Victory, A victory today for the 2nd Amendment Options

[ORCACommander]

"resocialising programs" have been tried in the past but have been declared to be against the constitution. Take a look at what was passed during the age of reform 1900-1945. And the Majority of our nation is not rich. Most of the Money is controlled by 15% of the population and they do nothing but get tax loop holes and sit on their assets.

[Corsair]

Well said Ixith and Bloodreign--minus the part about having problems with gangs for 40 years, we've had problems with gangs over a hundred years (at least since the Five Points Gang)

This post has been edited by Corsair: Jul 3 2008, 05:54 PM

[Aurora196]

As I already said: I understand that someone wants a gun to protect himself, especially when living in a unsafe neighbourhood. Gangs are dangerous, and you MIGHT be safer with a gun in that case. But legalizing guns at the same time creates other danger. I wouldn't feel safe when a emotionally unstable guy (which are everywhere, not only in 'gang-neighbourhoods') owns a gun and for some reason hates me or gets into a fight with me. A person doesn't even have to hate me to be dangerous to me, what about depressed or twisted kids who can reach out for their parents gun and blow the hell out of a dozen of innocent people. That also happens, and I personally know someone of who I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same when he gets his hands on a gun. And not to mention the dangers of bad handling with guns, I've already heard a couple of stories of kids finding a rifle in their parents closet and killing someone by accident.

What I'm trying to say is that it might be safer to have a gun a self defence, but legal firearms also create a lot of danger itself. So in the USA I would at least make it a lot harder for normal people to get a rifle (with psychological tests, background checks, etc.) and have this carefully monitored by the goverment.

And by resocialising programs I don't extensive programs with torture and imprisonment, but with education and help to get someone out of a gang, especially children. (I've seen a documentary about this, it can work and has huge potential). And you can't tell me education is against the constitution.

[Corsair]

I've already heard a couple of stories of kids finding a rifle in their parents closet and killing someone by accident.

That's the parents fault

They may as well just leave out a open drum of Drano in front of a toddler

This post has been edited by Corsair: Jul 3 2008, 07:28 PM

[ORCACommander]

And by resocialising programs I don't extensive programs with torture and imprisonment, but with education and help to get someone out of a gang, especially children. (I've seen a documentary about this, it can work and has huge potential). And you can't tell me education is against the constitution.

not what I meant. I was referring to work programs and commissions In the New Deal and the 2nd New deal. I forget what it was called but dumping money into impoverished areas was found to be against the constitution. I would agree to psychological tests as being part of a limited gun control but as to background checks I disagree ,with the exception to foreigners, because they could use the excuse of a traffic ticket to deny you your right to own a firearm and once it isa right you can not on those grounds.

[Ixith]

What I'm trying to say is that it might be safer to have a gun a self defence, but legal firearms also create a lot of danger itself. So in the USA I would at least make it a lot harder for normal people to get a rifle (with psychological tests, background checks, etc.) and have this carefully monitored by the goverment.

See following quote....

...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."

So in other words those have and will still be in check. Though in many cases it won't stop them from finding a way to get the gun they want through other means.

[Aurora196]

Yeah, but I think it still needs to be harder, with like I said psychological tests, but also more stuff I can't think of right now... Anyway, I still think banning guns is the way to go, except for special situations, but I don't live in the US, so I've got little to say about it. Just wanted to share my opinion.

[Scorch]

As long as there are humans, there will be wars.

You know, (just trying to get this over with.) there will always be guns. You take away the gangs, you take away the right to own guns, you quadruple the number of police on duty, and the country attempts with all its might to make itself a gun-safe place, but there will always, again, always, be that one person who owns a gun, either legally or illegally, who commits violence with it.

You can take away the jet fighters and bombers, scrap everyones tanks and use them to build your homes, sink their ships so that divers can explore them, dissassemble the worlds nukes, and blow up their bombs, grenades, machine gun rounds, and finally, melt and burn their guns untill they are nothing, and yet, armies will always find new ways to wage war. [End example]

You cannot stop it. Try as you might, but it is impossible. No matter what is done, there will always be guns, and people who will use them for the wrong purposes.

This post has been edited by Scorch: Jul 4 2008, 02:28 AM

[Nod Strike]

You can take away the jet fighters and bombers, scrap everyones tanks and use them to build your homes, sink their ships so that divers can explore them, dissassemble the worlds nukes, and blow up their bombs, grenades, machine gun rounds, and finally, melt and burn their guns untill they are nothing, and yet, armies will always find new ways to wage war. [End example]

You realise we are talking about civilians with guns, right?

[Scorch]

I was using that as an example.

[Crash]

That's the parents fault

They may as well just leave out a open drum of Drano in front of a toddler

It indeed is, but it is the weapon that makes the power to kill someone. I never denied hunting with weapons. Weapons are to be allowed for specific reasons. Hunting is one, among of others. No, it's not always like children do what their parents do. It's still important to base views on the general public. MOST children follow their parents. A knife is a lot less powerful than a gun. There are numerous objects to kill with, and they can't all be removed. Those require more than just a finger on a trigger though. Not to mention they're easier to defend yourself against. You may run for example. Run while screaming. You can't go berzerk and kill 30 persons quickly with a knife somewhere in the street. You have to kill them one by one, and you will be taken down quickly in the attempt. I know the society is different in the USA. You're pretty conservative. If you blame social differences you have to do something with that. You need to increase taxes of the richer and decrease for the poorer. This again will be used to fund those that live in poverty. In my honest opinion you need to refresh your views, and forget the consitution written in 1787. A gun may have been needed when it was cowboy land in the US, but not anymore. If gangs are dealt with, illegal guns and legal guns for everyone are removed, you simply don't need guns.

[Aurora196]

Also I wanted to add (forgot to mention) that in Europe you also have places with high crime rates and gangs (especially in Paris and London). Today I saw on the news that already 18 teenagers had been stabbed to death in London (with the 17th victim also dying this week). While it hasn't got directly anything to do with firearms in the USA, it does show that gang problems (cause this victim was probably victim of a gang) aren't only in the USA, although they might be much more serious there than in Europe. This news reminded me of this thing I saw on a news show, which showed the results of a research. Apperantly most victims of stabbing or firearms in bars, discos and schools were wounded/killed by their own weapon. It was often the case that whenever someone pulled a knive (in an argument or fight), others would find themself threatened and react on this in an impulsive manner, often by immediately attacking the person and trying to take over the knive (since that had become the centre of attention). It just shows you that you're often not so much safer with a weapon. Instead of scaring someone away, it could trigger fights. I think in tense, violent situations (like in an argument at night, with alcohol influencing minds) the worst possible thing to do is showing a weapon, especially when you're not directly threatened with violence. Trying to evade the situation is the best, whenever that isn't possible trying to 'solve' the situation by words. If all fails you can always run away or call the police, depending the situation and if even that isn't possible you can always defend yourself, possible with a weapon. Of course every situation is different, so the above said may not always be the best thing to do.

[The DvD]

The gang example only proves my point that human beings, as rational as they may be compared to animals, can turn into beasts whenever their situation is bad enough. If firearms would be forbidden and their distribution carefully monitored, there simply would be less firearms around for these people to use.

Besides, I'd bet that the illegal firearms these gangs in London use were produced in certain countries where they're not illegal

[Ixith]

It indeed is, but it is the weapon that makes the power to kill someone. I never denied hunting with weapons. Weapons are to be allowed for specific reasons. Hunting is one, among of others. No, it's not always like children do what their parents do. It's still important to base views on the general public. [u]MOST children follow their parents. [/u

-A weapon may make the job of killing easier but the mind is what controls the person.

-If you say no guns but then say oh you can have a gun for this or this, then wouldn't that cause debate or people perhaps stealing the gun? or cause people to want a gun if you give them temporary access to something that is 'forbidden'? It would be like tempting a toddler with a cookie by giving them one from time to time but every time the toddler really wants one and goes to get one itself you pull away the cookie jar causing frustration and other emotions to arise against you.

-To underlined area. Yes most may in Norway but how do you know about the US? I would agree that a majority does. But I would say that more and more are basing their actions on what IS going on in society than following in their parents footsteps. Reason being is that to follow in their parents footsteps is becoming very hard to do in many cases.

If you blame social differences you have to do something with that.

I agree here, however getting into a position in which you can do something or at least effectively is fairly hard.

You need to increase taxes of the richer and decrease for the poorer. This again will be used to fund those that live in poverty.

Again, I agree we need to do something along those lines. But the problem is in a country where everyone is suppose to be equal then there would be opposition to such a thing. So it isn't so easy to do. Plus it would take MUCH time to find out the right percentages to tax people.

In my honest opinion you need to refresh your views, and forget the consitution written in 1787. A gun may have been needed when it was cowboy land in the US, but not anymore. If gangs are dealt with, illegal guns and legal guns for everyone are removed, you simply don't need guns.

well now. this actually kinda offended me here.
Asking us to forget perhaps the biggest part of our history as citizens of the US is just preposterous. Perhaps I should ask everyone to just forget about the Ten Commandments that were made from such a longer time period away. Or perhaps I should just ask people to forget about their own ancestors. Or maybe I would go as far as to saying that all the Christians should just forget about the Bible as it was written such a long time ago and doesn't hold up to today's society. That is essentially what you are trying to tell us to do. Sure the Constitution was written a long time ago but...if you think about it 221 years isn't THAT long of a time. Sure a lot has changed since then but many of the ideals stated in the Constitution still hold true today and still hold importance in today's society just as the lessons in the Bible still remain good lessons.

As for the cowboy reference there...I'm not even gonna waste my time.

If firearms would be forbidden and their distribution carefully monitored, there simply would be less firearms around for these people to use.

to forbid and carefully monitor the distribution of all guns would be extremely hard, cost more money than we have (as despite what everyone thinks about the US being extremely rich we are indeed in major debt), and would probably be something that would be more successful as an international attempt at doing something. as like in your point that I quoted next.

Besides, I'd bet that the illegal firearms these gangs in London use were produced in certain countries where they're not illegal

Well then why doesn't England and other countries tighten up their laws of illegal imports of guns? It should be REAL easy to do. I mean you guys suggested to do that for the US if we ban guns.
Plus you can't blame all the illegal weapons in England on us as just about everything sold in the US is made in some other country now. Which is perhaps one of the biggest problems in the US I might add. But we can address that problem some other time if the debate comes up.
Simple fact is guns are made everywhere and they aren't really all that hard to make. Not only that but it is very hard to stop such a gun trade from happening and even gangs in the US have guns that aren't made in the US. Even if every country in the world were to ban the production of guns they would still be made from behind the laws backs.


Finally, I would also like to point out that Utopias have never worked like they were meant. They always collapse after short periods of time. A place without guns or violence...I'm sure that is many people's vision of their perfect society...their utopia. The only way a Utopia would ever work is with a single person...but then it is no longer a society.

[Crash]

I didn't exactly mean to forget it literally. What I more meant was to update it. The way westerns live has changed A LOT since 221 years ago. The US is a "help-yourself" kind of state. It was at that time too. I understand why you'd need a gun at that time. Sorry if I offended you, but my point is that being conservative doesn't evolve the state. It just holds the state back. Not to mention being highly patriotic. But since this is a kind of discussion that won't go anywhere I hope this is the last post I have in this topic.

[The DvD]

Gun control doesn't cost us anything at this point, since everyone thinks it's normal that they're not allowed. I do agree that Britain's customs have some work to do.

[daTSchikinhed]

f*ck all of you.
every one of you.
You have all failed.

Wanna know why?
there are nearly 8 BILLION people on earth. Do you honestly believe we are all going to agree on ANYTHING? Didn't think so. This topic should have never been brought up.

Oh, by the way, all the firearms in my household are monitered by the US government. I honestly have no idea how they could be more controlled. Their serial number is registered with my unit, and all ammo is purchased with the knowledge and consent of my commander.

This post has been edited by daTSchikinhed: Jul 8 2008, 09:03 PM

[KingByng]

Lol daTs, there are only 6.7 billion people on the planet. There won't 8 billion until the later 2020s at least

Besides, gun control should be registration and monitoring, like it is already in the United States. There is a right to own guns here in case the government becomes too oppressive. But people will always use the easiest item they can acquire to kill others. People have since prehistory, and will continue until the extinction of the human race. It's our nature. Even if you eliminate guns, people will just use the next best thing (most likely melee weapons, like the recent spat of knife attacks in the United Kingdom).

This post has been edited by Cross: Jul 9 2008, 12:28 AM

[Ixith]

I vote this topic gets closed, as it won't go anywhere and is more suited for a politics forum than here.

that is why it is in off-topic
plus I find that this kind of topic is fun and interesting. Sparks debate and debate can be good, even if it frustrates some to the points where they feel like choking or suffocating someone as I think Crashy might be feeling because he thinks we are too stubborn and also thinks that everyone in the US is a conservative that thinks every last bit of things from days past should be upheld and stay. But now now....I would hope that many of us would at least agree that things from the past don't necessarily become obsolete. Sure they may need updating but they still hold truth and/or a point.
See the main point as I see it is that people and even some of the more reasonable or intelligent government officials are realizing certain things have gone bad and are starting to come out of their shells and pushing to keep what little freedom we have left and possibly fight back, in peaceful manners such as debate about topics such as this, to try to regain some of our lost rights. Sure guns may lead to extreme violence but most are being watched at least a little bit in the US and those that aren't are for the most part killing off those who need to be eliminated from this over-populated gene pool of the world anyways.

now I may come back when i have more time and am not exhausted from work and soccer and if the topic isn't closed. If I do so then it will be to rebuttal others' posts but as of now I am too tired and exhausted to type anymore.

[daTSchikinhed]

f*ck guns.
Really?
They're overrated.

now sex on the otherhand.....

[Corsair]

Dats is right, to get on with life it's enough to agree to disagree. But, to progress, it takes debates like this. Naturally, no one is going to come out say, "Y'know what, that guy was right! I'm changing my views starting now!", but at least everyone can have a better understanding of one another to make a better future. Obviously, we (as a people) didn't get to where we are now by just agreeing with one another and going our seperate ways. I'm not saying this debate is going to hold any merit and cause a great change in the world but the great debaters had to start somewhere, it may as well be a forum where fist fights can't break out

Besides, I like pistols and rifles

I don't exactly know what your doing by introducing sex into this topic, Dats, but I believe your causing more of a ruckus than anyone else that's actually taking part in this topic.

This post has been edited by Corsair: Jul 9 2008, 03:17 AM

[Scorch]

I think that he just now started to think about his gun.

Sorry Dats, but the two guns don't relate in any way.

This post has been edited by Scorch: Jul 9 2008, 03:15 PM

[daTSchikinhed]

Nope, just trying to lighted things up before I close it.