Split off gun debate

[Adron]

If a criminal can attack me with automatic weapons, should I not be able to defend myself to the extreme?

Maybe you should. Are you moving to allow citizens to carry fully automatic weapons?

If somebody is trying to kill me, I want them dead and its that simple. Better them than me, and thats the truth. Lets assume we go your way. They will no longer have gunshot wounds, fine. Is it better for all these criminals to take up knives, and then they'd be coming out with stab wounds?

Yes, that'd be better. Even better would be not to allow knives outside homes either.

Since you have those amendments you have to live with them for now, but you don't have to support them, and you can change them some time in the future. I understand that some people like guns, just like others enjoy other things.

You'd never get one of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights changed. Good luck with that one slugger.

Ah, of course you can. Maybe not right at this time, but nothing lasts forever.

That's not a reason to keep guns available though. Some people like incest. Some people like burning down houses. Things are forbidden when they cause others hurt. Besides, if guns weren't around, those people who like guns today would've most probably channeled their interests somewhere else and been happy anyway.

Adron you aren't thinking logically here. Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, airplanes, knives, boats, gas grills, sharp corners, etc. all cause others hurt. Keeping guns available for your personal safety is a damn good reason to keep them around. If you're not safe, you're screwed. Your conclusion about focusing their energies on things other than guns is another example of spewing something that has no backing whatsoever, its just your misguided conclusion based on no information.

Not at all. You just ignore parts when you reply. You tend to do that when you're losing, close your eyes and pretend the bad things will go away. I have explained in previous posts why keeping guns available for your personal safety is not a valid reason to keep them around, and you always just closed your eyes, covered your ears and went lalalalalalala.....

What jigsaw was talking about, and which my reply applied to wasn't that though. It was for those who like guns, just like others like cars or computers. If you had read what was written, you would've seen that. My response was perfectly relevant to that. Now, if you'd stop spewing out those really stupid comments, and think, maybe this discussion could get somewhere?

[Hazard]

Maybe you should. Are you moving to allow citizens to carry fully automatic weapons?

Law abiding and responsible citizens should have the option.

Yes, that'd be better. Even better would be not to allow knives outside homes either.

You should do some research. A kinfe wound is much more ugly and dangerous than a bullet wound in the same location.

Ah, of course you can. Maybe not right at this time, but nothing lasts forever.

Won't happen. Guranteed.

You tend to do that when you're losing, close your eyes and pretend the bad things will go away.

And when you come to conclusions that the world will be safe when no civilians have guns, you do the same thing.

Now, if you'd stop spewing out those really stupid comments, and think, maybe this discussion could get somewhere?

If you would offer any sort of evidence to back up anything that you say, we could move forward.

[Adron]

Maybe you should. Are you moving to allow citizens to carry fully automatic weapons?

Law abiding and responsible citizens should have the option.

Ah. But that's not allowed today, unless I've missed something?

Yes, that'd be better. Even better would be not to allow knives outside homes either.

You should do some research. A kinfe wound is much more ugly and dangerous than a bullet wound in the same location.

Ah, I didn't know that, but it's quite possible. Still, both can kill. And a knife is easier to outrun than a bullet. And it'd be harder to rob a bank with a knife.

Ah, of course you can. Maybe not right at this time, but nothing lasts forever.

Won't happen. Guranteed.

That's a stupid statement. How can you guarantee what will happen a million years from now? Or just two hundred years from now? Or even just fifty years from now? Things do change, and if you think you can guarantee that your little constitution will remain as is in a million years, I don't know what to say about you...

And when you come to conclusions that the world will be safe when no civilians have guns, you do the same thing.

The world will never be completely safe, but actually, if I'm allowed the assumption that no civilians have guns, I can safely say that the world will be much safer than today.

Now, if you'd stop spewing out those really stupid comments, and think, maybe this discussion could get somewhere?

If you would offer any sort of evidence to back up anything that you say, we could move forward.

What is there that you'd like evidence for? That your constitution will be gone and forgotten before infinite time has passed? Would you like me to look up the size of the fireball the sun will make when it starts to run out of fuel? I don't see how this is ever going to get anywhere if you don't even accept the most obvious?

[Hazard]

Ah. But that's not allowed today, unless I've missed something?

You missed something.

Ah, I didn't know that, but it's quite possible. Still, both can kill. And a knife is easier to outrun than a bullet. And it'd be harder to rob a bank with a knife.

Harder, but not impossible. Wouldn't it just lead to a new breed of more highly trained and possibly violent criminals?

That's a stupid statement. How can you guarantee what will happen a million years from now? Or just two hundred years from now? Or even just fifty years from now? Things do change, and if you think you can guarantee that your little constitution will remain as is in a million years, I don't know what to say about you...

Little consitution? If that wasn't such a stupid statement, it would be hillarious.

The world will never be completely safe, but actually, if I'm allowed the assumption that no civilians have guns, I can safely say that the world will be much safer than today.

But civilians will always have guns, the criminals anyway. How will only the criminals having guns make the general public safer again Adron? Or is that another one of your "miniscule" weaknesses in your argument, the fact that people would not be able to defend themselves?

What is there that you'd like evidence for? That your constitution will be gone and forgotten before infinite time has passed? Would you like me to look up the size of the fireball the sun will make when it starts to run out of fuel? I don't see how this is ever going to get anywhere if you don't even accept the most obvious?

Another one of your irrelevant facts. At that point, life ceases to exist and the problem of war and peace is solved for good. Unless you are going to try and argue some retarded point about how it wont "all" be over.

[Arta]

You should do some research. A kinfe wound is much more ugly and dangerous than a bullet wound in the same location.

Support that please? Sounds like nonsense to me. Guns are much more effective at killing people than knives, which is, apparently, why you advocate owning them.

[Adron]

Ah. But that's not allowed today, unless I've missed something?

You missed something.

And what was that? I would think they'd be covered by "Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. "

Ah, I didn't know that, but it's quite possible. Still, both can kill. And a knife is easier to outrun than a bullet. And it'd be harder to rob a bank with a knife.

Harder, but not impossible. Wouldn't it just lead to a new breed of more highly trained and possibly violent criminals?

It'd probably lead to a new breed of less dangerous criminals.

That's a stupid statement. How can you guarantee what will happen a million years from now? Or just two hundred years from now? Or even just fifty years from now? Things do change, and if you think you can guarantee that your little constitution will remain as is in a million years, I don't know what to say about you...

Little consitution? If that wasn't such a stupid statement, it would be hillarious.

It is "your little constitution". It applies to a small part of the world's population.

The world will never be completely safe, but actually, if I'm allowed the assumption that no civilians have guns, I can safely say that the world will be much safer than today.

But civilians will always have guns, the criminals anyway. How will only the criminals having guns make the general public safer again Adron? Or is that another one of your "miniscule" weaknesses in your argument, the fact that people would not be able to defend themselves?

No. It's that thing about how it will keep the general public safer, due to the reasons presented earlier, which you failed to respond to. If you seriously want to respond, I'll present it again, but it both seems a bit wasted on you, and you could just as well read back in this thread to find it.

What is there that you'd like evidence for? That your constitution will be gone and forgotten before infinite time has passed? Would you like me to look up the size of the fireball the sun will make when it starts to run out of fuel? I don't see how this is ever going to get anywhere if you don't even accept the most obvious?

Another one of your irrelevant facts. At that point, life ceases to exist and the problem of war and peace is solved for good. Unless you are going to try and argue some retarded point about how it wont "all" be over.

Yes, the problem of war and peace is solved permanently then. And my comment applies to your statement "Won't happen. Guranteed.". You make such broad absolute statements about things when you really need to qualify them much much better.

[Hazard]

And what was that? I would think they'd be covered by "Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. "

Did you miss the repeal of the assault weapons ban? Fully automatic assault weapons are once again available, the way it should be.

It'd probably lead to a new breed of less dangerous criminals.

No, it would lead to more brutal criminals willing to gut you with a trench knife if you don't give them what they ask for. Or, in the case of bank robberies, it would spawn the use of explosives and bombs instead of guns.

No. It's that thing about how it will keep the general public safer, due to the reasons presented earlier, which you failed to respond to. If you seriously want to respond, I'll present it again, but it both seems a bit wasted on you, and you could just as well read back in this thread to find it.

You never offer a valid argument with any kind of evidence whatsoever to back it up. If you can do that, go ahead. If you can't, stop wasting our time.

Yes, the problem of war and peace is solved permanently then. And my comment applies to your statement "Won't happen. Guranteed.". You make such broad absolute statements about things when you really need to qualify them much much better.

Fine? Wanna be a pain in the ass? "The 2nd Amendment of the United States consitution as it appears in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., United States of America shall never, until the sun runs out of fuel and produces a mass fireball that will undoubtly whipe out the solar system, be changed to hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain and keep a firearm." Qualified. Anything you think I missed Adron? You really are quite a prick.

[Arta]

Your personal attacks are inappropriate. If you cannot restrain yourself to civilised behaviour, then refrain from posting here.

I'm locking this thread but Adron is of course free to unlock it if he chooses.

[Grok]

It is our right as americans to own firearms

That's very subjective. Whether that right is enshrined in the constitution is by no means clear-cut, and if it's not, that leaves it open to legislation like anything else.

(snip)

If the Consitution confers upon anyone the right to bear arms, how is 'arms' defined?

Arta, without myself stating an opinion on guns, I will take this chance to address a perception.  In the United States, all rights belong to Americans except those we specifically enumerate to our servant government by the Constitution.  That means if there is a right not granted to be controlled, then Americans own that right.

I think this is what Hazard and Jigsaw know and believe, but are not stating (thinking you know it too).  The right to bear arms is addressed for states raising militias.  It does not address individuals bearing arms, and by ommission, such rights are owned by Americans.  Good?  Bad?  That's another issue.  But our rights belong to us until we vote to give them up.  The government cannot take away rights (save your Patriot Act arguments -- we're working on that), without our consent.

[Adron]

Did you miss the repeal of the assault weapons ban? Fully automatic assault weapons are once again available, the way it should be.

Yes, I don't follow details of American legislation. If you'd mentioned that repeal right away, it might've saved some time?

No, it would lead to more brutal criminals willing to gut you with a trench knife if you don't give them what they ask for. Or, in the case of bank robberies, it would spawn the use of explosives and bombs instead of guns.

There's no reason to think those criminals would be any worse than the ones willing to blow your head off if you don't give them what they ask for. And in the case of bank robberies, it'd be easier for the police to deal with the criminals.

You never offer a valid argument with any kind of evidence whatsoever to back it up. If you can do that, go ahead. If you can't, stop wasting our time.

There is no possible certain evidence for either side of the argument. We're speaking about possibilities in the future. It's unfortunate that you seem unable to just reason about something.

Fine? Wanna be a pain in the ass? "The 2nd Amendment of the United States consitution as it appears in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., United States of America shall never, until the sun runs out of fuel and produces a mass fireball that will undoubtly whipe out the solar system, be changed to hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain and keep a firearm." Qualified. Anything you think I missed Adron? You really are quite a prick.

Ah, qualified... But your statement can't be proven true, and I don't see the reasoning to make it believable. We're debating whether guns should be allowed or not. If the conclusion of the debate (and eventually of a 99% majority of the American people) is that guns should be banned, there's no reason there couldn't be another amendment made. Times change, people change, opinions change.

[Adron]

I'm locking this thread but Adron is of course free to unlock it if he chooses.

Hmm. If you think the discussion should end, I'll let it. You're the moderator. Besides, Grok and me can still post when it's locked

[Adron]

I think this is what Hazard and Jigsaw know and believe, but are not stating (thinking you know it too).  The right to bear arms is addressed for states raising militias.  It does not address individuals bearing arms, and by ommission, such rights are owned by Americans.  Good?  Bad?  That's another issue.  But our rights belong to us until we vote to give them up.  The government cannot take away rights (save your Patriot Act arguments -- we're working on that), without our consent.

Grok, that's agreeable. I'd just like to point details out:

You don't need the consent of all people, just of a majority, since this is a democracy, right?

If a large majority were to conclude that guns are bad, it would then be possible to take that right away, with that majority's consent, from all Americans?

[Grok]

In this case, no, and yes.  The people have made the right to bear arms unalienable by Constitution, such that the government could not take away that right.  Only the people can give up the right, first by amending the Constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment, then by creating a new amendment that grants the federal (or each state) government the right to set gun control policy as they view the people's will to be consented.

Highly unlikely that even one of those amendments could pass, much less two.  It is still political suicide to go very much anti-gun, in most states.  For a politician to take the position that the 2nd amendment should be repealed is to say the people cannot govern themselves.  At least, that's the spin that could be easily applied.

[Arta]

May as well continue.

Grok, I do realise that. The point of my thread was to point out exactly what you have clarified: the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily protect the right for individuals to bear arms. Thus, this is not necessarily a constitutional issue -- a lot of people seem to assume it is.

[Hazard]

Read the words: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Where is the grey area?