For or against?

[Bazinga!]

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?  Do you think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own a firearm or do you think they should be banned? 

 

This is a hot topic where I live so I just wanted to know your opinions. 

[icannotdomyjob]

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.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=220

If the Bill of Rights signed by a congress cannot be followed by representing individuals of their respective states, then neither should the people, since the constitution can be considered null.


So if I lived in the US, and had to abide by its constitution, I would uphold its rights and ordinances. But if the 3rd, 4th, 6th, etc.  amendment can be treated like toilet paper, then the representatives should not expect the people to uphold a null constitution.



If we are going to talk about the general aspect of holding and maintaining firearms, we should talk about why nails, teeth, and legs exist. They are just as efficient as any weapon, if not more responsive to the individuals handling them.


The real question that US citizens should be asking is: "Should my government have the right to quarter my home with my electronic devices, and have the right to kill anyone, detain them indefinitely without trial or bond, in the name of preventing 'terror'?"


Humans can be weapons. They can also wear prosthetics, as far as clubs, knifes, and cellphones. But at the end of the day, individuals are responsible of their own actions, if they wear prosthetics or not. This includes firearms.



In the terms of Megaman, Rock had to upgrade with the mega buster to save society from rampant robots. In Mighty No. 9, we will not know who to blame, but what we've caused. But again, both choose to pick up advance weapons in their hope to stop more incessant damage.


Also, bears and burglars are no fun when they come uninvited into your home, esp. if they are threatening lives.

[Lienx]

This is such a crazy thing right now.. but I mean, honestly.. I think you should be allowed to own a weapon as long as you have no criminal or medical history. Here lately a lot of the shootings have been because of people with serious medical issues. Other than that, people who have bad criminal pasts are constantly causing problems with weapons. I think that if you are a law abiding citizen you should be allowed to have a weapon or weapons. There are many people who use guns etc in order to put food on the table. There are a huge amount of people who own guns and yet you don't see people getting murdered 20-30 times a day per town.

[icannotdomyjob]

@Lienx

But that is the thing, even if you don't have a weapon, those criminals and medically needy individuals can still cause those heinous crimes. The problem is not the weapon, but who uses them, and how.

 

You and I see that even a weapon is used to bring food to the table, esp. if you live in the wilderness. But the question that US citizens are being reinforced to re-ask is: "Should weapons be used for self defense?" The answer is even more blatant than having nails in the back of your hands and toes, canine teeth, and powerful upright legs. If they can't see the obvious propaganda techniques of division through ideas, they will not be able to hold their own fort when their "invasion" begins.

[alakazam]

I am against the ownership of guns. I don't live in America, so I don't really know the amendments and stuff like that, but it seems that there are too many mentally-unstable people there and shootings take place all the time. Here in my country we don't really have shootings despite gun ownership being legal.

[56008]

This is a touchy subject and difficult one to "resolve".

 

Personally, I don't like the idea of having guns at the home.  I understand the rationale of protecting ones home from intruders, but it?s been said that having one at home does more harm than good and I think there?s some truth behind that.

 

As for the argument that ?it?s not the weapon but the person that kills people??, I just can?t really agree to that.  Sure you can use anything as weapon, but a gun is one of the few things out there that can take a life so easily.  And why shouldn?t it, that?s what it?s designed to do!  But that?s exactly why I hate the idea of having said items at home and easily accessible to anyone with a n itchy trigger finger.  Would I fear a 5 year old with a baseball bat?  No.  But with a gun?  I?d probably pee my pants!

[icannotdomyjob]

Personally, I don't like the idea of having guns at the home.

I keep my weapons next to me. Sleep next to them too. Since I know my body is my home, I keep them @home 24/7.

having one at home does more harm than good and I think there?s some truth behind that.

So does ANYTHING in a home. Did you know that household items are one of the highest methods you can get killed by? Usually it is from people not being cautious, and practicing a little of home safety.

Sure you can use anything as weapon, but a gun is one of the few things out there that can take a life so easily.  And why shouldn?t it, that?s what it?s designed to do!

So do stones. Stoning people and animals is a common practice is rural areas. But you do not see those governments banning all rocks from their lands. Guns were made to shoot. Better guns have safeties. Best guns have empty magazines ready for reloading at a moment's notice.
Again, it's the person firing and aiming at fault.

But that?s exactly why I hate the idea of having said items at home and easily accessible to anyone with a n itchy trigger finger.

Have those people ever heard of holsters or vaults? 'Cause itchy trigger fingers aint gonna get past my latched holster, or my keycombo'd vault (of which I change the combo weekly).
But key point there

easily accessible

People with permission to use weapons should restrict access to those allowed, and care for their own weapons. Like puppies or children.

Would I fear a 5 year old with a baseball bat?  No.  But with a gun?  I?d probably pee my pants!

Depends the situation. If the child does not display threatening behaviors, I'd still be vigilant for the safety of everyone.
With a gun, I check the safety, the magazine, and the aim. If again I see none of the above, I'd still be vigilant. In the off case ALL of them are on, a swift side step sweep dismantle will be executed without fail. Child will either be too startled at the movement, or respond with a laugh or cry. It really depends the case.
Recall, even if the child shoots, the parents, or the weapon owner is responsible. Unlike pet laws: If the dog kills someone, the owner takes responsibility. Actions taken, depends on the state. Most go with euthanasia, and settlements paid.
On gun, the user is responsible: Gun gets stolen, someone else shoots and commits crime, person responsible is the perp. Usually never the owner, unless evidence was lacking otherwise (no DNA, prints, fibers, fluids, etc.).

[Jagos]

I've been a big fan of overhauling the entire Constitution.  

 

Look, no one else has one and there's plenty of reasons why.  You have the 3/5 clause which continues to instill slavery in prisons while the 2nd Amendment is utilized for government militias.  That's a dangerous combination right now because of people like Chris Dorner, the UCSB shooter, and the Bundy group in Nevada.

 

Someone gets a gun, they feel it's a right to have and there's no telling the amount of craziness these people get into.  Personally, I don't own a gun and I never will.  I don't need it in my daily life and people that do usually are the most paranoid and fearful of others.  Last I checked, I'm more likely to die in a car accident than I ever will in a terrorist attack.  So what do I need it for?

 

The Constitution has its limits and it's time to face the questions within the thing.  You can't do that by just picking out an Amendment and debating it.  Look at the entire thing, let's find better solutions and instill a democracy in this republic so that we all have a voice.

[icannotdomyjob]

@Jagos
http://www.wolf-pac.com/


The government needs fixing. The Constitution needs editing, and most laws need abolishment: NDAA, Patriot Act, Espionage Act of 1917


And do you recall the most criminal organization in world, to this day?

Spoiler

A trip to a search engine yields the answer.

people that do usually are the most paranoid and fearful of others

Like criminals and medical needy people? What about enforcers of the law, or people that live in the wilderness, or go out sporting? A "weapon" is only an extension of your body. My nails can be considered a weapon if I attack someone with them.

Last I checked, I'm more likely to die in a car accident than I ever will in a terrorist attack.

And you are eight times more likely to be attacked by the police than a terrorist.

So what do I need it for?

If you have no need for, then you don't. Others do, and most times it is not to commit crimes.

[Jagos]

@Jagos
http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Like criminals and medical needy people? What about enforcers of the law, or people that live in the wilderness, or go out sporting? A "weapon" is only an extension of your body. My nails can be considered a weapon if I attack someone with them.

Don't like the premise here because law enforcement is the most likely to use a gun, not a person imprisoned for drugs or any other social ill...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/15411225716/number-officers-killed-line-duty-drops-to-50-year-low-while-number-citizens-killed-cops-remains-unchanged.shtml

And this doesn't even get into how the social vices you're aiming to prevent aren't done with a gun.  Now if you're a hunter or collector, there could be laws on this, but we're talking urban areas and a lot of killings in a short amount of time.  History being a teacher, we did the exact same thing during the Depression of '29 until FDR's policies were pushed until '46.

My conclusion that austerity and poverty kill far more than a gun.  Those just help people find a path.  Hence, the abnormal suicide rate in the US.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

And you are eight times more likely to be attacked by the police than a terrorist.

Ok... But why should I want to kill a government official?  I'd rather take control of my government, not try to kill people.  If a government is out of control of the public, the police are going to enforce the policies of those that run it.  That's inherently undemocratic when it's run by the elites of any society instead of the community it's supposed to serve.

If you have no need for, then you don't. Others do, and most times it is not to commit crimes.

I don't think it's accurate to consider the US a war zone.  That's asking for even more trouble.  Honestly, a gun causes more problems than it solves.  Now you're emotionally invested in a killing tool and for what?  Why would I want to murder my fellow man?  In the end, I've yet to see a good answer to this.  The punishment of death doesn't fit most crimes.

[icannotdomyjob]

Don't like the premise here because law enforcement is the most likely to use a gun, not a person imprisoned for drugs or any other social ill...

Then you misunderstood the premise:

people that do usually are the most paranoid and fearful of others

Which is plainly wrong. The people that have weapons of any kind, have it for their own reasons. Guns are a small part of that huge umbrella. And like I said before:

Guns were made to shoot. Better guns have safeties. Best guns have empty magazines ready for reloading at a moment's notice.

Again, it's the person firing and aiming at fault.

I was hoping you could see your own contradiction, but I guess reviewing of posts are a hard thing to do.


 
 

the social vices you're aiming to prevent aren't done with a gun.

Sorry, all I am saying is:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The second amendment does not do either of these, but the right to secure yourself in a militia, when well regulated, under a free state. Murder is not one of it's protections.


IoW: You are yelping the wrong tree!


 
 

but we're talking urban areas and a lot of killings in a short amount of time.

Then laws in those areas need to be enforced efficiently. The Bill of Rights should not affect a State's jurisdiction of what is considered murder, and how to manage it. Worse yet, if arms should even be banned!


 
 

History being a teacher, we did the exact same thing during the Depression of '29 until FDR's policies were pushed until '46.

You mean, They did, with their "Upper Class" vs Everyone else mentality, which history has been clear about it's results, since ever. And that was actually finalized since Woodrow Wilson's signatures in the Jekyll Island meeting that monopolized the control of human interaction to the few, bringing about it's consequences.

Spoiler

If you have no idea what that is, then the US has really no hope as a country.

 
 

My conclusion that austerity and poverty kill far more than a gun.

Oh, certainly, desperation usually gives birth to risky behavior. So does greed.


 
 

Those just help people find a path. Hence, the abnormal suicide rate in the US. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

HA, and Drugs, cults, prostitution, slavery, and many other things people cope with a limiting environment. Gun misuse is a miniscule portion of the coping mechanisms that the depressing state of the populous is under.

Spoiler

Believe it or not, if you remove the upper 1% from your country; The US, by definition, would be a third world country. It surprises me to this day: why people still choose to live there.

 
 

Ok... But why should I want to kill a government official?  I'd rather take control of my government, not try to kill people.

If anyone, regardless of position or status was threatening your life, what do you do?


If that very government only plans to use you for their paradise, then expend you like the "trash you are," are you being "protected" and "represented"?


Yes, killing in not best option for the above questions. But weapons does neither of them. It's the people that do the killing that need fixing.


IoW: A gun does nothing, than just sit there. People that misuse use them to commit crimes, whether an official in government, a citizen, or something else, need to pay for their crimes justly. The second amendment only protects your right to secure yourself with an arm.


 
 

If a government is out of control of the public

If we are talking about the US, which was designed as a republic, and now it is a plutocracy, then the government changed, and is out of the control of the [re]public.

[icannotdomyjob]

the police are going to enforce the policies of those that run it.

Sure, that's how executioners of the law behave, if they did it properly. There goes another personality strike!
 
 

That's inherently undemocratic when it's run by the elites of any society instead of the community it's supposed to serve.

Otherwise known as a Plutocracy. Those sure are old. I wonder why people keep letting these resurge.

Spoiler

And it's worse than death, or so I've been told.

 

I don't think it's accurate to consider the US a war zone.  That's asking for even more trouble.

Explain:

NDAA, Patriot Act, Espionage Act of 1917

And the drones flying over US air field, like the multiple other "conflict" areas. Worse yet, did you miss this training program?

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...ms+confiscation

If you are not being represented, you are not even a member of it's citizenship.
 

Honestly, a gun causes more problems than it solves.

Drilling oil, dumping banned chemicals, sending people other parts of the world to kill other people, and many other things cause problems, not the articles themselves. Guns solved the problem on how to launch projectiles. Their usage is limited to their handlers. I read scientist still use them for experiments, both ethical and legal. And you do not read them committing crimes.
 

Now you're emotionally invested in a killing tool and for what?

To quote Jean Renoir:

The truly terrible thing is that everybody has their reasons.

How incredibly shocking that is! And most are not criminal! I will not post about mines.
 

Why would I want to murder my fellow man?

Same as above. Also, what do you do with obsessed serial killers? Jail them in hope they never escape with grueling community service?
 

I've yet to see a good answer to this. The punishment of death doesn't fit most crimes.

Then you are both naive and young. Death is what humans commit to animals and plants alike, for nourishment and space. When threaten, all animals protect themselves. And if the threats are constant, a way to end them must exist. Men can be just as predatory as a tiger looking for nourishment and space. It's why territories exist, to define the line of safety from invasion.
 
If you cannot protect yourself from danger, you no good to yourself and those around you. In a proper democratic society, everyone defends each others' rights, not ignoring the ordinances set democratically. If murder is the answer a government has chosen to ignore it's duties, then it's citizens must have a way to balance their free state. If not, they are not free.
 
IOW: The second amendment gives you the right to protect yourself! Guns are one tool of many that have many uses for them. And your government is trying to make you fight each other over things discussed centuries ago, while they rob you blank of all you are worth!
 
Isn't that awe some?
 
 
PS
Did you figure out who the world's most criminal organization is? Maybe where it's located?

[Jagos]

Let's see..

 

1)  Sorry, not interested in an epeen fight

 

2) I merely called for a review of the Constitution since it's not really been updated and it's not for the type of society we have now

 

3)  Don't follow the logic that urban areas should have unbanned guns.  They shouldn't be war zones.

 

4) You might want to look at people like Andrew Mellon and Richard Nixon in '46 onwards

 

5)  Don't see how greed follows.  People struggling for resources are greedy to fight for them?  Odd logic...

 

6)  How you put prostitution and slavery in the same vein, I've no idea...

 

7) I've yet to see why killing is the answer to problems particularly through the threat of force and a power struggle...

 

Pick up Richard Dahl's "How Democratic is the Constitution" which is my main resource for my stance on how to change our government in a better and less plutocratic manner.

 

9)  But in #7 you talk about how to kill people who threaten you...  Very odd...

 

10)  Well, Capitalism is a problem, but that's another can of worms for another time...

 

11)  Agreed, but I doubt just gun ownership will help here.  Like you said, it's one minuscule part of the puzzle.

 

12) Okay, but I don't want rocket launchers in the hands of 12 year olds.

 

13) *shrug* Seeing the fact that a LOT of the problems come from guns, that still pushes my argument that the guns are a means to an end for suicides and death.

 

14) You've confused my position.  I want to help prevent the killers by having society able to allocate resources which prevent as many occurrences.  It's far easier to have other options before someone picks up a gun and goes on a killing spree.

 

15)  Again, that's confusing my position.  Sure, death is a fact of life, but if I can prevent a murder with different policies, options, and allocations of resources, I would.  But to say that it's all human nature is ignoring empathy, which is also human nature.  Reasoning out how to prevent such issues is what I want to do.  It's harder when it has already occurred.

[icannotdomyjob]

1) Sorry, not interested in an epeen fight

Good, guns do not promote them. Emotionally unstable and insane people do. They are the ones needing help, not guns.

2) I merely called for a review of the Constitution since it's not really been updated and it's not for the type of society we have now

Conceded. But the main issues is the illegal and unconstitutional laws, and the crimes being committed by both enforcers of the law, citizens, and robots in the skys; not guns or any weapons alike. I am still waiting on the Iron Man suit since '78.

3) Don't follow the logic that urban areas should have unbanned guns. They shouldn't be war zones.

Every area is different, and should be treated differently. The Constitution affects the whole country, not just the state. And every state has their own cities, which have to be handled differently than others. It's why the US was founded a republic, so that states and local governments can choose their own method to govern themselves for what they need. Gun banishment will not stop criminals and insane people from committing crimes. And in some areas they are necessary to protect their free state, even from bears. The right to defend yourself is a must in any society. Those that forbid it, wish for you to be defenseless for their own abuse. Laws of nature exhibit this on a constant basis. If people don't see that, they are blind with their own nature, wanting only to be used.

4) You might want to look at people like Andrew Mellon and Richard Nixon in '46 onwards

Oh I have, even further and back. It all started with men got greedy with its own fellow. That's nature too. How do you fix that?

Spoiler

Compromising. The core of democracy; not a plutocracy. Did you know they were well payed to by their colleagues in the Bohemian grove? They say greed is the root of all evil for a reason.

5) Don't see how greed follows. People struggling for resources are greedy to fight for them? Odd logic...

Answered above. Getting what you need is one thing. Trying to control your fellow man and use them for beyond your need is something else.


Just to be sure you are not lost: guns, and the Second Amendment have nothing to with these. But why are you being bashed with these news by corporate media, following only what they were mandated to say.

6) How you put prostitution and slavery in the same vein, I've no idea...

Simple, beta mammals rather give up rights for their safety. Prostitution is selling the use of your body for monetary exchange, the most precious resource a man has (their own body if I have to spell this out). Slavery exist because people have sold their rights to others to live. The most common form today is indentured servitude. It's usually prevalent in societies that have a huge discrepancy in wealth and resources. Plutocracies being the number one cause of this.


What logic am I striving? People cope with depression in a MAGNITUDE of ways. Gun related misuse is one of them. Slavery is another. Drugs is too. Suicides and murder happen for multiple reasons too, including accidental.


Reminder: Guns don't balance money or laws. People do. And the second amendment is there to protect yourself from harm.

7) I've yet to see why killing is the answer to problems particularly through the threat of force and a power struggle...

Compromise is the best answer. But predators don't compromise with their prey. What should prey do in danger?


If you want technical answers, Stun-guns are nice. Tranquilizers are awesome. Sound blasters are ok when you have distance. Microwave guns, with even more distance. But in the heat of the moment, you do anything to protect yourself, right?


By the way, the answers above are still firearms!

8 ) Pick up Richard Dahl's "How Democratic is the Constitution" which is my main resource for my stance on how to change our government in a better and less plutocratic manner.

I've also picked the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. I also know that a republic is not a true democracy. But what forms the basis of ANY GOVERNMENT is it's constitution, even in dictatorships. The book is a 101 in politics, and describing the flaws all current governments have, esp. in republics, like the US. And that is if you apply all the points mentioned to all forms of governments, you would see that, not just the US, which was it's target.


And again, I know the US government needs LOTS of fixing. The right to bear arms in a well regulated militia does not affect anything in those regards. You can even add as a right, to wear a dress or drink milk, and it still will not affect the political landscape that is the US. It's why I said:

IoW: You are yelping the wrong tree!

9) But in #7 you talk about how to kill people who threaten you... Very odd...

WHAT?!? In this entire conversation I never once talked on the proper method to kill, and why should you. I only implied what anyone would do in danger. Do you really do nothing when threatened?

10) Well, Capitalism is a problem, but that's another can of worms for another time...

Indeed. And being desperate and greedy in a disparaged society, only yields more of those risky behaviors. Guns being your hot button concern.

[icannotdomyjob]

11) Agreed, but I doubt just gun ownership will help here. Like you said, it's one minuscule part of the puzzle.

I say, a part that does not even matter. The puzzle is who controls the flow of money. The US doesn't have a capitalistic society since 1913. It ended the moment the Federal Reserve Act was enacted. You have a monopoly, by a corporation not even in the governance of the US.


IoW: Guns, like any commodity, do NOTHING. PEOPLE DO. And the right to bear a weapon, when well regulated, does not affect the political landscape of any government, as the right to bear dresses and drink milk. The only thing that the second amendment yields, is the right to protect yourself to keep your FREEDOM, as a state!


It was meant for you to be able to protect yourself from invasion and colonization. To keep your independence. Not bar it by abolishing tools meant for protection. For a good reason they are called ARMS, extensions of your own. It literary comes from the word armament, tools to PROTECT yourself. NOT murder other people without cause, murder with heinous cause, disobey law, or disregard the constitution.


Your problem is not inanimate objects meant to protect you, but the people causing these crimes!

How do you deal with them? With a proper system of rehabilitation or disablement being excellently executed.

The right to bear arms affects NEITHER of those things.


 

12) Okay, but I don't want rocket launchers in the hands of 12 year olds.

If they are for a school project that is properly handled, I do not mind. If you mean weaponized rocket launchers, then I do not mind banning them. Plus, Nerf guns are a great toy for children to learn how to shoot anyways. The problem is who handles what, not their existence. Distribution of firearms, legal and illegal, is something that needs to be well regulated.


 

13) *shrug* Seeing the fact that a LOT of the problems come from guns, that still pushes my argument that the guns are a means to an end for suicides and death.

And cars, knives, scissors, lethal chemicals, batteries, flammables, etc.. Those things kill more than guns. And you don't see people talking about banishing them. You do see people admonish their proper use, and safety measures. Guns are applied those same standards. If people don't follow them, that is their responsibility. Also, drugs misuse kill many times higher than guns, including prescribed ones.


 

14) You've confused my position. I want to help prevent the killers by having society able to allocate resources which prevent as many occurrences. It's far easier to have other options before someone picks up a gun and goes on a killing spree.

Oh trust me, I did not confuse your position, whatsoever. Abolishing arms will not prevent any them. Good policy and proper enforcement of those policies does. It's even easier to make an homemade bumbu (spelling intentional) with household items, and still go in a killing spree; more effective too. The problem is people not managing their responsibilities and commitments. How do you do that? (question need not answer, since it is beyond rhetorical)


 

15) Again, that's confusing my position. Sure, death is a fact of life, but if I can prevent a murder with different policies, options, and allocations of resources, I would. But to say that it's all human nature is ignoring empathy, which is also human nature. Reasoning out how to prevent such issues is what I want to do. It's harder when it has already occurred.

1) I didn't confuse your position. 2) You can do something about such issues, and I gave you one resource of many. Applying for law enforcement and political positions is the best choice. 3) Humans are empathetic alright, most mammals are. But most of them know how to defend themselves with that they have. So please understand those that have bigger claws than others, shooting glands, and toxic organs. Everything has a reason. The claws, glands, and organs are there to protect yourself; not go into killing sprees.


The best way to prevent death, is to have a way to defend yourself.



PS

I am sorry I had to style this post like a parent, but somehow critical thinking is lost in many. I hope you are not one, and have the ability to review these posts, and follow simple logic.


Now if you excuse me, I have urgent things to attend to than repeating this same ancient debate.