Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The deaths of innocent, unarmed, helpless victims would certainly go up.

I think that's being a little too selective though. I'm talking deaths in general. I think that would even be marginal because say someone ends up in a shootout, there's no guarantee they still walk away.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I think that's being a little too selective though. I'm talking deaths in general. I think that would even be marginal because say someone ends up in a shootout, there's no guarantee they still walk away.

See, I don't think this is really a rational scenario. It's like saying, "what if there were no disease" ?

The horse is out of the barn as far as guns go. Weaponry for defense was a natural creation among human beings since the dawn of time.

I mean what are we going to do? Send SWAT teams out to raid every home in America to confiscate all firearms? Come on, that's never going to happen.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, I don't think this is really a rational scenario. It's like saying, "what if there were no disease" ?

The horse is out of the barn as far as guns go. Weaponry for defense was a natural creation among human beings since the dawn of time.

I mean what are we going to do? Send SWAT teams out to raid every home in America to confiscate all firearms? Come on, that's never going to happen.

So, you don't take issue with our central premise (e.g., that in a perfect world guns would be banned). Rather, you believe that it is impossible to get firearms out of circulation?

First off, most handguns and assault weapons can be tracked. Second, as guns are confiscated they would be destroyed. Third, guns would no longer be manufactured. Fourth, a more limited supply of guns would drive cost up and, as cost goes up, the ability of criminals to access them decreases. The supply would run out to next to nothing over time.

BTW, I love how you discuss the matter intelligently and civilly. We disagree, but I've gotta give you props for style.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I can just see someone rolling up into a bank with a ski mask on, Davy Crockett hat and a musket.

[MTK]

Can you imagine cops running down the street chasing criminals while they're re-loading their muskets like in the final scenes of Last of the Mohicans??!!

[MTK]

Another can you imagine scenario:

If our founding fathers could see us today what do you think they would say?

Something tells me they would think we are idiots with the way we cling so literally to the Constitution that was written for a completely different time.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Another can you imagine scenario:

If our founding fathers could see us today what do you think they would say?

Something tells me they would think we are idiots with the way we cling so literally to the Constitution that was written for a completely different time.

I believe they would think we are wimps, and not true patriots. Most people don't care about government infringement as long as they have their Mercedes and Starbucks.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I believe they would think we are wimps, and not true patriots. Most people don't care about government infringement as long as they have their Mercedes and Starbucks.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

nice post.

Thought you might like this.


War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.


John Stuart Mill

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Yup. The language was intentionally left vague so it could stand the test of time.

[dmek25]

in the process of forming our new government, a collection of checks and balances was created to keep the new government in line with the democratic thought. no one at that time new if it would work. he we are about 225 years later, and for the most part, the system works. i just don't understand the thought process of the people that think our government could turn into a dictatorship. if this administration hasn't done it, it isn't going to happen

[Bushead]

Va. Shootings: What the World is Saying - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

As someone who is interested in International Relations, Reading this article just shows how other countries view our gun laws. Most of the stern ones come from France, no suprise there. I believe that the person from France does have a point though: people saying we need to let everyone have guns is just backwards thinking. I know too many hot headed people that don't need guns.

I'm for getting rid of them. So someone who wants your wallet might have second thoughts because you could be packing, or he might just shoot your ass and take it because he doesn't want to take that chance.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Bushead

I believe that the person from France does have a point though: people saying we need to let everyone have guns is just backwards thinking. I know too many hot headed people that don't need guns.

So it is you who gets to decide what other people's needs are?

Suppose someone started dictating to you what you do and do not need?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So it is you who gets to decide what other people's needs are?

Suppose someone started dictating to you what you do and do not need?

They tell me I need seatbelts. They tell me I don't need a surface to air missile. They tell me I can't plant mines in my front yard to deter robbers. They tell me I don't need a nuclear device. I'm being sarcastic, but the government has, does, and always will tell me what I need and don't need. It's just a matter of degree and IMO I don't need an AK-47.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

They tell me I need seatbelts. They tell me I don't need a surface to air missile. They tell me I can't plant mines in my front yard to deter robbers. They tell me I don't need a nuclear device. I'm being sarcastic, but the government has, does, and always will tell me what I need and don't need. It's just a matter of degree and IMO I don't need an AK-47.

Those are not examples of the government telling you what your needs are, they are telling you what you can and cannot do. There is a distinction.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Bushead

So someone who wants your wallet might have second thoughts because you could be packing, or he might just shoot your ass and take it because he doesn't want to take that chance.

Interesting, I never even thought of that point. There are a lot of criminals who use guns in crimes but who have no intention of using them. Maybe, if they thought they'd get shot at, they'd just ambush people so as to avoid the risk of a "fair" shootout.