That's irrelevant. Most countries don't have a military one fourth our size, not to mention our technology.The Man With the Soap said:
Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
At time of post
58% in favor of second amendment
Yes, I am the majority opinion.
You do not like it, move to Canada or the UK. Stop trying to take away my God/Nirvana given rights. I am a Christian/Buddhist Pacifist who only draws in self defense.
58% in favor of second amendment
Yes, I am the majority opinion.
You do not like it, move to Canada or the UK. Stop trying to take away my God/Nirvana given rights. I am a Christian/Buddhist Pacifist who only draws in self defense.
I like guns. I don't own one, but I still like them. (A .177 pellet air gun doesn't count.) It means that someone who tries to mug me has to gamble on whether or not I have one. Someone breaking into my house has to take into account I may be armed. For some, that's enough deterrent.
The first thing we need to do when discussing gun control is to clearly outline the pros and cons of the situation. In other words, we need to first list the reasons why gun control is 'needed' and the problems for which gun control will be a solution. Next, we need to list the effects that gun control will likely have and the civil liberties infringed upon by any such law. And then finally, we need to figure out how to craft legislation that fulfills the first set of objectives while doing as little harm as possible with the second. In this case, if we are talking about the repeal of the 2nd amendment, we need to characterize the legislation as "granting government total and unfettered ability to ban gun use among anyone for any reason at any time"
Pro:
"Gun control will save lives." This is the primary reason, in fact usually the ONLY reason, why people advocate infringing on the right to bear arms. However, when we look at this element, we see that it needs further clarification. How exactly will it save lives? Whose lives? How many lives?
There are several different types of people killed by guns. Roughly speaking, they fall into 4 different broad categories. Robbery/premeditated murder victims, victims of rage violence, victims of mass shootings, and accidents. By 'rage violence' i mean everyone killed by someone in a fit of rage but not a premeditated crime, i.e. road rage, or getting killed in a bar, or a man shooting his cheating wife. As noted by others in this thread, these categories are affecting differently by gun control.
Gun control will have zero effect on robbery/premeditated murder or on mass shootings. If someone is planning to commit a crime already, the added penalty of using an illegal weapon to do it isn't going to deter them at all. At best, they'll simply switch to a different weapon like explosives or poison to achieve their objective. Oklahoma City killed way more people than that idiot in Tucson ever could and no guns were used there.
Gun control's effect on rage violence as well is fairly minimal. Contrary to what some people think, guns aren't the only way to kill someone. Before firearms were invented, people committed the same stupid crimes and did it just fine with their bare hands. Really, the only effect would be that the victim would almost always be a physically weak person, usually a woman, and a large, strong attacker would have less difficulty subduing an unarmed victim. So we'd just convert a lot of rage shootings into rage beatings-to-death or rage stabbings. Not precisely a laudable goal.
Where gun control WOULD have a significant effect is in the area of accidents. However, the question later on is whether preventing accidental shootings is worth the cost. And no, "every life is precious" isn't valid. Encroachment upon fundamental civil liberties is often more important than a single life, or even a few lives. "Give me liberty or give me death" as it were.
Cons:
And here is where we look at the detrimental effect of gun control. This comes in two basic flavors. Immediate effects and long term effects. The immediate effects are things like lack of self-defense or a rise in black market trading of weapons. The simple truth is that we don't really have accurate statistics on just what the immediate effects will be. However, we DO have a study that indicate that guns were used defensively 2.5million times annually, and a study that shows that gun-owners are less likely to be injured in a robbery or assault than non-gun-owning victims. So, given these statistics, and basic common sense, one would have to admit that the immediate effect would include a rise in people being unable to defend themselves from criminals. The second immediate effect would most likely be a rise in crime, specifically the illegal sale of firearms. History has shown that whenever a prohibition on something goes into effect, the first result is almost never the total elimination of that thing, but usually a rise in flouting the law. We've seen this with drugs and alcohol, and even more directly with weapons in the American Revolution and the Jacobin Rebellion (even when the brits completely banned all weapons from the scots, they still managed to hide anything and everything they could). At best, law enforcement will just ignore the law, at worst we'll see a thriving smuggling trade.
And then we have the "long term" effects. The truth is that the constitution, despite its age, was a rather forward thinking document. Many of its protections and privileges are not designed for the best case, or for the normal case, but for the worst case. When most people think of gun control, they are thinking of right now and of reasonable restrictions. But that's not what the 2nd amendment was written for. The 2nd amendment was written for when the American Nazi party comes into power and starts rounding up people. It was written to prevent laws like "All blacks and hispanics can't own guns". It was written to safeguard the ability of the individual to protect himself and his freedoms when the government is unable or unwilling to do it for him. Being able to defend yourself is as fundamental a right as being able to speak freely. In fact, the ability to speak freely does not exist without the right to defend yourself. Sure, while the courts are free and working, you can rely on them to protect you. But what happens when they aren't? Too late then no?
Pro:
"Gun control will save lives." This is the primary reason, in fact usually the ONLY reason, why people advocate infringing on the right to bear arms. However, when we look at this element, we see that it needs further clarification. How exactly will it save lives? Whose lives? How many lives?
There are several different types of people killed by guns. Roughly speaking, they fall into 4 different broad categories. Robbery/premeditated murder victims, victims of rage violence, victims of mass shootings, and accidents. By 'rage violence' i mean everyone killed by someone in a fit of rage but not a premeditated crime, i.e. road rage, or getting killed in a bar, or a man shooting his cheating wife. As noted by others in this thread, these categories are affecting differently by gun control.
Gun control will have zero effect on robbery/premeditated murder or on mass shootings. If someone is planning to commit a crime already, the added penalty of using an illegal weapon to do it isn't going to deter them at all. At best, they'll simply switch to a different weapon like explosives or poison to achieve their objective. Oklahoma City killed way more people than that idiot in Tucson ever could and no guns were used there.
Gun control's effect on rage violence as well is fairly minimal. Contrary to what some people think, guns aren't the only way to kill someone. Before firearms were invented, people committed the same stupid crimes and did it just fine with their bare hands. Really, the only effect would be that the victim would almost always be a physically weak person, usually a woman, and a large, strong attacker would have less difficulty subduing an unarmed victim. So we'd just convert a lot of rage shootings into rage beatings-to-death or rage stabbings. Not precisely a laudable goal.
Where gun control WOULD have a significant effect is in the area of accidents. However, the question later on is whether preventing accidental shootings is worth the cost. And no, "every life is precious" isn't valid. Encroachment upon fundamental civil liberties is often more important than a single life, or even a few lives. "Give me liberty or give me death" as it were.
Cons:
And here is where we look at the detrimental effect of gun control. This comes in two basic flavors. Immediate effects and long term effects. The immediate effects are things like lack of self-defense or a rise in black market trading of weapons. The simple truth is that we don't really have accurate statistics on just what the immediate effects will be. However, we DO have a study that indicate that guns were used defensively 2.5million times annually, and a study that shows that gun-owners are less likely to be injured in a robbery or assault than non-gun-owning victims. So, given these statistics, and basic common sense, one would have to admit that the immediate effect would include a rise in people being unable to defend themselves from criminals. The second immediate effect would most likely be a rise in crime, specifically the illegal sale of firearms. History has shown that whenever a prohibition on something goes into effect, the first result is almost never the total elimination of that thing, but usually a rise in flouting the law. We've seen this with drugs and alcohol, and even more directly with weapons in the American Revolution and the Jacobin Rebellion (even when the brits completely banned all weapons from the scots, they still managed to hide anything and everything they could). At best, law enforcement will just ignore the law, at worst we'll see a thriving smuggling trade.
And then we have the "long term" effects. The truth is that the constitution, despite its age, was a rather forward thinking document. Many of its protections and privileges are not designed for the best case, or for the normal case, but for the worst case. When most people think of gun control, they are thinking of right now and of reasonable restrictions. But that's not what the 2nd amendment was written for. The 2nd amendment was written for when the American Nazi party comes into power and starts rounding up people. It was written to prevent laws like "All blacks and hispanics can't own guns". It was written to safeguard the ability of the individual to protect himself and his freedoms when the government is unable or unwilling to do it for him. Being able to defend yourself is as fundamental a right as being able to speak freely. In fact, the ability to speak freely does not exist without the right to defend yourself. Sure, while the courts are free and working, you can rely on them to protect you. But what happens when they aren't? Too late then no?
What about self defense?
No?
How about just going down to the range and shooting off a couple of rounds?
I know I'm probably going to sound bad saying this, but there's nothing in this world more empowering than firing a high-powered rifle. I don't care if it's not fully automatic, it's fun and I like it. Guns teach responsibility, you have to clean and maintain them in order to be able to use them.
Since I'm probably not getting through to the fanatical "guns are bad" people, I'd like to leave a few pictures and some quotes.
And now the quotes:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are only good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"If you make guns illegal, only criminals will own them."
-unknown
And a latin phrase:
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
If you seek peace, prepare for war.
No?
How about just going down to the range and shooting off a couple of rounds?
I know I'm probably going to sound bad saying this, but there's nothing in this world more empowering than firing a high-powered rifle. I don't care if it's not fully automatic, it's fun and I like it. Guns teach responsibility, you have to clean and maintain them in order to be able to use them.
Since I'm probably not getting through to the fanatical "guns are bad" people, I'd like to leave a few pictures and some quotes.
And now the quotes:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are only good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"If you make guns illegal, only criminals will own them."
-unknown
And a latin phrase:
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
If you seek peace, prepare for war.
I think China could with the help of Russia.tellmeimaninja said:
I am not saying it is going to happen. But it could happen.
Also, the second amendment gives the people the ability to overthrow the government if the need arises. Now I do not think our government is that bad. But it could happen.
If you do not prepare of the possibilities then you will be caught with you pants down and get you killed.
Any other amendments you wanna 'revise'? Maybe since you have absolute faith in the government, you want to get rid of that pesky little first one...
The USA will not last forever. Also, you seem to be under the impression that people are just bursting with goodwill and kindness until a gun is placed into their hands, in which case they promptly morph into rapists, murderers, and thieves.
I will say this though, people need to be educated more. And not just in gun safety.
The USA will not last forever. Also, you seem to be under the impression that people are just bursting with goodwill and kindness until a gun is placed into their hands, in which case they promptly morph into rapists, murderers, and thieves.
I will say this though, people need to be educated more. And not just in gun safety.
I have two basic views on this. One is from a practical viewpoint: there is no need for the type of firepower currently allowed, and we should restrict firearms to only those necessary for hunting purposes. The other viewpoint is thus: the constitution was written by revolutionists, who respected the fact that any government would probably eventually need to be overthrown. Relieving our second amendment rights would severely restrict our ability to do so if it ever becomes necessary. Not that I think it is currently, far from it, but giving up this right could be seen as the first step towards a higher degree of control.
As long as I am permitted to own a firearm of my choosing, and keep it with me when I am in my home or on my land, such that I might defend myself from those who would invade my property with the intent to cause death or bodily harm to me or my loved ones then I am perfectly happy.
I simply wish to be armed that I might defend myself from would-be attackers.
I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
I simply wish to be armed that I might defend myself from would-be attackers.
I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
You've never seen The Killdozer before have you.TeeBs said:
That was made by some dude in his garage (or barn...it was a big garage) it was literally unstoppable by local authorities and was only stopped when the guy got it stuck in a ditch he tried to cross. Of course he killed himself once he realized his super villain rampage had come to an abrupt halt and he would be going to jail, it took them 12 hours to cut a hole in the thing to recover his corpse. To this day no one knows why he did it. So to answer your question, yes, we have the right to bear tanks and the right to build our own out of junk, call it The Killdozer, and become a roll model to aspiring young super villains everywhere.(minus the pansy suicide when caught. a real super villain gets caught then promptly breaks out to collect his Killdozer from the impound lot.)
I completeley agree, and if I may build off of your statement. If guns become illegal, thats not gonna stop 'bad guys' from getting them, and leave 'good guys' or just law abiding citizens helpless. As an uncle of mine said "If more good guys had guns, there'd be a lot less bad guys."XxRyanxX said:
Effects of Mandatory Gun Ownership: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html
Effects of Complete Gun Ban: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html