The gun control discussion thread

Discussion Open Forum
21

1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.

This includes protecting my freedom from the government. Governments have time and time again become corrupt and tried to take our freedom. The first thing these corrupt governments do is take away the right to bear arms, Nazis did it too.

The dumbest thing the NRA ever did was to claim we need guns for hunting or for target shooting.
The people should not fear the government, the government should fear its people, thats why we have guns.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in 10 years we have another G. W. Bush in office who wants TOTAL control. This is when the citizens will hopefully remember the days of the American Revolution and fight back to get a REAL president in power.

I hope that day will never come but the way Bush is manipulating us now, it doesn’t seem so far fetched.

22

[quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.[/quote]Wrong on both counts.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to shoot your mouth off. That’s a pretty narrow and impoverished definition of freedom.
The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, not to protect your freedom to shoot your mouth off, nor any other kind of freedom.
Back in the day of muskets and early rifles, a gun made individuals someone to deal with…hopefully by talking things out, but with other guns if need be. They certainly don’t compel anyone to talk to you, let alone make a deal with you, particularly now, in the age of armour. If they did, N. Ireland would have been settled long ago, Israel and the Palestinians would do nothing but talk, Russia and Chechnya would have settled things, citizens of Iraq, Somalia, and every other failed state awash in weapons would be basking in freedom, ect… ect… ect…

Makes for nice, pithy, rhetoric, but you’re shooting blanks.
Try again?

23

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.[/quote]Wrong on both counts.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to shoot your mouth off. That’s a pretty narrow and impoverished definition of freedom.
The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, not to protect your freedom to shoot your mouth off, nor any other kind of freedom.
Back in the day of muskets and early rifles, a gun made individuals someone to deal with…hopefully by talking things out, but with other guns if need be. They certainly don’t compel anyone to talk to you, let alone make a deal with you, particularly now, in the age of armour. If they did, N. Ireland would have been settled long ago, Israel and the Palestinians would do nothing but talk, Russia and Chechnya would have settled things, citizens of Iraq, Somalia, and every other failed state awash in weapons would be basking in freedom, ect… ect… ect…

Makes for nice, pithy, rhetoric, but you’re shooting blanks.
Try again?[/quote]

So you’re saying that the American Revolution didn’t involve citizens with guns overthrowing their government in order to be more free?

You’re saying the Nazis didn’t take all the law abiding Jews’ guns away and then herd them into death camps as soon as they were unarmed?

I’m sorry, but the first Amendment DOES stand for my freedom. Not just to shoot my mouth off, but to be MYSELF and not fear for my life on voicing my opinions. This was not the case pre-revolution.

The second amendment allows me to legally own a gun so that IF the police come to my door and try to arrest me for anything that I say that I can shoot them in the face. When the Nazis came to the Jewish families doors, they had no defense, even when being arrested for their beliefs, which in this country, is definitely against our constitution.

Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

These are facts. You may be able to make improvements with peaceful protests, but you can’t protect yourself, your rights, or the true meaning of your country with only words.

----edit----
There is an adaptation of that quote that I think sounds a little better:
“Those who would sacrifice their essential liberties for increased security, deserve neither and will lose both.”

24

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.[/quote]Wrong on both counts.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to shoot your mouth off. That’s a pretty narrow and impoverished definition of freedom.
The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, not to protect your freedom to shoot your mouth off, nor any other kind of freedom.
Back in the day of muskets and early rifles, a gun made individuals someone to deal with…hopefully by talking things out, but with other guns if need be. They certainly don’t compel anyone to talk to you, let alone make a deal with you, particularly now, in the age of armour. If they did, N. Ireland would have been settled long ago, Israel and the Palestinians would do nothing but talk, Russia and Chechnya would have settled things, citizens of Iraq, Somalia, and every other failed state awash in weapons would be basking in freedom, ect… ect… ect…

Makes for nice, pithy, rhetoric, but you’re shooting blanks.
Try again?[/quote]

Damm, shot down by a Canadian no less… :wink:

25

Well, handguns are used for more than self defense. They’re also for target practice, and some folks just love going out to a shooting range and firing away. I’ve done it on various occasions myself. This is said without any intention to defend the sales to this disturbed individual, but rather just in the way of explanation. If you love to go out to the shooting range every weekend and fire off a few score rounds, it’s economical to buy the ammo in the hundreds. I used to practice marksmanship at a range, as did my roommates and brother (who placed fifth nationally and was captain of the West Point pistol team, woo hoo, go bro!), and the ammo for that needed to be in quantity. So the mindset framed in ‘self defense’ terms is a bit limited, although it’s certainly understandable that someone might phrase the question that way.[/quote]

In which case I guess it’d make sense for ammo in that quantity to be sold at the range only, and not be allowed to be taken away from the range.

26

[quote=“Ian_Alexander”][quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.[/quote]Wrong on both counts.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to shoot your mouth off. That’s a pretty narrow and impoverished definition of freedom.
The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, not to protect your freedom to shoot your mouth off, nor any other kind of freedom.
Back in the day of muskets and early rifles, a gun made individuals someone to deal with…hopefully by talking things out, but with other guns if need be. They certainly don’t compel anyone to talk to you, let alone make a deal with you, particularly now, in the age of armour. If they did, N. Ireland would have been settled long ago, Israel and the Palestinians would do nothing but talk, Russia and Chechnya would have settled things, citizens of Iraq, Somalia, and every other failed state awash in weapons would be basking in freedom, ect… ect… ect…

Makes for nice, pithy, rhetoric, but you’re shooting blanks.
Try again?[/quote]

So you’re saying that the American Revolution didn’t involve citizens with guns overthrowing their government in order to be more free?

You’re saying the Nazis didn’t take all the law abiding Jews’ guns away and then herd them into death camps as soon as they were unarmed?

I’m sorry, but the first Amendment DOES stand for my freedom. Not just to shoot my mouth off, but to be MYSELF and not fear for my life on voicing my opinions. This was not the case pre-revolution.

The second amendment allows me to legally own a gun so that IF the police come to my door and try to arrest me for anything that I say that I can shoot them in the face. When the Nazis came to the Jewish families doors, they had no defense, even when being arrested for their beliefs, which in this country, is definitely against our constitution.

Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

These are facts. You may be able to make improvements with peaceful protests, but you can’t protect yourself, your rights, or the true meaning of your country with only words.

----edit----
There is an adaptation of that quote that I think sounds a little better:
“Those who would sacrifice their essential liberties for increased security, deserve neither and will lose both.”[/quote]

I’m afraid my esteemed colleague is somewhat mistaken. While the spirit of the Bill of Rights is to allow more freedom to individuals by limiting the powers of government as you imply, the poster extrapolates too much in reading the 1st and 2nd amendments. As stated, these two are narrow freedoms, each intended to address historical wrongs perceived by the founders: freedom of speech, assembly, religion ie the right to criticize the government in public before a crowd, to proclaim one’s religious beliefs, to talk about virtually anything without government censorship and to distribute news criticizing government, pope, and your neighbour’s dog, and right to bear arms ie the freedom/right/ability to protect house, home, body, and family.

[quote]Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.[/quote]

I’m confused as how Nazis and Jews come into play. I didn’t know the European Jewry Ashkenazi were avid gun collectors and users as a group. Most interesting.

But I leave you with another amendment which I think you will find interesting:

[quote]Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote]

27

[quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.

This includes protecting my freedom from the government. Governments have time and time again become corrupt and tried to take our freedom. The first thing these corrupt governments do is take away the right to bear arms, Nazis did it too.

The dumbest thing the NRA ever did was to claim we need guns for hunting or for target shooting.
The people should not fear the government, the government should fear its people, thats why we have guns.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in 10 years we have another G. W. Bush in office who wants TOTAL control. This is when the citizens will hopefully remember the days of the American Revolution and fight back to get a REAL president in power.

I hope that day will never come but the way Bush is manipulating us now, it doesn’t seem so far fetched.[/quote]

Precisely.Hitler disarmed the Jews,Stalin,his own people FIRST & then went on to commit genocide.

28

[quote=“Ian_Alexander”][quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.[/quote]Wrong on both counts.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to shoot your mouth off. That’s a pretty narrow and impoverished definition of freedom.
The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, not to protect your freedom to shoot your mouth off, nor any other kind of freedom.[/quote]

So you’re saying that the American Revolution didn’t involve citizens with guns overthrowing their government in order to be more free?[/quote]No, I’m saying that there are lots of revolutions that don’t lead to greater freedom. Freedom isn’t derivative of arms alone but of an extensive network of social goods and institutions contributing to individual empowerment and security.

[quote=“Ian_Alexander”]These are facts. You may be able to make improvements with peaceful protests, but you can’t protect yourself, your rights, or the true meaning of your country with only words.[/quote]Those aren’t facts, they’re assertions. Typically correct, but hardly lawlike generalizations, and far from facts. Or would you give greater credit for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by African-Americans to militants than to peace marchers? Desmond Tutu’s in Taipei today, is he more responsible for changes in South Africa, or Winnie Mandela’s ‘football team’ of thugs? Arms redress power relations, not freedom.

The idea underlying your assertion is an old one…[quote=“Machiavelli: The Prince: Chapter 12”]The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms.[/quote]…but mistaken. If good laws were dependent on good arms, the USSR should have progressed as rapidly in the legal sphere as it did in the geopolitical game. If good laws were dependent on a well arm citizenry, Somalia would be very well governed. As would Iraq. In any case, that’s not how the founders framed it, is it? No, they addressed the need for arms to ensure security: [quote]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.[/quote]

Do you believe that having a well-armed citizenry is contributing to the advancement of freedom in Baghdad? I suppose that if you’re sufficiently well-armed, you’re free to practice carpentry skills on your neighbour. You’ll also be free to walk around campus randomly shooting people until killed yourself.

But I doubt that’s the kind of freedom you’re arguing for.

29

Average,peace-loving Somalis & Iraqis do not have ACCESS to firearms.

And there are some revolutions in which there is NO OTHER solution but for the citizenry to use arms to overthrow despotic leaders,that is of course,if they were not denied the right in the first place to bear arms.

30

[quote=“Taiwanderer”][quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.

This includes protecting my freedom from the government. Governments have time and time again become corrupt and tried to take our freedom. The first thing these corrupt governments do is take away the right to bear arms, Nazis did it too.

The dumbest thing the NRA ever did was to claim we need guns for hunting or for target shooting.
The people should not fear the government, the government should fear its people, thats why we have guns.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in 10 years we have another G. W. Bush in office who wants TOTAL control. This is when the citizens will hopefully remember the days of the American Revolution and fight back to get a REAL president in power.

I hope that day will never come but the way Bush is manipulating us now, it doesn’t seem so far fetched.[/quote]

Precisely.Hitler disarmed the Jews,Stalin,his own people FIRST & then went on to commit genocide.[/quote]

If you’re saying we should keep the government as one with limited powers as against the people, then yes, we should fear government, and under the 2nd Amendment, one way to protect ourselves is to keep arms.

Ironically, the Southern Confederacy try to revolt and go their own way, which under the Constitution is permissible I believe. Look at what the federal government did to them.

Hitler really didn’t disarm the jews. They were mostly shopkeepers, merchants, bankers, doctors, lawyers, rabbis, etc. He did take their shit though. If you mean he tried to kill Stalin, then yes, he “disarmed” or tried to disarm Stalin. but he just wanted their land and resources.

31

[quote=“Taiwanderer”]Average,peace-loving Somalis & Iraqis do not have ACCESS to firearms.

And there are some revolutions in which there is NO OTHER solution but for the citizenry to use arms to overthrow despotic leaders,that is of course,if they were not denied the right in the first place to bear arms.[/quote]

I remember reading somewhere a couple of years ago that almost EVERY household in Iraq had access to at least 1 AK47.

32

If the 2nd amendment is so fundamental to a free society, then what’s to stop countries like Iran and North Korea taking that same amendment and applying it to their international dealings?

If you support the right of people to be armed without restrictions, then you must support the right of the people of Iran and NK to be armed without restrictions. And if that includes nuclear weapons, then so be it. Right?

If you support the right of people to protect their homes/families using any and all armed means, then you also support the right of Iran and NK to defend their homes (countries) and families (population) using any and all armed means. Right?

33

[quote=“cfimages”]If the 2nd amendment is so fundamental to a free society, then what’s to stop countries like Iran and North Korea taking that same amendment and applying it to their international dealings?

If you support the right of people to be armed without restrictions, then you must support the right of the people of Iran and NK to be armed without restrictions. And if that includes nuclear weapons, then so be it. Right?

If you support the right of people to protect their homes/families using any and all armed means, then you also support the right of Iran and NK to defend their homes (countries) and families (population) using any and all armed means. Right?[/quote]

Well, no, because the Constitution is meant only for US territories only ie a free society in the United States. It’s not like it’s a universal declaration of Man.

But if the world became the 52nd state and so forth, then yes, everyone can take full benefit of right to bear arms, and be free from cops’ barging in without warrants (minus certain exceptions)

34

[quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.

This includes protecting my freedom from the government. Governments have time and time again become corrupt and tried to take our freedom. The first thing these corrupt governments do is take away the right to bear arms, Nazis did it too.[/quote]
Being the supposingly greatest of democracies on the planet what exactly is there to fear from your government today?

35

[quote=“Rascal”][quote=“Ian_Alexander”]1st Amendment gives me the right to be free.
2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect that freedom.

This includes protecting my freedom from the government. Governments have time and time again become corrupt and tried to take our freedom. The first thing these corrupt governments do is take away the right to bear arms, Nazis did it too.[/quote]
With the supposingly greatest of democracies on the planet what exactly is there to fear from your government today?[/quote]

Democracies require constant vigilance from those who would seek to usurp power from the people. Long live the fighters! Oil! uh, I mean, Spice!

36

[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“cfimages”]If the 2nd amendment is so fundamental to a free society, then what’s to stop countries like Iran and North Korea taking that same amendment and applying it to their international dealings?

If you support the right of people to be armed without restrictions, then you must support the right of the people of Iran and NK to be armed without restrictions. And if that includes nuclear weapons, then so be it. Right?

If you support the right of people to protect their homes/families using any and all armed means, then you also support the right of Iran and NK to defend their homes (countries) and families (population) using any and all armed means. Right?[/quote]

Well, no, because the Constitution is meant only for US territories only ie a free society in the United States. It’s not like it’s a universal declaration of Man.

But if the world became the 52nd state and so forth, then yes, everyone can take full benefit of right to bear arms, and be free from cops’ barging in without warrants (minus certain exceptions)[/quote]Actually, arguing from the 2nd Amendment, the US has opposed moves to restrict the trade in small arms in Africa, which contributes to the destabilization of many regimes.

37

[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“cfimages”]If the 2nd amendment is so fundamental to a free society, then what’s to stop countries like Iran and North Korea taking that same amendment and applying it to their international dealings?

If you support the right of people to be armed without restrictions, then you must support the right of the people of Iran and NK to be armed without restrictions. And if that includes nuclear weapons, then so be it. Right?

If you support the right of people to protect their homes/families using any and all armed means, then you also support the right of Iran and NK to defend their homes (countries) and families (population) using any and all armed means. Right?[/quote]

Well, no, because the Constitution is meant only for US territories only ie a free society in the United States. It’s not like it’s a universal declaration of Man.

[/quote]

I meant if they added it to their own constitutions.

38

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“cfimages”]If the 2nd amendment is so fundamental to a free society, then what’s to stop countries like Iran and North Korea taking that same amendment and applying it to their international dealings?

If you support the right of people to be armed without restrictions, then you must support the right of the people of Iran and NK to be armed without restrictions. And if that includes nuclear weapons, then so be it. Right?

If you support the right of people to protect their homes/families using any and all armed means, then you also support the right of Iran and NK to defend their homes (countries) and families (population) using any and all armed means. Right?[/quote]

Well, no, because the Constitution is meant only for US territories only ie a free society in the United States. It’s not like it’s a universal declaration of Man.

[/quote]

I meant if they added it to their own constitutions.[/quote]

I understand, but my point would still stand. This also applies to Jaboney’s post above. Other constitutions, other unions no matter how perfect, how ideal, receive no respect from the US Constitution unless by treaty. I’m just talking about how the law operates, is all. Doesn’t mean I agree with it.

39

[quote=“Jack Burton”]I understand, but my point would still stand. This also applies to Jaboney’s post above. Other constitutions, other unions no matter how perfect, how ideal, receive no respect from the US Constitution unless by treaty. I’m just talking about how the law operates, is all. Doesn’t mean I agree with it.[/quote]I got that. My point addresses how that law and the ideology behind it informs political action. The law doesn’t apply, but nonetheless has an impact.

40

In this hypothetical don’t these States pursue their right to aquire arms already. It is only stronger States that try to impose their sphere influence on these States.

But there are restrictions in the USA. So the argument is a straw man. Basically the spirit of the right to bear arms is based on the eventual conflict of people vs. government. So the ideal is that enough people who are dissatisfied with the government have the ability to overthrow it with force. That would require quite a majority of citizen to mobilize with small arms. The right to bear arms is not so a minority group with a nuke can hold the State hostage.

Isn’t that the case in reality?