Ok, so the short version is that Republicans want people to own guns and Democrats don’t want people to own guns? Or is it more subtle than that?
The short version is that when push comes to shove on issues of rights and security, some people are willing to sacrifice the rights of others not to be harassed, but hold sacrosanct the right to arms; others are willing to sacrifice the right to bear arms, but feel the police should be able to demand identification papers. Both sides are suspicious of vesting discretionary powers in the state: the one, the power to deny potential terrorists the right to buy arms; the other, the power to demand identification papers from potentially illegal immigrants.
Me, I wonder what colour the sky is in that world where a massive number of stoop labourers looking to provide for their families is a greater threat than a small number of terrorists looking to spill blood. I wonder which discretionary power is more likely to lead to a bad state-on-steroids scenario: the one in which a couple thousand people have to wait, or are denied, the right to pack heat; or the one in which many millions of people are subject to harassment.
Yup… more and more people will be coming to keep him company in hell…[/quote]
Supporting the right to own a gun = going to hell
.[/quote]
The whole point of a gun is to give one the means to threaten, injure and/or kill others. As there’s a biblical commandment, “Thou shall not kill”, then it follows that having a gun = going to hell. QED.
[quote=“cfimages”]
The whole point of a gun is to give one the means to threaten, injure and/or kill others. As there’s a biblical commandment, “Thou shall not kill”, then it follows that having a gun = going to hell. QED.[/quote]
It’s not that simple. A gun is a tool that can be used, as you say, to threaten, injure or kill others. It can also be used to protect yourself from being threatened, injured or killed by others. You could also shoot animals for food with it or enjoy shooting targets. Do you go to hell if you kill someone but defend another? Your overly simplistic answer is yes. Do you go to hell if you shoot an animal for food? Your overly simplistic answer is yes.
Take the word gun out of that sentence and replace it with knife, heavy wrench, automobile, golf club or any other item you can think of. It’s the intent of the person, not any implicit evil in the item.
[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“cfimages”]
The whole point of a gun is to give one the means to threaten, injure and/or kill others. As there’s a biblical commandment, “Thou shall not kill”, then it follows that having a gun = going to hell. QED.[/quote]
It’s not that simple. A gun is a tool that can be used, as you say, to threaten, injure or kill others. It can also be used to protect yourself from being threatened, injured or killed by others. You could also shoot animals for food with it or enjoy shooting targets. Do you go to hell if you kill someone but defend another? Your overly simplistic answer is yes. Do you go to hell if you shoot an animal for food? Your overly simplistic answer is yes.
Take the word gun out of that sentence and replace it with knife, heavy wrench, automobile, golf club or any other item you can think of. It’s the intent of the person, not any implicit evil in the item.[/quote]
It can be used for those, but the point of a gun is to kill. The knife, wrench etc aren’t specifically designed to kill.
That said, I’ve never been religious, so Biblical commandments and hell aren’t things I believe in. 
More like empowering criminals and the insane to carry guns (as Heston and the NRA did/does) = going to hell, as does killing people with guns (the killers would go to hell). That was my original point. Jaboney’s right: it wasn’t a good joke. And I don’t even believe in an afterlife.
I’m just pissed that somehow, in the last 20 years, a bizarre gun culture has arisen in the US, where people think that anyone has an absolute right to carry firearms (whose very purpose is to kill) anywhere. In Arizona, they recently legalized bringing guns into bars. Now they want to legalize bringing guns to airports. Airports!!
Columbine should have been a lesson. But were strengthening gun control or banning guns even considered as a response? No.
If this trend continues, gun deaths will rise to unprecedented proportions. Columbine will look like a children’s water balloon fight in comparison. And the blood will be on the hands of the NRA.
More like empowering criminals and the insane to carry guns (as Heston and the NRA did/does) = going to hell, as does killing people with guns (the killers would go to hell). That was my original point. Jaboney’s right: it wasn’t a good joke. And I don’t even believe in an afterlife.
I’m just pissed that somehow, in the last 20 years, a bizarre gun culture has arisen in the US, where people think that anyone has an absolute right to carry firearms (whose very purpose is to kill) anywhere. In Arizona, they recently legalized bringing guns into bars. Now they want to legalize bringing guns to airports. Airports!!
Columbine should have been a lesson. But were strengthening gun control or banning guns even considered as a response? No.
If this trend continues, gun deaths will rise to unprecedented proportions. Columbine will look like a children’s water balloon fight in comparison. And the blood will be on the hands of the NRA.[/quote]
Chris that’s because the very places where they enacted strict gun bans have shown they don’t work at preventing gun crime! Look at Chicago, Washington DC or New York. They have incredibly strict gun control laws and the only people who follow it are the people who care about following the law; law abiding citizens. A criminal, by definition, does not follow the law. They don’t care how strict you make the gun control laws because they are already circumventing the law in how they make a living. They’ll get a guns one way or another. Bans only end up disarming the populace while doing nothing about the problem. It’s worse than ineffective because it succeeds in making the citizenry targets.
In AZ, and TN, they allow for concealed carry permit holders to bring their firearm in the establishment with them as long as they don’t purchase or consume any alcohol and the owner doesn’t have a sign prohibiting it (link to the law). If the owner puts a sign up in a clear and conspicious place, then you are in violation of the law.
How many cases do you think there are where someone who had a legal conceal and carry permit used their firearm in an inappropriate manner in or around a bar? How many cases do you think there are where someone didn’t have a legal conceal and carry permit and used their firearm in an inappropriate manner in or around a bar? I’m willing to bet that you won’t find many cases against legal C&C holders. If you go to the trouble of getting a legal permit, you’re going to know the law and not break the law because you have something to lose. The majority of incidents are going to be involve someone who isn’t legally allowed to have a C&C permit, like a felon, carrying a gun in a bar.
I don’t know that you can state a bizarre gun culture has sprung up in the last 20 years. I think you could say an anti-gun culture has though. For most of American history you could carry a gun on your person just about anywhere. Historically speaking the norm has been has been minimal restrictions on guns. Increasing restrictions is the new phenomenon and it hasn’t worked at preventing or reducing gun deaths. Record numbers now licensed to pack heat
[quote=“MSNBC”]
In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.
The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales. After holding stable at 8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005, the FBI reported a surge to 10 million in 2006, 11 million in 2007, nearly 13 million in 2008 and more than 14 million last year, a 55 percent increase in just four years. [/quote]
I can’t get over this myth about a right to bear arms being enshrined in the constitution. It’s contingent on the element of “A well regulated Militia…”. Which was by no means meant to be a certain particular non-governmental affair…
More like empowering criminals and the insane to carry guns (as Heston and the NRA did/does) = going to hell, as does killing people with guns (the killers would go to hell). That was my original point. Jaboney’s right: it wasn’t a good joke. And I don’t even believe in an afterlife.
I’m just pissed that somehow, in the last 20 years, a bizarre gun culture has arisen in the US, where people think that anyone has an absolute right to carry firearms (whose very purpose is to kill) anywhere. In Arizona, they recently legalized bringing guns into bars. Now they want to legalize bringing guns to airports. Airports!!
Columbine should have been a lesson. But were strengthening gun control or banning guns even considered as a response? No.
If this trend continues, gun deaths will rise to unprecedented proportions. Columbine will look like a children’s water balloon fight in comparison. And the blood will be on the hands of the NRA.[/quote]
A fair and well presented argument. I just don’t like when people like you say that if one doesn’t agree with you, then they are a bad and evil person. If I actually believed in supernatural concepts like hell I would probably take offense to what you said. Since I don’t though, I just take your comment as another addition to the divisive dialogue in our country. Thanks again
A frank discussion on the second amendment is always interesting. You only quote the first few words of the amendment, while omitting the rest. Let’s take a look at the whole thing.
“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.”
I wonder if you also feel that the other amendments, concerning speech, due process, etc. are also collective rights that shouldn’t be applied to the individual. Or is it only this one?
A frank discussion on the second amendment is always interesting. You only quote the first few words of the amendment, while omitting the rest. Let’s take a look at the whole thing.
“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.”
I wonder if you also feel that the other amendments, concerning speech, due process, etc. are also collective rights that shouldn’t be applied to the individual. Or is it only this one?[/quote]
The whole thing is contingent upon the concept of “A well regulated Militia”… A capital ‘M’ Militia, which is obviously made up of individuals, who are well regulated. If the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was purely of merely an individual scope, then surely the original would have merely read: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
And as for the social contract regarding the application of collective and individual right regarding other amendments, those are other issues which do not seem to have suffered the same perennial distortion as that of the 2nd.
It doesn’t read that way to me. The controlling clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That seems unambiguous to me. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” offers an explanation for the reason behind this right, but the right itself doesn’t seem to be “contingent” on it at all. Has there ever been any interpretation by a court or executive that supports your contention? For the record I’d be happy to see strict controls in place.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]
The whole thing is contingent upon the concept of “A well regulated Militia”… A capital ‘M’ Militia, which is obviously made up of individuals, who are well regulated. If the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was purely of merely an individual scope, then surely the original would have merely read: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
[/quote]
It doesn’t read that way to me. The controlling clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That seems unambiguous to me. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” offers an explanation for the reason behind this right, but the right itself doesn’t seem to be “contingent” on it at all. Has there ever been any interpretation by a court or executive that supports your contention? For the record I’d be happy to see strict controls in place.[/quote]
Yeah, the first part does read as an explanation for me, as well; however, it then opens itself up as an “if-then” statement. I don’t think our deer rifles are any deterrence to any modern military, U.S. or foreign, imposing their will upon us. Does anyone think we should all be able to buy tanks and military munitions? I believe that “right” is currently infringed and should stay that way.
There is further argument on the now-archaic usage of the words, “to bear arms”, and therefore the intent of the Amendment. Wikipedia’s discussion isn’t bad. While it might seem like a “depends-upon-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-is-is” conversation, there are plenty of changes in the lexicon since the ratification.
Constitutionality aside, I personally feel that gun control measures are too little, too late in the US. The “If you ban guns, then only the bad guys will have them” argument rings true to me.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]
The whole thing is contingent upon the concept of “A well regulated Militia”… A capital ‘M’ Militia, which is obviously made up of individuals, who are well regulated. If the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was purely of merely an individual scope, then surely the original would have merely read: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
[/quote]
It doesn’t read that way to me. The controlling clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That seems unambiguous to me. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” offers an explanation for the reason behind this right, but the right itself doesn’t seem to be “contingent” on it at all. Has there ever been any interpretation by a court or executive that supports your contention? For the record I’d be happy to see strict controls in place.[/quote]
Well said Tempo
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]
The whole thing is contingent upon the concept of “A well regulated Militia”… A capital ‘M’ Militia, which is obviously made up of individuals, who are well regulated. If the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was purely of merely an individual scope, then surely the original would have merely read: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
[/quote]
It doesn’t read that way to me. The controlling clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That seems unambiguous to me. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” offers an explanation for the reason behind this right, but the right itself doesn’t seem to be “contingent” on it at all. Has there ever been any interpretation by a court or executive that supports your contention? For the record I’d be happy to see strict controls in place.[/quote]
If one studies the historical context, then it would appear to me that the right of the people to bear arms is most assuredly contingent upon ‘the people’ being part of a well-regulated Militia. At that time, people, or more accurately men were considered ready recruits or cannon fodder for Militia in times of strife. This concept has roots in Feudal England. Where the root is diverged in the USA, is the nature of the relationship between the powers of the States versus that of the nascent Federal Government. It will be recalled that a few states had their own constitutions, some of which had quite strong articles about carrying weapons for personal defence.
It has been suggested that the 2nd Amendment was worded in such a vague way as to offer a compromise to proponents of State Militias, in that they would not be disbanded. After all, no-one wanted to anger the forces that had done no small part in the Revolutionary War.
There has been numerous Federal and State judicial decisions, many based on widely differing context and rationale, that have only served to obfuscate an already murky issue.
That said, I believe that the spirit, if not the letter of the 2nd amendment, as it was written in 1791, involved the right of individuals to bear arms with the express purpose of serving in a regulated Militia, of either a State or a region. It has been distorted over the years by being close to the centre of the historical power struggle between the States and the Federal Government.
Yet, even the most rabid proponents of the ascendency of States’ rights over that of the Federal Government can hardly seriously adhere to the fallacy that the original wording of the 2nd Amendment intended for folks to keep machine guns in their basement.
Suffice it to say, unless in the highly unlikely event of an amendment to the original amendment, this issue will remain controversial for quite some time to come.