much it is possible to create a kue (spelling?) and overthrow the government.

 

[Darkfreak]

Lately it seems that our govornment has been restricting us more and more. It almost seems the people of the US are having less and less a say in law making. What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE! shouldn't we have a bigger say? Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check. Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect. Don't worry I'm not saying those are bad I'm just saying that our government has no right to do that. Yes it might be different from when our rights were made: we have stronger more destructive weapons. But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us.

Back to the origional topic: should our government fear us? It seems nowdays that the only time our officials is election day!

So please talk about this and tell me what you think!

Excuse me, but I should point out several things:

1) "Our second amendment the right to bear arms was made to keep our govornment in check." - Maybe; although I believe the actual reason was to encourage gun usage in case WE the Brittish tried to retake our rebellious colonies again.

2) "What about our original rights: "We the people of the United States...". Wait... WE the PEOPLE!" - Also, 'The People' in the early days of the US excluded Black Slaves, Women, and the poor.

3) "But still the more our government restricts our weapons the more they find they can controle us." - I'm pretty sure than unless you have a budget that would make Bill Gates poor, you aren't going to be able to overpower the US army, or airforce, or marines. Just a guess, but well trained troops with heavy equipment, artillery, air support, and the best ground weapons money can buy will generally out perform any civilian militia and uprising.

4) "Now we have restritions on weapons: blade sizes, gun types, ect." - I'm pretty sure the bill of rights didn't picture a world with AK47's, M16's, machine guns, or even the MAC-10. I'm pretty sure the concept of 'arms' and weapons they even could picture extended only to flintlock weapons, maybe with barrel rifling, that was still pretty inaccurate over any distance, and took over 30 seconds to reload for another shot.

5) The whole concept of 'guns keep us free' seems more than alittle daft. If the US government REALLY wanted or where trying to crack down on personal liberties, I'm pretty such you wouldn't be able to get a flight for all the Black helicopters rope laddering in SWAT teams every 8 seconds.

I really don't get American troubling obsession with letting everyone have guns. If America where a third or second world country like, say, Pakistan or Afghistan, I could understand; guns over there are largely needed for self defense on a frequent basis. But thats just me.

3.)okay, now in some bill or ammendmenbt or whatever it says that the US military forces are not allowed to enter the US grounds except on their own bases and owned spaces (hay it rymes) unless an ouside force attacks. So that means unless russia (or some other country) invades the US the military is not allowed on US ground.

All internal problems are controled by the Natinal Gaurd, and guess what, all they do is sit on their ass all day doing nothing.

It also says that we have a right to an organized milita, so pretty much if someone made a big enough group of people, with enough traing, the PEOPLE could acually take over the White House, Many would probably die but it would get the point across that we want change.

So pretty much it is possible to create a kue (spelling?) and overthrow the government.

Bad spelling(hypocritical), great point!

 

[Darkfreak]

Really impressed with the posts everyone!

 

[dreadmaster]

ok the goverment should never get more power than the people and the second thay even try it thay shoude be fired and jaled

 

[Darkfreak]

The government should fear the people. When the government has complete control over the people you can kiss your liberties goodbye. Who can stop them from doing anything they want? If they have complete control than there is nothing we can do. We would have to have acted before something like that happened.

With gun laws nowadays it would be hard to take on the US Army but do you honestly believe in today's world that if enough people wanted change to that level that the military (which is made up of ordinary citizens) would fire on their own people? I think not. You would have mass defections or even the entire military siding with the revolutionaries to take on the corrupt government. When you join the military you take an oath to defend the constitution. Siding with a government that ignores it would be breaking that oath.

When the government becomes corrupt it is the duty of the people to either alter or abolish and start fresh.

I take your point! if you don't mide if I have it...

 

[Sparrow]

They should stop insulting my country or I'll nuke them!

Wait, that's a pretty big role reversal...

 

[Dancingman]

I've always felt that America's got a happy medium, frankly, lessening restrictions doesn't work well and it annoys me that the archaic Second Amendment is still around.