| |
 Victory, A victory today for the 2nd Amendment |
|
|
|
|
 Jun 26 2008, 04:10 PM
|
SSM Launcher
Group: Members
Posts: 763
Joined: 5-October 06
From: GDI Command Base, Southern Cross
Member No.: 14
Alliance: GDI
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE ("Mark Sherman @ Associated Press Writer") WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment 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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290. Original Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_..._co/scotus_gunswell its about time they saw the light. even though it was a dicey 5-4 decision it is a landmark victory. For those of you who do not know I have always been a firearms enthusiast and a rabid supporter of the right to bare arms. So please discuss your views on this I will respect any contrary opinion to mine as long as its well written and as long as it isn't flaming.
This post has been edited by The DvD: Jun 28 2008, 02:36 PM
--------------------
|
|
|
: |
 
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2008, 02:24 AM
|
Commando
Group: Members
Posts: 519
Joined: 4-January 08
From: New home -_-
Member No.: 1,092
Alliance: GDI
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
My dad owns two guns, an M4 and a 9mm. He can't keep ammo for the M4, the military supplies it to him when needed, but he keeps a couple dozen rounds for the 9mm around the house. In Texas, anyone has the right to simply shoot somebody who is on their property. (With due warning, of course.) Anyway, I think anyone should be able to own a gun. (Other than those who would commit crimes with them.) Cool thing it's legal to own guns in D.C. now.
(Actually, my dad does have ammo for the M4, but not right now. He buys some when he goes to ranges with it.)
This post has been edited by Scorch: Jun 28 2008, 02:27 AM
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2008, 02:35 PM
|
Webmaster
Group: Root Admin
Posts: 740
Joined: 27-May 06
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 2
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
It's just what one's used to seeing around you, i guess. Your daddy likes his guns, so does his son.
It's hard for me to discuss this without throwing insults. Let me just say that over here, we joke that Americans get a free gun instead of 20% off at MacD.
Since a frightingly large percentage of people doesn't even think before they act, and even intelligent and otherwise calm people can do crazy things when they are desperate or emotional, people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Everyone probably knows what it feels like to be so angry at someone that you would hit them, if they were standing right in front of you. Fuck everything else, this guy's ass needs to be kicked. How hard is it to go from wanting to hit someone to grabbing that gun in the drawer and using it?
AFAIK it has already been proven that having access to weaponry increases violent impulses. I should look that up though.
While i'm at it, let me throw in something else.
As i see it this 2nd amentment is all about the freedom to defend yourself and your property. The freedom to shoot someone when he steps on your ground without knocking first. If the people in favor of this are so rabid about this freedom, why do these people generally condemn the use of drugs? People using softdrugs generally only hurt themselves (some people get into problems (addiction), but since they are not in the illegal circuit, this percentage is lower than in other countries, as they can find help easily). I honestly do not understand the reasoning of the people in favor of the 2nd Amendment. (dare i call them republicans or conservatives?) Firearms are illegal here, and the personal use of softdrugs is tolerated. We not only have much less murders, but also less drug addicts over here. We must be doing something right..
--------------------
Please contact me on msn if you need me for anything, thanks.
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2008, 03:27 PM
|
Cyborg Reaper
Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Ohio
Member No.: 27
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
well personally I feel that having the ability to own a gun and ammo for said gun if you so wish to should always be allowed and held as a right. However, the usage of said weapon is what should be limited. Though to limit something like that is of course a hard task to do. So of course there should be big consequences if the guns are used in unappropriated times.
That is all I am going to say about that for now.
I agree with DvD on the drug thing. It seems to me that with most things if it is illegal then people will be pushed more to do such a thing. At least with consumable things. This is shown through the days of Prohibition in the US. They banned alcohol and then it became a big trafficking (is that spelled with a k firefox spell checker says it is right) business for gangsters just like the illegal drugs are now.
--------------------
My own Project: Tiberian Sun: Covert OperationsNewest map releases: Yelcraz Island (2-3), Lake Istelv (2-4), Tiberian Ring (2-4), Moonlit Waters of Esvia (2), Imminitas Terra (2), Christmas in the Village (2), A City Consumed (2-4), Crescent Isle (2), Velillian Islands (2-4), FS Hell's Crevice (2), Island of Mercanf (2-3), Perseco Terra (2), Kalistia Crestlands (2) ...project re-genesis has begun... |
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2008, 04:42 PM
|
Webmaster
Group: Root Admin
Posts: 740
Joined: 27-May 06
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 2
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
I can understand the point of view that people should be given the ways to defend themselves, however, and this is very important, banning weapons for everyone except government officials is proven to decrease violence. Yet with softdrugs it's the other way around, when they are condoned it is proven to give less trouble. Seems like sane people can see that using a gun is on a whole different level as using a drug. And most sane people will not use softdrugs even when they are not illegal, as can be seen in the Netherlands.
--------------------
Please contact me on msn if you need me for anything, thanks.
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2008, 07:35 PM
|
Commando
Group: Members
Posts: 519
Joined: 4-January 08
From: New home -_-
Member No.: 1,092
Alliance: GDI
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (DeathRay2K @ Jun 28 2008, 06:47 AM)  Just recently an immigrant, who couldn't speak english, ended up on someone's lawn. They were going to ask the owner for directions, but the owner shot and killed them instead. Most legal citizens (not immigrants) don't even think that immigrants who can't speak the language of their host country shouldn't even be allowed to live there. (Though in many instances I don't support this.) On Topic: Like I was saying, anyone can fire at a person or persons on their property, with warning. My dad would never do such a thing unless anyone in his family, including him, was in immediate danger. While it is legal to own guns in Texas, less than 20% of all the legal citizens living in Texas own guns. It may seem like a lot, but it really isn't if you consider how large the Texas population is. My dad used his M4 every time he was deployed in a combat zone in the last few years. He only keeps it in case he gets deployed again before he can retire. He keeps the 9mm also for Army business, but also in case the family was in danger.
This post has been edited by Scorch: Jun 28 2008, 07:39 PM
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2008, 09:23 PM
|
Ghost Stalker
Group: Members
Posts: 1,282
Joined: 27-October 06
From: Norway
Member No.: 173
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
I restate what I said on PPM:
"If nobody around you has weapons, you don't need weapons."
Weapons are for hunters, soldiers and policemen. If you really have a hobby about weapons, you should still be able to go to a range and shoot on targets. You need to have a certificate to get weapons, and a reason to own one. Ammo should be stored in a range for those who want to go there.
On a side note I think some of the laws in the US are just plain stupid. They are inded more proper for a life more than hundred years ago, and I don't like that kind of conservatism and liberalism. It's time to let go of that liberalism and conservatism IMO.
--------------------
Perfection can never be achieved; it's merely approachable.
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 29 2008, 02:20 PM
|
Attack Buggy
Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 21-October 06
From: A New Orleans rooftop.
Member No.: 29
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (CrashKing @ Jun 28 2008, 04:23 PM) I restate what I said on PPM:
"If nobody around you has weapons, you don't need weapons."
Weapons are for hunters, soldiers and policemen. If you really have a hobby about weapons, you should still be able to go to a range and shoot on targets. You need to have a certificate to get weapons, and a reason to own one. Ammo should be stored in a range for those who want to go there.
On a side note I think some of the laws in the US are just plain stupid. They are inded more proper for a life more than hundred years ago, and I don't like that kind of conservatism and liberalism. It's time to let go of that liberalism and conservatism IMO. Which would be great if there wasn't a black market. Right now I could frive 20 miles to New Orleans and buy an illegal fully automatic AK-47 smuggled from Egypt or Lybia or womewhere like that for about $200, no questions asked. At that point, what happens to the law abiding citizens who don't have guns? They get owned in the face. At least someone trained to use an M4 or a AR-15 would have a chance against an illegal AK
--------------------
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 29 2008, 04:16 PM
|
Cyborg Reaper
Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Ohio
Member No.: 27
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (Nod Strike @ Jun 29 2008, 11:33 AM) But that's the point. If the 2nd ammendment didn't exist in the first place, there wouldn't be a teptation for illegal firearms. I disagree, hunting has always been in our culture and our ways of hunting adapt with technology. Thus once guns came about we used guns for hunting. So those who like to hunt would want a gun and I believe hunting with guns has been around since even before the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was written. The only thing I kinda agree with your statement is the idea behind it which is that if you were never introduced to something before then your want for it would be minimal or non-existent. But like most ideas it doesn't work for all cases. Also the main reason the 2nd amendment was probably established was so that the people could revolt against an oppressive government if one was ever to come to power again. Which may seem unlikely to many but with laws like the Patriot Act which give the government easy LEGAL ability to spy on anyone anytime that they wish to a revolt could very well happen as many people are against that law and others like it and believe it invades on their basic rights. But anyways it is easier to revolt if you actually have weapons that are a little closer to par with what you are revolting against. Sure many of the dumb people of the US want guns for other reasons though. Sure there will be dumb arses who use guns for violence but that will always be there. If you took away all the guns in the world then there would still be people doing stuff like that but it would be with knives and other weapons. It wouldn't decrease violence that much.
--------------------
My own Project: Tiberian Sun: Covert OperationsNewest map releases: Yelcraz Island (2-3), Lake Istelv (2-4), Tiberian Ring (2-4), Moonlit Waters of Esvia (2), Imminitas Terra (2), Christmas in the Village (2), A City Consumed (2-4), Crescent Isle (2), Velillian Islands (2-4), FS Hell's Crevice (2), Island of Mercanf (2-3), Perseco Terra (2), Kalistia Crestlands (2) ...project re-genesis has begun... |
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 29 2008, 08:34 PM
|
Commando
Group: Members
Posts: 519
Joined: 4-January 08
From: New home -_-
Member No.: 1,092
Alliance: GDI
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
As Albert Einstein once said, "As long as there are humans, there will be wars."
Then think of it this way. "As long as there are humans, there will always be weapons. Of all kinds." It's human nature, we were created violent. There will always be violence, no matter the laws, and there will always be weapons. Baseball bats, boards with rusty nails in them, guns, and so on.
The second ammendment is there today to give the right to citizens to own weaponry. Even if it wasn't there, somebody will always have a gun, and somebody will always commit violence with it. Regardless of any laws. People should be alowed to own guns for their protection.
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 30 2008, 04:09 AM
|
Ghost Stalker
Group: Members
Posts: 1,244
Joined: 22-October 06
From: South Carolina, USA
Member No.: 87
Alliance: GDI
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (Nod Strike @ Jun 29 2008, 11:33 AM) But that's the point. If the 2nd ammendment didn't exist in the first place, there wouldn't be a teptation for illegal firearms. He's talking about people who can just walk into a back alley and just buy an AK-47 for a couple hundred bucks, without any certification or any background checks. This is completely illegal and it would happen whether the amendment was in place or not (it happens in nearly every country around the world, !surprise surprise!). For example, two years or so ago some punks did a drive by down here in my state--for a reason unknown to me even now--and injured several people sitting in a restaurant. It was a fully automatic AK-47, automatic rifles are illegal by the way, and you can't just buy them like that even over here in the U.S. There was no firefight between Americans with guns or anything, the people fired off their illegal weapon and drove off, end of story. Just because the amendment is there it doesn't mean Americans are always carrying around a pistol or something to defend themselves. When some guy unexpectedly shows up and shoots up a restaurant with his fully-auto AK-47, people get hurt. There's no one to blame in an event like that, so people just blame the second amendment. Illegal weapons like that are imported from God knows where and just given to anyone who wants the rifle and happens to have a pocket full of money.
This post has been edited by Corsair: Jun 30 2008, 05:24 AM
--------------------
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 30 2008, 05:57 AM
|
Ghost Stalker
Group: Members
Posts: 1,282
Joined: 27-October 06
From: Norway
Member No.: 173
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (The Raven @ Jun 29 2008, 04:20 PM) Which would be great if there wasn't a black market.
Right now I could frive 20 miles to New Orleans and buy an illegal fully automatic AK-47 smuggled from Egypt or Lybia or womewhere like that for about $200, no questions asked. At that point, what happens to the law abiding citizens who don't have guns? They get owned in the face. At least someone trained to use an M4 or a AR-15 would have a chance against an illegal AK True, but illegal import of weapons can and needs to be dealt with. I can see it from your perspective too. It's dangerous to live in the US, there are criminals everywhere, and you need something to defend yourself. With weapons legal I do believe you make weapons more 'ok', just like how smoking becomes more 'ok' if your parents smoke. The more you make weapons 'ok', the more people are encourouged to use them. Having the right to shoot someone innocent on your property if they don't have the permission is ridiculous. You don't kill someone because of that.
This post has been edited by CrashKing: Jun 30 2008, 06:05 AM
--------------------
Perfection can never be achieved; it's merely approachable.
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 30 2008, 10:15 AM
|
Cyborg Reaper
Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Ohio
Member No.: 27
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (CrashKing @ Jun 30 2008, 01:57 AM) True, but illegal import of weapons can and needs to be dealt with. I can see it from your perspective too. It's dangerous to live in the US, there are criminals everywhere, and you need something to defend yourself. that is much harder than you think especially in a country so large as the United States that has many other things to think about and has such a large boarder line area. Yes it needs to be dealt with but in some cases there is too much to stop it all. QUOTE With weapons legal I do believe you make weapons more 'ok', just like how smoking becomes more 'ok' if your parents smoke. The more you make weapons 'ok', the more people are encourouged to use them. I actually disagree. In some cases if a lot of people see that it is 'ok' to do something if their parents do it. But in a lot of cases kids will go AGAINST what their parents do. My parents smoke and all of my grandparents smoked yet I have always been highly against it. My mom was an alcoholic and I am VERY against excessive drinking. That theory is reversed in such a way on MANY occasions especially in cases in which the child has not had a good experience with their parents using said things. Though again not all cases are like that but many are. Plus it isn't like kids are encouraged to use them. They might be encouraged to go hunting if they live in more of area outside of a city but usually the kids that learn how to fire and care for a gun from their parents are the kids that are good. QUOTE Having the right to shoot someone innocent on your property if they don't have the permission is ridiculous. You don't kill someone because of that. and for QUOTE If so many people got hurt in that, then why couldn't they just pull out their pistols and fire back?
Isn't that what the Amendment is there for anyway? well not so many people get hurt this way. The most common case would be if someone comes over onto Private Property and in this case it is not like they don't know that they shouldn't be in that property because there are usually signs everywhere around that property that say "Private property! No Trespassing!" or something along those lines. But seriously this happens a lot less than you think. Most gun related incidents are with people who are not right in the head or are in gangs. Now gangs are a serious problem, take the cripps and the bloods in LA for example. They fight for 'their territory' in which to sell drugs and black market weapons. Those areas are highly dangerous and very hard for police to handle if they even can handle it. But seeing as there are thousands of gang members in some gangs like that then it becomes very hard. You would need a strong army of sorts but if the people saw an army go through our own city firing away then you can be assured that there would be riots against it even if it was in good intentions. Also if an army did that to clear away the gangs then it would only be temporary removal of the gangs as more would form with even more hatred and not only that but I'm sure many innocent civilians would die in the process. Then the incidents of gun abuse with those not right in the head is probably the only incident that could be stopped. However, most of these incidents are suicide and a few occasions are homicide or mass murder such as a school shooting. Sure if they banned guns then you would think this one wouldn't exist however, many cases like this the people use guns that they shouldn't even have access to as they are illegal to begin with. @Nod Strike's... again like Corsair said QUOTE Just because the amendment is there it doesn't mean Americans are always carrying around a pistol or something to defend themselves. plus sometimes in the case of someone crossing into private property and being killed it could be completely unexpected so they may not even have the time to use said weapon to defend themselves if they even did have it on them. Plus like I said that kind of incident is much rarer then made to believe. [sarcasm rant that shows a point]You know what...I think cars should be banned. It seems I see and hear about car crashes with injuries and deaths almost every day. They are dangerous they should be banned. Oh and good Food should be banned too because it gives you bad health conditions and can clog the arteries of your heart and kill you. [/sarcasm rant that shows a point] Seriously though there are more deaths in the US related to car crashes and bad health conditions (often caused from food) than there are from deaths related to guns. Now I hope there are some oh so good arguments to debate about when I get back from working 3 hours away on Wednesday 
--------------------
My own Project: Tiberian Sun: Covert OperationsNewest map releases: Yelcraz Island (2-3), Lake Istelv (2-4), Tiberian Ring (2-4), Moonlit Waters of Esvia (2), Imminitas Terra (2), Christmas in the Village (2), A City Consumed (2-4), Crescent Isle (2), Velillian Islands (2-4), FS Hell's Crevice (2), Island of Mercanf (2-3), Perseco Terra (2), Kalistia Crestlands (2) ...project re-genesis has begun... |
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2008, 08:39 PM
|
Ghost Stalker
Group: Members
Posts: 1,282
Joined: 27-October 06
From: Norway
Member No.: 173
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE ("Ixith") I actually disagree. In some cases if a lot of people see that it is 'ok' to do something if their parents do it. But in a lot of cases kids will go AGAINST what their parents do. My parents smoke and all of my grandparents smoked yet I have always been highly against it. My mom was an alcoholic and I am VERY against excessive drinking. That theory is reversed in such a way on MANY occasions especially in cases in which the child has not had a good experience with their parents using said things. Though again not all cases are like that but many are. Plus it isn't like kids are encouraged to use them. They might be encouraged to go hunting if they live in more of area outside of a city but usually the kids that learn how to fire and care for a gun from their parents are the kids that are good. You're wrong. Statistics say that children from smokers more commonly start smoking themselves. People don't generally see weapons as a thing that kill you like cigarettes, but you'll still see it more as an object that's accepted. Yes, many don't copy their parents directly or don't do it on purpose, but they have a big influence on you (or for the very majority). I don't believe you have the guts to send socialization back as a dead argument. Gangs and such things have to be dealt with yes, but the first thing to do is to get rid of the legal weapons. If a weapon kills, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal.
--------------------
Perfection can never be achieved; it's merely approachable.
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2008, 10:43 PM
|
Cyborg Reaper
Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Ohio
Member No.: 27
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (CrashKing @ Jul 2 2008, 04:39 PM) You're wrong. Statistics say that children from smokers more commonly start smoking themselves. People don't generally see weapons as a thing that kill you like cigarettes, but you'll still see it more as an object that's accepted. First off, I would like to point out that it is usually not a good idea to tell someone whom you are debating against that they are wrong. Especially doing so in such a blunt right out of the get go way. In many cases this just makes people pissed off and if it were a face to face debate and you said that to the other person then you might get hurt. Anyways.... Which statistics are you talking about? Where is the data and when was said data published? Also remember statistics can be shaped to whatever the person giving said statistics wants. Yes I can see logic in parents smoke then their children will be more likely to but that idea isn't ALWAYS right. Also concerning the part I underlined. There is a reason for that you know and perhaps that reason is because guns have been used for protection for ages, they have been used for getting us food for ages, they have been used as a hobby for ages...hmmm did I get the point across yet? Guns have been in our culture for a long time and things in our culture just don't go away easily and especially not just because the government says it should be gone. What would you say if your government just got up and took away something that you have always had available to you for a long time and so have your parents and your grandparents and so on just because a very small percentage of the population has died because another small percentage of people misused whatever it is? (don't know of a good example for this as I don't live in Norway nor have I studied anything about it.) (**note that yes I do know that smoking has also been in our culture for a very long time. However, keep in mind that weapons have helped us with hunting and people have a strong attachment to food.**)Now since you have chosen to compare the smoking situation to the gun situation then don't you think that the same thing will occur with propaganda against guns as it has with cigarettes? I don't think you will see a commercial on TV that will say something along the lines of "Come on out to Big Guns R Us! and buy a nice rifle to go shoot!" (bad example I know) If a commercial shows up about guns it will be something like "Stand up against guns!" Then what would animal farming businesses do? Companies that raise livestock to just murder for food use weapons to kill their animals. Will they need some special license that makes food prices increase ever so much further?` QUOTE Yes, many don't copy their parents directly or don't do it on purpose, but they have a big influence on you (or for the very majority). I don't believe you have the guts to send socialization back as a dead argument. I agree that parents, relatives, siblings, and friends all have a large impact on a child. But like I said all ideas based on society can go the other way as society goes through changes frequently. One might find their place in society or what they feel is socially acceptable if they go against the habits or hobbies of their parents or whomever be their influence in that case. QUOTE Gangs and such things have to be dealt with yes, but the first thing to do is to get rid of the legal weapons. If a weapon kills, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal. I believe you just added to my point there because weapons, even if they are all proclaimed illegal by the government, will still be managed to be found in the hands of gangs across the nation and the world for that matter. Thus, the main area of gun violence is still not able to be controlled. So why ban guns especially if the targets of gangs can use them to protect themselves and fight against the gangs. I feel the best way to get rid of the gangs would be to let the citizens be able to more easily fight back. Honestly if you were in a gang that robbed places and saw two stores. Store A has an owner who you know doesn't have any weapons and Store B you know the owner owns a weapon of some sort. Which store would you go to rob? I would have to guess Store A as it would be a less likely chance that you and your fellow gang members would get hurt. So you can either have a large amounts of places bending over for the gangs to anally rape them or you can have all those people and places fighting back against the gangs and discouraging the gangs from being in that area. Sure there would be a lot more violence and deaths at first but after awhile I bet it would simmer down as the gangs would just stop trying. Finally concerning the part in bold. What makes something a weapon in the first place? If I took a carrot and stabbed you in the eye....wouldn't that make that carrot a weapon? It is the person's intent not the item that is malevolent.` So it is rather stupid to make all weapons illegal as if you look at it, anything can be turned into a weapon. Seriously....a guy could kill someone with his penis if he wanted to do so. So if enough guys did that then would you be on the side that think they should make the bearing of a penis illegal? (this part was added more for humor than anything)*Notes: 1) Areas with ` at the end are marked like that for a reason and so that I can look back to see what i marked to see if the thing I wanted to comes up. 2)I am very exhausted right now and somethings may have came out not as I was thinking or wanting. So I may need to go back and clarify some things later. Which is ok because you will probably rebuttal (lol that word has butt in it.) many parts of this response. *
--------------------
My own Project: Tiberian Sun: Covert OperationsNewest map releases: Yelcraz Island (2-3), Lake Istelv (2-4), Tiberian Ring (2-4), Moonlit Waters of Esvia (2), Imminitas Terra (2), Christmas in the Village (2), A City Consumed (2-4), Crescent Isle (2), Velillian Islands (2-4), FS Hell's Crevice (2), Island of Mercanf (2-3), Perseco Terra (2), Kalistia Crestlands (2) ...project re-genesis has begun... |
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2008, 12:36 PM
|
SSM Launcher
Group: Members
Posts: 763
Joined: 5-October 06
From: GDI Command Base, Southern Cross
Member No.: 14
Alliance: GDI
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (CrashKing @ Jul 2 2008, 04:39 PM) You're wrong. Statistics say that children from smokers more commonly start smoking themselves. Yes it is not a good idea to come out and directly in a debate and say someone is wrong. for a couple reasons. 1st is that it makes your position incredibly hard to back up and 2nd It tends to reduce things into an angry flame fest.
--------------------
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2008, 12:38 PM
|
Flamethrower Infantry
Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 21-October 06
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 43
Alliance: GDI
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
I just needed to comment, since I'm against the possesion of weapons, with which I mean firearms, by citizens. The only people, in my opinion, allowed to carry a firearm are policemen, the army (obviously) etc. For hunting of course people could get guns, but this should be controlled by the government in a very precise manner. I don't believe in guns for your own protection. And what is being said about the protection against gangs I can understand, however the main problem with gangs isn't solved by carrying a gun (it might even be partly caused by legal guns). And the USA is a wealthy and powerful country, with enough ability to solve problems with gangs and violence. Most European countries don't have legalised firearms, have lower crime/murder rates and have little problems with illegal weapons, compared to the USA. Because of what reason exactly can't the USA also be like that?
And no, carrying a gun doesn't make you invincible against other bullets, despite what many may think. You still can be killed in a robbery or anything like that. I even think someone with a gun (for example in a shop) has a higher chance of being wounded or killed. The feeling of power you might have with a gun can make someone do stupid things, and trying to shoot a robber when he is pointing a gun at you is quite stupid. I don't think the robber will run away seeing a gun, but instead will do anything to escape, and if that means killing you, so be it. People are jumpy from nature and tend to act fast in (possible) danger. And that's the reason I would never feel safe in a country with legalised firearms.
And also, why are people so obsessed with crime and safety in that area. There are many other dangers, which cost more lifes, than crime. Think about traffic, accidents at home or deceases. I rarely see people worrying as much about those things, than about crime. I still see many people who think it's ok to drink alcohol before driving a car and I still see people eating too much, eating too unhealthy, smoking, without any exercising and at the same time are afraid to go out at night because of possible crime and violence.
--------------------
|
|
|
: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2008, 04:08 PM
|
Cyborg Reaper
Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Ohio
Member No.: 27
Alliance: Nod
Favorite game: Tiberian Sun
|
QUOTE (Aurora196 @ Jul 3 2008, 08:38 AM) I don't believe in guns for your own protection. And what is being said about the protection against gangs I can understand, however the main problem with gangs isn't solved by carrying a gun (it might even be partly caused by legal guns). And the USA is a wealthy and powerful country, with enough ability to solve problems with gangs and violence. Most European countries don't have legalised firearms, have lower crime/murder rates and have little problems with illegal weapons, compared to the USA. Because of what reason exactly can't the USA also be like that? ok concerning first the area I underlined. Yes with some weapons legalized it may make it easier for gangs to get said guns. However, like said before, gangs get guns that are illegal all the time still. Now for the bold stuff. The U.S. has by no means the ability to keep the gangs down. The following are the amount of members inside of certain large well known gangs that I am looking up to provide an example to show just how large of an operation would be needed to get rid of gangs. Cripps= 30,000-40,000 Blood= 30,000-35,000 18th street gang= around 30,000 Aryan Brotherhood= 15,000+ Mara Salvatrucha Membership in the United States = 10,000 as of 2005 those are just 5 of the bigger gangs. Most of these gang members are most likely armed with some kind of weapon and to have a large scale operation to completely or at least come close to eradicating most of the members would cost way too much money, damage to the cities, and probably cause some large protest from the people as it would most likely require the use of a large military like squad and I would take a guess and say that the people wouldn't really like seeing the government deploy troops inside of one of their own cities. Also there is no way in hell all those members could be imprisoned. Not only is there probably not enough prison room but the cost to do so would be so much great. Not to mention the fact that many of those gangs have many ties into the prisons around their areas to begin with and some actually operate while in the prison and kill many other prisoners. to the italicized stuff. This would be because not all ideas and actions work the same for different countries. That is like saying why can't everyone just be Jewish. It's because not everyone can follow that same belief due to how they where brought up or how they have witnessed things. People have been brought up differently, some to respect others and also to respect weapons and to never misuse them. While others have not. QUOTE And no, carrying a gun doesn't make you invincible against other bullets, despite what many may think. You still can be killed in a robbery or anything like that. I even think someone with a gun (for example in a shop) has a higher chance of being wounded or killed. The feeling of power you might have with a gun can make someone do stupid things, and trying to shoot a robber when he is pointing a gun at you is quite stupid. I don't think the robber will run away seeing a gun, but instead will do anything to escape, and if that means killing you, so be it. People are jumpy from nature and tend to act fast in (possible) danger. And that's the reason I would never feel safe in a country with legalized firearms. to the underlined part...well duh. bold part. your statement is true. However, if the gang knows that the person has a gun they could very likely decide "hey i don't want to risk that". I wouldn't suggest trying to shoot a robber when he has a gun to your head either but if you have a chance to stop that from even happening before that wouldn't you take it? to the underlined part. I agree people tend to act fast in danger. We have that feature because it has kept us alive for such a long time. However, danger in today's world is all around us anywhere we go and people just don't even think to begin with now to begin with. QUOTE And also, why are people so obsessed with crime and safety in that area. There are many other dangers, which cost more lifes, than crime. Think about traffic, accidents at home or deceases. I rarely see people worrying as much about those things, than about crime. I still see many people who think it's ok to drink alcohol before driving a car and I still see people eating too much, eating too unhealthy, smoking, without any exercising and at the same time are afraid to go out at night because of possible crime and violence. this is my biggest point right here. weapon related crimes do not added up to the amount of injuries and deaths that car accidents and food related things cause. So why worry about the weapons when there are more things that the money could be going towards such as better education on how to drive properly and what is a good diet and how to actually stay in shape and prevention of diseases. Right now the education is the simple biggest problem in the United States in my opinion. They need to make driving classes more in depth and longer instead of just a few classes and a few in car driving tests.(though this changes with each state I believe) If they made the driving classes an actual semester long class that you can take in school and made it worth while instead of "hey you took the class and showed up almost everyday so you passed!" then driving accidents would probably be greatly reduced. Same with health related issues. If they actually taught what good health is and how it can be achieved in the Health classes instead of Health class being more focused on STDs and drugs then maybe people would be in better health. I think that there should be a good education on the proper use and care of guns, or any weapon for that matter, much like that of what the Boy Scouts of America have to go through and learn. That in it self if given out to everyone would probably do more than trying to ban weapons.
--------------------
My own Project: Tiberian Sun: Covert OperationsNewest map releases: Yelcraz Island (2-3), Lake Istelv (2-4), Tiberian Ring (2-4), Moonlit Waters of Esvia (2), Imminitas Terra (2), Christmas in the Village (2), A City Consumed (2-4), Crescent Isle (2), Velillian Islands (2-4), FS Hell's Crevice (2), Island of Mercanf (2-3), Perseco Terra (2), Kalistia Crestlands (2) ...project re-genesis has begun... |
|
|
: |
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|
