|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:09:44 GMT -5
Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc. All responsible when it comes to handling weapons. I wouldn't call the Arab Spring a different time. Why does an international body get to tell me or anyone else what to do in their home? The police shouldn't be telling you what you can and can't do. The police should protect the people and arrest those who have committed a crime where there is a victim. They shouldn't be out looking for people who are speeding or don't have a state mandated license plate sticker. You don't want people to have guns but you want the police to have guns. So since we pay the salary of the police when the government comes knocking then the police should be there to defend us. So if I was about to shoot someone, and a police officer was nearby, they shouldn't stop me because that would be telling me what to do? They should wait until I've actually committed the crime, then arrest me? No, I don't want the police to have guns. Policemen don't carry guns in the UK. I want there to be a supply of guns for an emergency break glass scenario, and that's about it. I don't know what having the police save you from the government has to do with guns. Did I say that? No. If you were about to shoot someone, they'd be protecting whoever you were about to shoot. So if the police don't have guns then how would your scenario of a police officer being near you, a person about to shoot someone, play out? Because if the people are not allowed to have guns then who would protect the people in case the government does decide to attack its people? It'd have to be the police. If the police don't protect the unarmed people then we're ed.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 18, 2013 17:18:18 GMT -5
You have completely irrational fears of guns and gun owners. And gun owners have completely irrational fears of the government taking their guns so they are defenseless if the government ever decides to turn into a dictatorship. Welcome to the world. Part of what what preserves our rights as citizens in the US is our freedom of gun ownership. Our country was founded on that principal. To take that right away or to diminish our inalienable rights in anyway is, by definition, tyrannical. As I said before, you have irrational fears about guns and gun ownership. You do not understand the values of it and how it correlates to the preservation of life and liberty.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:20:15 GMT -5
Right. Unless you are a threat to society (in which case you should be in prison...), then you should be able to own a gun. Does it say that in the Constitution? Or does it just say everyone has a right to bear arms? Violent criminals? No. I think they should be in jail until we have deemed them fit to re-enter society as normal people. So....It'd be fine to give someone with a violent criminal past a gun just because a piece of paper says it's okay? Sure. Saying someone has a "mental illness" and immediately proclaiming them as unable to operate a firearm is completely unfair. If someone is so insane that they can't be in society, then again, I would suggest them to be in a mental hospital. I would hope that whoever is taking care of a mentally ill person would have the decency to keep them away from things that could harm them or others. It should be on a case by case basis. Say if a person is so mentally disabled that they can barely comprehend what a gun is, they should not own one. That is for the safety of themselves and the people around them. It's just common sense. I bet that the majority of people here who own a firearm, also owned one when they were a child. Like anything, guns are a responsibility. The children need to be taught that. I would venture to say that literally MILLIONS of children own guns or have direct access to their parents' firearms...and how many mass shootings have we had by children in our history? I'll take those odds. That is completely irresponsible. Minors should not have access to guns. It's easy to "educate" a child on guns, it doesn't mean they will act responsibly. Would you let a small child cross the road by themselves? No, even if you had taught them the dangers of it. Just in the past few weeks, I've read two stories about children accidentally being shot and killed by other children because of irresponsibly using guns. Not everything has to be about "mass shootings". It's called taking care of other people. Making sure they're not putting THEMSELVES in serious danger. Oh and you'll take those odds? You'll take the odds a child won't shoot themselves or others when given a gun, but not that the US government will become corrupt and try to take away everyone's guns? LOL. You need to get your priorities straight, bud. Step into the real world for a moment. So it doesn't provide for people to be able to defend themselves? Sounds like the rest of it is pretty [image] ing irrelevant then, if it can't be defended. There are other ways to defend your country other than every wackjob on a street corner owning a gun. How do you think other countries defend themselves? How the [image] is it "irrational" when it has HAPPENED BEFORE?! And we're not talking like hundreds of years ago. We're talking about a time that PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE TODAY lived through... When has it ever happened in the US? Please tell me. Of all the unbelievably ignorant things that have been said in this thread and others, this one takes the cake. Congratulations, sir, you are completely ignorant to reality. How many times have the US government irresponsibly used guns against their own people? Oh and I'll take my reality checks from people who don't believe in conspiracy theories about the government being out to get them, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 17:22:38 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you Kliq, but guns have been regulated in the States since the US has been around and there's nothing at all wrong with it legally. Like I said before, there are some irrational laws proposed based on pure fear. Those are dumb. Reasonable regulations aren't. Restricting guns by age makes sense. Requiring background checks just makes sense. If it makes sense, then amend the Constitution so it doesn't contradict your laws. Until then, it's unconstitutional whether you like it or not. The Constitution gives the right to Freedom of Speech. There are laws against libel and slander though. Those laws infringe on my right to Freedom of Speech, but it's not an unreasonable infringement. I can't just go around town telling people that you're a goat er and I can't protest outside your business telling everyone who comes in that you're a goat er (unless you really are a goat er of course). There is room for reasonable regulations without infringing. Same thing here. Amend the Constitution. Slander and libel laws, albeit not anywhere near as dangerous as gun laws, are both in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:24:41 GMT -5
Creepy Curtis, if your argument against the Constitution is that it's just a piece of paper then what the hell is the UN document you hold near and dear?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 17:24:42 GMT -5
Excuse me for not wanting to "take a chance" that the US government has suddenly decided not to be a bunch of cowardly pieces of crap. I'm just waiting for the day when you start mailing anthrax to politicians. That won't happen because I'm not a violent person. I do get mad, I do get angry, but I would never harm anyone unless it is in self defense. Part of adhering to my belief that violence is immoral is that, of course, I do not commit violent acts.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 17:25:30 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you Kliq, but guns have been regulated in the States since the US has been around and there's nothing at all wrong with it legally. Like I said before, there are some irrational laws proposed based on pure fear. Those are dumb. Reasonable regulations aren't. Restricting guns by age makes sense. Requiring background checks just makes sense. If it makes sense, then amend the Constitution so it doesn't contradict your laws. Until then, it's unconstitutional whether you like it or not. The Constitution gives the right to Freedom of Speech. There are laws against libel and slander though. Those laws infringe on my right to Freedom of Speech, but it's not an unreasonable infringement. I can't just go around town telling people that you're a goat er and I can't protest outside your business telling everyone who comes in that you're a goat er (unless you really are a goat er of course). There is room for reasonable regulations without infringing. Same thing here. Amend the Constitution. Slander and libel laws, albeit not anywhere near as dangerous as gun laws, are both in direct contradiction to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagrees with you on both of these points. We can discuss what regulations are reasonable and what ones aren't, but the High Court has upheld both regulating speech and firearms.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:26:11 GMT -5
So if I was about to shoot someone, and a police officer was nearby, they shouldn't stop me because that would be telling me what to do? They should wait until I've actually committed the crime, then arrest me? No, I don't want the police to have guns. Policemen don't carry guns in the UK. I want there to be a supply of guns for an emergency break glass scenario, and that's about it. I don't know what having the police save you from the government has to do with guns. Did I say that? No. If you were about to shoot someone, they'd be protecting whoever you were about to shoot. So if the police don't have guns then how would your scenario of a police officer being near you, a person about to shoot someone, play out? Because if the people are not allowed to have guns then who would protect the people in case the government does decide to attack its people? It'd have to be the police. If the police don't protect the unarmed people then we're ed. But telling me not to shoot someone is telling me what to do, correct? What gives them that right? Again, you're line of thinking makes no sense. Laws in themselves are telling people what to do. If we follow your train of thought, why should anyone in the world tell me what to do? As for what a police officer would do in my scenario without a gun, they'd call for police officers who do have guns. Guns are illegal so the probability of someone trying to shoot me is very very unlikely anyway. And who would protect the people if radioactive monkeys fell from the sky?!?! Again, it's not going to happen. That is just not the way modern civilisation works in countries like the United States. The US and Libya are not the same. They're just not.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:26:32 GMT -5
If it makes sense, then amend the Constitution so it doesn't contradict your laws. Until then, it's unconstitutional whether you like it or not. Same thing here. Amend the Constitution. Slander and libel laws, albeit not anywhere near as dangerous as gun laws, are both in direct contradiction to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagrees with you on both of these points. We can discuss what regulations are reasonable and what ones aren't, but the High Court has upheld both regulating speech and firearms. The Supreme Court has never, not even once, made a bad ruling.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:30:09 GMT -5
And gun owners have completely irrational fears of the government taking their guns so they are defenseless if the government ever decides to turn into a dictatorship. Welcome to the world. Part of what what preserves our rights as citizens in the US is our freedom of gun ownership. Our country was founded on that principal. To take that right away or to diminish our inalienable rights in anyway is, by definition, tyrannical. As I said before, you have irrational fears about guns and gun ownership. You do not understand the values of it and how it correlates to the preservation of life and liberty. aka some bland rhetoric about how America loves guns and all the founding fathers would want you to have guns blah blah blah At the end of the day, the Constitution is a piece of paper. It means nothing. And no, I don't have irrational fears of guns and gun ownership. I was making a point. You don't know me, don't try to tell me what I think and feel. And I do "understand the values of it and how it correlates to the preservation of life and liberty". I live in the UK, we don't have guns and everything is just fine thank you very much
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:31:03 GMT -5
Creepy Curtis, if your argument against the Constitution is that it's just a piece of paper then what the hell is the UN document you hold near and dear? A piece of paper. But at least it has some relevance in the modern day and age, and was agreed upon by many countries instead of just one.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 17:31:38 GMT -5
The Supreme Court disagrees with you on both of these points. We can discuss what regulations are reasonable and what ones aren't, but the High Court has upheld both regulating speech and firearms. The Supreme Court has never, not even once, made a bad ruling. The Supreme Court has ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment. You disagree with a Supreme Court decision go get it reversed. It's the law of the land and it's also a decision the vast majority of people are going to agree with.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:36:37 GMT -5
Did I say that? No. If you were about to shoot someone, they'd be protecting whoever you were about to shoot. So if the police don't have guns then how would your scenario of a police officer being near you, a person about to shoot someone, play out? Because if the people are not allowed to have guns then who would protect the people in case the government does decide to attack its people? It'd have to be the police. If the police don't protect the unarmed people then we're ed. But telling me not to shoot someone is telling me what to do, correct? What gives them that right? Again, you're line of thinking makes no sense. Laws in themselves are telling people what to do. If we follow your train of thought, why should anyone in the world tell me what to do? As for what a police officer would do in my scenario without a gun, they'd call for police officers who do have guns. Guns are illegal so the probability of someone trying to shoot me is very very unlikely anyway. And who would protect the people if radioactive monkeys fell from the sky?!?! Again, it's not going to happen. That is just not the way modern civilisation works in countries like the United States. The US and Libya are not the same. They're just not. Most laws are terrible and shouldn't be followed. No victim, no crime. The police should not be telling you what to do in that case. If you are doing something where no one else will get hurt then that's on you. It shouldn't be the police's job to tell you what to do. Why should someone in Russia be able to tell someone in America what to do? Why should someone in America be able to tell someone in Nigeria what to do? So if a guy was about to shoot someone, you'd wait for the police with guns to arrive to do something about it? In the time it took for the officers with guns to get there, they've already shot and killed the person they were aiming at. Way to go, the police didn't stop it. You're right, no place without guns has gun crime. Jamaica has strict gun laws and you must pay $6,000 a year to keep your gun and yet over 1000 people are killed a year by guns. The monkey problem would be on the people to protect themselves. Just like it would be on the people to protect themselves from a terrible government. Kent State, Waco and Ruby Ridge. Abdul Rahman Al-Awlaki and his father were killed by the government. No charges, nothing. Just murdered. The government has killed its own citizens before and they will again.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:37:57 GMT -5
Creepy Curtis, if your argument against the Constitution is that it's just a piece of paper then what the hell is the UN document you hold near and dear? A piece of paper. But at least it has some relevance in the modern day and age, and was agreed upon by many countries instead of just one. The US Constitution only applies to the US. So your logic of many countries agreeing to the UN declaration makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:39:15 GMT -5
But telling me not to shoot someone is telling me what to do, correct? What gives them that right? Again, you're line of thinking makes no sense. Laws in themselves are telling people what to do. If we follow your train of thought, why should anyone in the world tell me what to do? As for what a police officer would do in my scenario without a gun, they'd call for police officers who do have guns. Guns are illegal so the probability of someone trying to shoot me is very very unlikely anyway. And who would protect the people if radioactive monkeys fell from the sky?!?! Again, it's not going to happen. That is just not the way modern civilisation works in countries like the United States. The US and Libya are not the same. They're just not. Most laws are terrible and shouldn't be followed. Stopped reading there.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:41:09 GMT -5
The Supreme Court has never, not even once, made a bad ruling. The Supreme Court has ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment. You disagree with a Supreme Court decision go get it reversed. It's the law of the land and it's also a decision the vast majority of people are going to agree with. The Supreme Court also at one time said black people weren't citizens. The Supreme Court is not always right. Just because the majority agree on something doesn't make it right.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:42:14 GMT -5
Most laws are terrible and shouldn't be followed. Stopped reading there. If there is no victim, what is the problem? Why should there be laws that punish people for things where no one was hurt?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:44:59 GMT -5
If there is no victim, what is the problem? Why should there be laws that punish people for things where no one was hurt? Which victimless crimes are these?
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 17:46:25 GMT -5
If there is no victim, what is the problem? Why should there be laws that punish people for things where no one was hurt? So in your opinion the police should allow people to sit around in their houses all day and smoke crack and look at child pornography? There is no victim to their specific crime because those pictures already exist, individuals are just merely looking at them. And nobody else is being affected by individuals smoking crack, so there are no victims all around, right?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:47:39 GMT -5
If there is no victim, what is the problem? Why should there be laws that punish people for things where no one was hurt? Which victimless crimes are these? Speeding, jaywalking, using and selling drugs to name a few.
|
|