Conquer Club

Um hey so i have many problems with the USA but here is my major issue which i would like to be open for discussion.
The Right To Bear Arms
Now i agree with the Family Guy interpretation that every American has the right to hand a pair of bear arms on there wall.
But seriously does congress not realize the outdated nature of this American Revolution war era right.
The selling of rifles for hunting is one thing but handguns, semi automatic and fully automatic weapons is just outrageous. Do Americans not take notice of the rediculously high levels of death by guns or the fact that they are flooding mexico with guns or good forbid "southerners" owning guns. In australia guns are held only by criminal and gangs and they mostly use them on other criminals with guns there is rarely hold ups with guns and there is certainly no motherfucking emos running around killing 40 people or a disgruntled postal worker. The unavialbility of guns means that kind of shit doesnt happen.
What right to americans have to own pistols and automatic weapons is what i ask you?

When all your deadly animals are snakes birds and spiders. Guns won't help you.

So how would your life be improved if America didn't have guns?

There would be less Americans dead for one thing... now i dont like americans as a whole but there are some who deserve to live

Here is an easy answer from a hand gun bearing American.

Many statistics have been ran and proven showing that countries that impose strict gun control laws actually have major problems with almost all categories of violent crimes increasing after the laws are imposed. The problem is that gun control laws don't take guns out of the hands of criminals, they take the guns out of the hands of those that intend to follow the law and do what they are supposed to. These are the same people who are likely to fall in the category of being victims of violent crimes after gun control laws. It has been shown that Great Britain had a major increase in violent crimes after their gun control laws and also shown that their criminals still don't have a problem getting guns. It is also very widely speculated that GB's government has played down the statistics on crimes committed in their country after the laws have been imposed meaning the numbers are even worse than what is already shown (they are already bad). The following is a link to more stats and statements along the same lines.

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

Much more importantly than the above, it is written in our constitution and believed by many that hand guns and assault rifles should be own for 2 main reasons.

1) To keep our own government from ever becoming a tyranny and enforcing it's will upon the people, and;
2) To deter any other country from ever invading our country and trying to enforce military law on our population.

With a gun behind every door, either of these situations would prove to be more than tricky for any country (including our own). No entity would ever be able to control our population, instead it would turn into a war where they would probably be forced to kill most of us and never treat us as they wish. To show a strong support for this, read the following 2 quotes that came from Admiral Iskoroku Yamamoto, who led the Japanese war against the United States in WWII and is the only country to ever even consider invading the United States since the American Revolution.

"Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians.. [who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war].. have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices."

And more importantly:

"I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

I honestly believe that not only should we not have more gun control laws, we should have more guns in the United States. If there was a gun behind pretty much every door in the United States, how many criminals do you think would be willing to break into houses and try to rob people then? If nearly everyone around you was carrying a gun, how many people do you think would be willing to open up fire in the middle of a crowded mall or school? And if they chose to, how many shots do you think they would get off at innocent people before they were shot themselves?

To keep our own government from ever becoming a tyranny and enforcing it's will upon the people.

Fail.

Thing is I don't mind the good guys (We law abiding citizens think of ourselves as them) having guns. Even if you don't shoot to eat or like to murder vermin. Shooting targets and those pesky tin cans is fun and theripudic.

I'm sure glad I have a legal handgun. Getting to it kept me alive a few years back when someone I knew (granted, barely knew, but knew) turned psycho-crazy on me... I bore fingermarks on my neck for 6 months, long after I could unbandage my broken wrist, or the bruises from being thrown into a lamp, table, and entertainment center (I'd made the unfortunate mistake of trying to get out the door before I headed for the room with my hollow-point loaded .38 to hold him at bay while I called the cops)

Some days I STILL wish I'd pulled the trigger!

LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:There would be less Americans dead for one thing... now i dont like americans as a whole but there are some who deserve to live

I like Australians as a whole... but not you specifically.

How stupid are you to lump "americans as a whole" into one giant pot of people that you don't like. It's certainly your right to hate me... that's fine. You'r still an ignorant prick.

How many times have you visited the US? How many "Americans" do you know or converse with on a normal basis? Get a life and worry about Australian politics please.

Our Consitutional Right to Bear Arms is not something "we" care to have debated by foreigners. (I say "we" I really mean "I", since I can't propose to speak for all Americans.... though I could say "we" and use it to refer to intelligent/patriotic Americans.)

Thanks for the input. Not!

I agree. The only reason you need an automatic weapon is if you intend to kill many people in a short period of time. They're worthless for hunting and home defense. Semi-automatic weapons with a large clip are pretty much the same.

Frigidus wrote:I agree. The only reason you need an automatic weapon is if you intend to kill many people in a short period of time. They're worthless for hunting and home defense. Semi-automatic weapons with a large clip are pretty much the same.

I see your location is the US... and so I will make the assumption you are a Citizen of this great nation.

That being the case you certainly have the right to speak your mind on our shared Constitution.

Good luck trying to get it changed.
NOT!

Whenever something is restricted, the only people that have that restricted item are criminals. Gun control laws don't prevent criminals from having or getting guns, therefore nobody can use that reason to justify gun laws. Also consider the deterrent effect. Criminals don't want law-abiding citizens holding guns.

jimboston wrote:

Frigidus wrote:I agree. The only reason you need an automatic weapon is if you intend to kill many people in a short period of time. They're worthless for hunting and home defense. Semi-automatic weapons with a large clip are pretty much the same.

I see your location is the US... and so I will make the assumption you are a Citizen of this great nation.

That being the case you certainly have the right to speak your mind on our shared Constitution.

Good luck trying to get it changed.
NOT!

I'm not a politician, so I won't worry about that. Besides, pointing out that something is law doesn't constitute an argument. Law is fallible.

Anyways, can someone cite a responsible reason outside of killing on a large scale that you would need to own an automatic weapon.

Frigidus wrote:I agree. The only reason you need an automatic weapon is if you intend to kill many people in a short period of time. They're worthless for hunting and home defense. Semi-automatic weapons with a large clip are pretty much the same.

You are entitled to that opinion. I agree that in everyday life there is not a whole lot of reason to have an automatic weapon. But I know many people that do own them and am looking to buy one myself for 2 reasons.

1) They are fun to go to the range and shoot
2) As reasons stated above, they act as a great deterrent for anyone wishing to do Americans harm.

I also don't think there is any real down side to allowing them as long as their isn't strict gun control laws. As I stated in my previous post, if some guy decides to go out shooting people and MOST of the people around him also have guns, how far do you think he will make it?

Frigidus wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Frigidus wrote:I agree. The only reason you need an automatic weapon is if you intend to kill many people in a short period of time. They're worthless for hunting and home defense. Semi-automatic weapons with a large clip are pretty much the same.

I see your location is the US... and so I will make the assumption you are a Citizen of this great nation.

That being the case you certainly have the right to speak your mind on our shared Constitution.

Good luck trying to get it changed.
NOT!

I'm not a politician, so I won't worry about that. Besides, pointing out that something is law doesn't constitute an argument. Law is fallible.

Anyways, can someone cite a responsible reason outside of killing on a large scale that you would need to own an automatic weapon.

It's not a "law". It is codified in the Constitution. There is a big difference.

... and yes I know the Constitution may also be fallible. That is why it can be changed.

Reasons for killing on a large scale...
-> US being invaded.
-> US being infested with Zombies
-> Major economic meltdown and/or large scale natural disaster... roving gangs attempt to steal my food or harm my family.
-> Gov't goes completely wacko.

Zombies are all ready dead so shooting them apart doesn't count as killing.

I wonder if jimboston is being shifted from the "Americans that deserve to live according to OP." list?

LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:Um hey so i have many problems with the USA but here is my major issue which i would like to be open for discussion.
The Right To Bear Arms
Now i agree with the Family Guy interpretation that every American has the right to hand a pair of bear arms on there wall.
But seriously does congress not realize the outdated nature of this American Revolution war era right.
The selling of rifles for hunting is one thing but handguns, semi automatic and fully automatic weapons is just outrageous. Do Americans not take notice of the rediculously high levels of death by guns or the fact that they are flooding mexico with guns or good forbid "southerners" owning guns. In australia guns are held only by criminal and gangs and they mostly use them on other criminals with guns there is rarely hold ups with guns and there is certainly no motherfucking emos running around killing 40 people or a disgruntled postal worker. The unavialbility of guns means that kind of shit doesnt happen.
What right to americans have to own pistols and automatic weapons is what i ask you?

Congratulations! You are now an honorary member of "Pusscakes Against Guns". Mail this in to the Department of Redundancy Department for a free "Attaboy!" sticker. I however have to give you a big "Awshit" for complete lack of creativity or any new slant on this argument. Sorry.

Why do we have guns in America? Because in spite of an ever increasing number of faggoty gun haters who coincidentally have no problem killing babies, we're still a rootin tootin six gun shootin cowboy motherfucking nation. We like guns. We like violence. We like sending visiting Aussie liberals home in tears with their knickers down around their ankles.

Any more stoopit questions?


Honibaz

The arguments that rely on "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons" are extremely weak in my opinion. The lack of need doesn't justify a ban.

We don't need running shoes; that doesn't mean they should be banned.

LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:But seriously does congress not realize the outdated nature of this American Revolution war era right...

I'm not certain if I'm wasting my time, but let me address the above sentence with as much objectivity as I can muster. But before I do, may I recommend that you actually read the US Constitution? While it's not an easy read, the Consititution isn't written in Martian either. Plus, it's very short, even with the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

Also, before one dismisses things as "outdated," one would probably benefit from studying the context of the period in question and comparing it to contemporary ones. I recommend studying the events surrounding the Revolution, the makeup of the Colonies, and the Declaration of Independence. I know that sounds like a lot of work, but research has never been easier with the Internet (don't just rely on Wiki for all your facts, though- it's better as a guide map than an actual resource). In a space of hours, one could gain a halfway decent grounding in the American experience with government.

OK, on to my analysis of your argument:

First, Congress cannot directly ratify changes to the US Constitution. Amendments can be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses (hard to do) or by state conventions. Ratification can only be made through a series of conventions in the various states, or by a vote of the state legislatures. This is a direct protection of the pluralism of cultures that comprise the US, through the affirmation of states' rights.

Second, the "outdated" nature of many parts of the US Constitution has been a frequent argument of domestic groups that wish to change the compact between the states into one more of their liking. In many cases they have succeeded in cicumventing or completely ignoring significant parts of the Constitution.

In fact, the current "Tea Party" movement can be viewed as a polarization of the populace into two groups: on one side, there are people who (broadly) say, "Hey, this country used to have something that we've lost- we want it back. Our ideals are dying one by one to dubious practices that violate the Constitution's spirit; only the polticial rhetoric remains."

On the other side, there are people who (again, broadly speaking) declare, "Look, guys, this is the 21st century, and I think we've all learned a thing or two since the Revolution. We don't care about the past, we care about the problems we're facing here and now and the only way to solve them is by moving forward, not backward. So let's be practical and leave fanatical 'ideals' at the door."

My response is twofold: If everyone in the country agreed that certain parts of the US Constitution were indeed outdated, then Amending them should be no problem. And, the past is not so dissimilar to the present as one might be inclined to believe.

LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:What right to americans have to own pistols and automatic weapons is what i ask you?

The right as guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution:

"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."

Revisionist movements have attempted (and succeeded to some degree) in re-interpreting this amendment to only apply to the National Guard; nothing could be further from the intentions of the original writers. But that is another debate for another time, perhaps.

Trephining wrote:The arguments that rely on "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons" are extremely weak in my opinion. The lack of need doesn't justify a ban.

We don't need running shoes; that doesn't mean they should be banned.

Chuuuuck wrote:...
1) To keep our own government from ever becoming a tyranny and enforcing it's will upon the people, and;
2) To deter any other country from ever invading our country and trying to enforce military law on our population...

Btw, if you're looking for legitimate (and thus far unanwered) logical reasons for the right of an individual to bear arms, see the two quotes above.

Bravo to the rational arguements made by the Patriots in this forum.

I tend to prefer sarcastic responses to idiodict questions... but I am glad my fellow Americans take the time to reply more intelligently than myself.

Trephining wrote:The arguments that rely on "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons" are extremely weak in my opinion. The lack of need doesn't justify a ban.

We don't need running shoes; that doesn't mean they should be banned.

You no doubt realise that this in incredibly dishonest. It's not actually the real argument and you know it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Trephining wrote:The arguments that rely on "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons" are extremely weak in my opinion. The lack of need doesn't justify a ban.

We don't need running shoes; that doesn't mean they should be banned.

You no doubt realise that this in incredibly dishonest. It's not actually the real argument and you know it.

I don't think it is as dishonest as you imply without actually stating any real argument yourself. The argument that he refers to that I hear very often is a little longer than what he said, I would more so say it is "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons and they are used for harm instead of good, so why have them."

But you can also expand upon his reasoning in stating the exact same thing about cigarettes or alcohol. Or you can expand past mere consumer products and state the same thing about legal prostitution, or the diamond industry as a whole, or major companies exporting labor to third world countries.

Now I realize all of these are not the same as having guns, but they are all things that are not NEEDED but do harm others in some sort of way to make us happy.

And I think you no doubt realized he knew there was a bigger picture behind his statement, but his statement still holds truth in the bigger picture, he was just over-simplifying it.

Trephining wrote:Whenever something is restricted, the only people that have that restricted item are criminals. Gun control laws don't prevent criminals from having or getting guns, therefore nobody can use that reason to justify gun laws. Also consider the deterrent effect. Criminals don't want law-abiding citizens holding guns.

Absolutely Correct.

And guns are fun to shot. If everybody carried a gun, then criminals would know everybody around them is going to shoot them if they get out of line. Guns keep people peaceful and respectful.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Trephining wrote:The arguments that rely on "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons" are extremely weak in my opinion. The lack of need doesn't justify a ban.

We don't need running shoes; that doesn't mean they should be banned.

You no doubt realise that this in incredibly dishonest. It's not actually the real argument and you know it.

Dishonest? Not the real argument? Evidently you're still clueless in regards to the real argument.

The real argument is of course the reasons that the right to bear arms was originally put into the Constitution. The two main reasons for this are:

1) Protection for self and family. If thugs on the street - who might decide to pay you an impromptu visit at any given time - have automatic weapons then you would need the same to adequately protect your home against such. Too simple?

2) To maintain an armed populace in case the government tried to impose a tyrannical regime. In other words the populace should have access to the same weapons as the military. This would include automatic weapons. To allege that such are not necessary is in fact dishonest. Nice try at flipping things around there.


Honibaz

I like living in the UK. Most of us don't own a gun or feel the need to own one. If we ever need to have a civil war I guess we can rely on the US to provide us with weapons fairly quickly. After all they've been feeding them to the Irish long enough.

Chuuuuck wrote:I don't think it is as dishonest as you imply without actually stating any real argument yourself. The argument that he refers to that I hear very often is a little longer than what he said, I would more so say it is "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons and they are used for harm instead of good, so why have them."

Which is an entirely different thing though. Trep compared it to running shoes, which is a silly comparison and makes "anti-gun people" look dumb.

But you can also expand upon his reasoning in stating the exact same thing about cigarettes or alcohol. Or you can expand past mere consumer products and state the same thing about legal prostitution, or the diamond industry as a whole, or major companies exporting labor to third world countries.

Now I realize all of these are not the same as having guns, but they are all things that are not NEEDED but do harm others in some sort of way to make us happy.

I'm not fond of comparisons between things that are so much different in nature, especially when the comparisons are flawed and too generic like this one. You can really only compare weapons with weapons, like you can compare modes of transport or drugs.

And I think you no doubt realized he knew there was a bigger picture behind his statement, but his statement still holds truth in the bigger picture, he was just over-simplifying it.

It was not a mere over-simplification, it skipped a vital point behind the argument.