Gun Control

[foursideking]

Just a quick hypothetical for furah:

 

Let's say 100 people go on a killing spree, killing 5 people each. When asked why they did it, they then reply 'it was self defence for each kill'. Should we let them keep their guns?

 

Iirc, earlier in this post we were discussing how the concept of 'fear of the unknown' is what pushes people to own guns. Unfortunately, fear is rarely an excuse for being allowed to weild/carry something that can kill everywhere you go. If you're afraid of getting robbed in your current house, then move.

[TrueBeaver]

The arguement I see is: gun owners are afraid that they'll be robbed, so they should be able to own/carry a gun on them.

 

Using this logic, it is safe to assume that I should be able to weild excalibur while having a porkchop in my pocket, to protect against jewish dragons.

Absolutely. Although, Jewish dragons aren't (I hope?) real while criminals are very real so it's a pretty stretched metaphor.

 

Just a quick hypothetical for the gun control advocates, if people started killing 20+ people in one attack using nothing but a kitchen knife, would you also advocate knife control in the same sense as you're advocating gun control?

No, because of two reasons:

 

Firstly - knives are an important tool for non violent means. I already advocate the control of knives used specifically in human/human combat such as switchblades.

 

Secondly - the chance of someone being able to kill 20+ people with a knife is minuscule compared to using a firearm.

What about a hatchet? Where does that rank on the "Ability to Massacre" index? Should we set up a UN Committee to assign a value to all tools on how easily they could be used to massacre and ban all weapons above an arbitrary point on that index?

Regardless, if more people had concealed carry licenses that would lower the ability for someone to use a firearm to massacre people. Criminals will obtain weapons regardless of whether the government says they can (see: gun crime rate in Britain increases 2 years after gun ban) so the best defense is a well-armed and competent public.

 

Just a quick hypothetical for furah:

 

Let's say 100 people go on a killing spree, killing 5 people each. When asked why they did it, they then reply 'it was self defence for each kill'. Should we let them keep their guns?

 

Iirc, earlier in this post we were discussing how the concept of 'fear of the unknown' is what pushes people to own guns. Unfortunately, fear is rarely an excuse for being allowed to weild/carry something that can kill everywhere you go. If you're afraid of getting robbed in your current house, then move.

No, because they're murderers and felons aren't allowed to carry weapons. Assuming of course it wasn't self defense.

 

You make guns sound as if they just unholster and start slaying people as you're watching a movie or something. Hundreds of people walk around you each day with guns and their concealed carry license that you're not even aware of. For every one bullet used in an illegal manner literally trillions are fired in a safe manner. For every massacre there's a Pearl High, which I'm sure has been linked several times in this thread.

 

Don't get me wrong, I wish I lived in a world where I didn't need a gun, but life being as it is I would much rather be able to defend myself in the extremely rare chance something happened than fumble for a really heavy book or something.

 

"If you're afriad of getting robbed in your current house, then move." I seriously hope you don't think that's a good point to make.

[foursideking]

And for every gun out there, there are 50 non-lethal alternatives. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of 'self-defence'. I'm just against the idea of someone being able to use their 'self-defence tool' to kill someone/something, should that said person suddenly go phychoticly unstable.

[obfuscator]

What about a hatchet? Where does that rank on the "Ability to Massacre" index? Should we set up a UN Committee to assign a value to all tools on how easily they could be used to massacre and ban all weapons above an arbitrary point on that index?

Regardless, if more people had concealed carry licenses that would lower the ability for someone to use a firearm to massacre people. Criminals will obtain weapons regardless of whether the government says they can (see: gun crime rate in Britain increases 2 years after gun ban) so the best defense is a well-armed and competent public.

 

Well, actually, all tools have a legitimate purpose other than killing. Guns are not a tool in that manner, they were created solely for killing and injuring living things. As such, they are a weapon that is dangerous and I support their control.

 

For every statistic you can produce that shows that gun control does nothing, I can produce another that shows it's effective. It's a moot point.

 

I agree that if the public was all mature and educated enough to use guns properly, there would be no issue with no gun control. However, if the public was all mature and educated enough to use guns properly, there would be no need for guns at all.

[demby123]

If you're afraid of getting robbed in your current house, then move.

I live in a pretty rough area.

 

A $250 Remington 870?

or a house in the suburbs for 100-300k?

 

What's the practical alternative to a firearm?

[TrueBeaver]

And for every gun out there, there are 50 non-lethal alternatives. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of 'self-defence'. I'm just against the idea of someone being able to use their 'self-defence tool' to kill someone/something, should that said person suddenly go phychoticly unstable.

After a quick google search I'm unable to come up with the statistic, but a significant number of home defenses end without a shot being fired due to the sheer intimidation of a person with a firearm. Guns are not lethal all of the time, look at Gabby Giffords's miraculous recovery or the kid in Brazil who took 5 bullets through the chest like nothing happened. I agree with you, I don't like the idea of someone who is mentally unstable owning a firearm and certainly not a concealed carry license. I also skepticalhippo.jpg the idea that someone is walking down the street and suddenly is overcome with mental illness and kills random people. The issue should be beefing up background checks, not limiting the ability of mentally stable citizens with a squeaky clean record to own a weapon.

 

What about a hatchet? Where does that rank on the "Ability to Massacre" index? Should we set up a UN Committee to assign a value to all tools on how easily they could be used to massacre and ban all weapons above an arbitrary point on that index?

Regardless, if more people had concealed carry licenses that would lower the ability for someone to use a firearm to massacre people. Criminals will obtain weapons regardless of whether the government says they can (see: gun crime rate in Britain increases 2 years after gun ban) so the best defense is a well-armed and competent public.

 

Well, actually, all tools have a legitimate purpose other than killing. Guns are not a tool in that manner, they were created solely for killing and injuring living things. As such, they are a weapon that is dangerous and I support their control.

 

For every statistic you can produce that shows that gun control does nothing, I can produce another that shows it's effective. It's a moot point.

 

I agree that if the public was all mature and educated enough to use guns properly, there would be no issue with no gun control. However, if the public was all mature and educated enough to use guns properly, there would be no need for guns at all.

I have fired lots and lots of rounds with various guns in my life. The only time I ever killed or injured a living thing was when I shot a chipmunk with a pellet gun and it ran away. Believe it or not, some people enjoy shooting a gun at non-living targets.

 

I doubt that, but for the sake of argument I'll take it at face value. Let's say it is a moot point and there is no correlation at all between gun ownership levels and gun crime. What is the need for gun control then? Why not just beef up background checks and get rid of ridiculousness like the reporter in Michigan (I think) who obtained a concealed carry license on the internet without ever firing a gun?

 

The immortal words of James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. It's unfortunate that our world is as [bleep]ed as it is.

[Furah]

Well, actually, all tools have a legitimate purpose other than killing. Guns are not a tool in that manner, they were created solely for killing and injuring living things. As such, they are a weapon that is dangerous and I support their control.

 

For every statistic you can produce that shows that gun control does nothing, I can produce another that shows it's effective. It's a moot point.

Guns may have been made for killing, but it was killing with a reason behind it. I'd like to see you effectively cull thousands of animals with a knife.

 

Sure, you can post statistics, but mine are backed up with peer-reviewed sources.

 

 

Just a quick hypothetical for furah:

 

Let's say 100 people go on a killing spree, killing 5 people each. When asked why they did it, they then reply 'it was self defence for each kill'. Should we let them keep their guns?

 

Iirc, earlier in this post we were discussing how the concept of 'fear of the unknown' is what pushes people to own guns. Unfortunately, fear is rarely an excuse for being allowed to weild/carry something that can kill everywhere you go. If you're afraid of getting robbed in your current house, then move.

If they can prove it was in self defence, yes. However, 100 people all killing 5 people in self defence before the police could arrive is highly unlikely.

 

Sure, if you're willing to supply me with the cost of moving, buy my house and sell me a house. Oh, and supply me with the money to afford the elevated costs each week. You see, my current financial situation doesn't afford me such a luxury, however a $200 gun and $50 in ammo provides me a source of protection to which none else compare; a cheap, yet efficient one.

[Kriegsmier]

The arguement I see is: gun owners are afraid that they'll be robbed, so they should be able to own/carry a gun on them.

 

 

No. The main argument is its a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as Americans. Its written in the Constitution of the United States. A follow up argument to back up the second amendment rights is to be able to protect self and property.

[Dheginsea]

The arguement I see is: gun owners are afraid that they'll be robbed, so they should be able to own/carry a gun on them.

 

 

No. The main argument is its a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as Americans. Its written in the Constitution of the United States. A follow up argument to back up the second amendment rights is to be able to protect self and property.

 

The 2nd Amendment says (punctuation might differ from other copies): 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.

 

Note: these question are for anyone to answer they arn't just directed at Kriegsmier

 

Now please list to me all the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

 

And here are some other questions i have,

 

Do you think the constitution is always right, and that it applies to all situations even though the world we live in today is a world the writers of the constitution could never have imagined?

 

Do you think it is necessary for a civilian to own a gun?

 

Do you think it's necessary for a civilian to own a ak47 or other automatic/semi-automatic guns?

 

Do you think its necessary for a civilian to have armor piercing rounds?

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian reasonable?

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian unconstitutional?

 

Are there situations that should prevent a person from purchasing a gun?

 

If the right to bear arms is so needed and protected that all people should be able to have guns, do insane people also have that right or should it be denied?

 

Should a felon be able to purchase a gun and if so would you consider a law preventing one from doing so unconstitutional?

 

If other means of self-defense (i.e tasers) can be used as well as guns in a self-defense situation would you support heightening gun control laws in order to promote greater use of such measures?

 

These are some other questions on a more personal note.

 

Do you own a gun? (if not don't bother with the rest of these questions)

 

Do you shoot targets with that gun?

 

Do you shoot live targets with that gun? (nonhuman of course)

 

If you do shoot live targets do you take pleasure in it?

 

If you take pleasure in it then you are saying that you enjoy hurting/killing weaker things, true or false?

 

And if you do take please in hurting/killing weaker things is that something the constitution should protect?

[Furah]

Dheginsea, time and time again courts have come back with this; the second amendment is an individual right.

[Dheginsea]

Dheginsea, time and time again courts have come back with this; the second amendment is an individual right.

 

Yes, i understand that the courts say that the second amendment is an individual right, but those questions I was asking weren't about what the courts say but what you personally think. Also how far does that individual right to bear arms go? Free speech is an individual right but its not unlimited, for example you can't burn crosses or shout fire in a crowded theater. Anyway my questions still stand.

[Giordano]

Do you think the constitution is always right, and that it applies to all situations even though the world we live in today is a world the writers of the constitution could never have imagined?

It's a piece of paper that I could use as toilet paper; it's used for lawyers and not for any sort of practicality. Common sense states that guns are protection. I don't need a damn Constitution to justify my gun ownership; only to use it to some lawyer.

 

Do you think it is necessary for a civilian to own a gun? Necessary? No. Damn useful? Depends where you live. A wise choice regardless? Yes.

 

Do you think it's necessary for a civilian to own a ak47 or other automatic/semi-automatic guns? [same as above. An automatic weapon or a pea shooter doesn't change any facts.[/b]

 

Do you think its necessary for a civilian to have armor piercing rounds? Same answer as the two previous questions. You never know what in the hell might happen. Plus, if you're worrying about rampage shooting, students don't usually wear armor to class; a regular or armor piercing won't make much difference at that point.

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian reasonable? I can see armor piercing as reasonable, though unnecessary, automatic weapons just a flat no.

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian unconstitutional? Against common sense, yes. Lawyers can use the unconstitutional card.

 

Are there situations that should prevent a person from purchasing a gun? Proven mentally insane people. Criminals won't dare get a legal gun...to easy to trace back to them. Plus it's probably cheaper elsewhere.

 

If the right to bear arms is so needed and protected that all people should be able to have guns, do insane people also have that right or should it be denied?No. Common sense here, remember. Mental people can't function in normal society, much less in gun ownership. Leave it to lawyers to [bleep] up common sense with Constitutional rights for all. :roll:

 

Should a felon be able to purchase a gun and if so would you consider a law preventing one from doing so unconstitutional?

Again, criminals won't really use registered guns. Plus you don't know the nature of the crime they have committed. Each case is individual and cannot be answered as a whole.

 

If other means of self-defense (i.e tasers) can be used as well as guns in a self-defense situation would you support heightening gun control laws in order to promote greater use of such measures?

Nope. I don't want some scumbag, the Chinese army, or Mary [bleep]in' Poppins to get away from their injustice unharmed.

 

Do you own a gun? (if not don't bother with the rest of these questions)

I do not own one currently, but I plan to obtain one in a few years. So I'll just go along and answer the next questions, but in a "would I" scenario:

 

Do you shoot targets with that gun? Course, how do you plan to practice accuracy. Plus I bet it must be fun.

 

Do you shoot live targets with that gun? (nonhuman of course) Not really. I wouldn't hunt with it nor would I live in the mountains/wilderness where wild animals would be a problem.

 

If you do shoot live targets do you take pleasure in it? Non-human? No.

 

If you take pleasure in it then you are saying that you enjoy hurting/killing weaker things, true or false? I would enjoy shooting people who damn deserve it, sure. Them being weaker is arguable.

 

And if you do take please in hurting/killing weaker things is that something the constitution should protect? Piece of paper.

[Dheginsea]

Do you think the constitution is always right, and that it applies to all situations even though the world we live in today is a world the writers of the constitution could never have imagined?

It's a piece of paper that I could use as toilet paper; it's used for lawyers and not for any sort of practicality. Common sense states that guns are protection. I don't need a damn Constitution to justify my gun ownership; only to use it to some lawyer.

 

Do you think it is necessary for a civilian to own a gun? Necessary? No. Damn useful? Depends where you live. A wise choice regardless? Yes.

 

Do you think it's necessary for a civilian to own a ak47 or other automatic/semi-automatic guns? [same as above. An automatic weapon or a pea shooter doesn't change any facts.[/b]

 

Do you think its necessary for a civilian to have armor piercing rounds? Same answer as the two previous questions. You never know what in the hell might happen. Plus, if you're worrying about rampage shooting, students don't usually wear armor to class; a regular or armor piercing won't make much difference at that point.

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian reasonable? I can see armor piercing as reasonable, though unnecessary, automatic weapons just a flat no.

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian unconstitutional? Against common sense, yes. Lawyers can use the unconstitutional card.

 

Are there situations that should prevent a person from purchasing a gun? Proven mentally insane people. Criminals won't dare get a legal gun...to easy to trace back to them. Plus it's probably cheaper elsewhere.

 

If the right to bear arms is so needed and protected that all people should be able to have guns, do insane people also have that right or should it be denied?No. Common sense here, remember. Mental people can't function in normal society, much less in gun ownership. Leave it to lawyers to [bleep] up common sense with Constitutional rights for all. :roll:

 

Should a felon be able to purchase a gun and if so would you consider a law preventing one from doing so unconstitutional?

Again, criminals won't really use registered guns. Plus you don't know the nature of the crime they have committed. Each case is individual and cannot be answered as a whole.

 

If other means of self-defense (i.e tasers) can be used as well as guns in a self-defense situation would you support heightening gun control laws in order to promote greater use of such measures?

Nope. I don't want some scumbag, the Chinese army, or Mary [bleep]in' Poppins to get away from their injustice unharmed.

 

Do you own a gun? (if not don't bother with the rest of these questions)

I do not own one currently, but I plan to obtain one in a few years. So I'll just go along and answer the next questions, but in a "would I" scenario:

 

Do you shoot targets with that gun? Course, how do you plan to practice accuracy. Plus I bet it must be fun.

 

Do you shoot live targets with that gun? (nonhuman of course) Not really. I wouldn't hunt with it nor would I live in the mountains/wilderness where wild animals would be a problem.

 

If you do shoot live targets do you take pleasure in it? Non-human? No.

 

If you take pleasure in it then you are saying that you enjoy hurting/killing weaker things, true or false? I would enjoy shooting people who damn deserve it, sure. Them being weaker is arguable.

 

And if you do take please in hurting/killing weaker things is that something the constitution should protect? Piece of paper.

Gonna run through each question using 1,2,3 etc.

 

 

1: So you are saying that you really couldn't care less about the constitution but you will use it to defend your rights because it can be useful

 

 

2: Owning a gun would not always be a wise choice, depending on where you live and who you live with.

 

3: Tell me when would a civilian need a ak47?

 

4: Armor piercing rounds could easily smash through a car, thus this makes assassination of any person much easier.

 

5: Again i ask when would a civilian need a ak47?

 

6: Again when would you need a ak47? Your version of common sense is very different from mine, my common sense would be no guns for no civilian while it seems that you are saying guns for us all (excluding the people that you said shouldn't have guns of course, also sorry if that seems a little broad)

 

7: What do you mean a criminal wouldn't buy a gun legally because you can track it? Many criminals are stupid and i guarentee that there is at least one criminal that has bought a legal gun and then used it in a crime.

 

8: gotta agree with you, this really is common sense. Though will i think you disregard the constitution to much treating it as some always right law seems to be wrong to me.

 

9: Again what about the stupid criminals? would their victims just be unlucky that a stupid guy killed them when we thought that they wouldn't and we decided not to prevent against it.

 

10: So when you have the gun your making yourself to be the judge the jury and the executioner. Do you always trust yourself with that position? what about their motives? they might have been pressed into this situation to lets say... protect their families.

 

11: I don't own one either and i wouldn't support getting one.

 

12: Targets i do find completely understandable, though i myself have no desire to shoot targets all day.

 

13: exactly how i would feel if i owned a gun

 

14: Again when you shoot the person your making yourself to be the judge, the jury, and the executioner. Also if you do take pleasure in harming another human being would you consider yourself a sadist (non-sexual of course).

 

15: I'm in the middle of piece of paper and lets worship the constitution its all knowing.

[Furah]

Dheginsea, time and time again courts have come back with this; the second amendment is an individual right.

 

Yes, i understand that the courts say that the second amendment is an individual right, but those questions I was asking weren't about what the courts say but what you personally think. Also how far does that individual right to bear arms go? Free speech is an individual right but its not unlimited, for example you can't burn crosses or shout fire in a crowded theater. Anyway my questions still stand.

Free speech is unlimited. However, it doesn't extend to what happens as a result of what you say, such as causing mass panic.

 

Likewise, the right to bear arms should alllow all to own a gun. However, what happens when you use/brandish the gun is completely different.

[TrueBeaver]

Now please list to me all the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

-I see this right as a negative liberty. Why should the right to keep and bear arms be infringed? Some reasons for it: to protect yourself or your family, recreation, gathering food (hunting), and to annoy progressives.

 

And here are some other questions i have,

 

Do you think the constitution is always right, and that it applies to all situations even though the world we live in today is a world the writers of the constitution could never have imagined?

 

-Yes.

 

Do you think it is necessary for a civilian to own a gun?

 

-I do. I don't believe in forcing anyone to own a gun but I do think it is necessary - which is why I own several.

 

Do you think it's necessary for a civilian to own a ak47 or other automatic/semi-automatic guns?

 

-Depends on circumstances. In most cases it's probably not necessary, but neither is owning a plasma screen television. Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

 

Do you think its necessary for a civilian to have armor piercing rounds?

 

-Above.

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian reasonable?

 

-No.

 

Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian unconstitutional?

 

-Yes.

 

Are there situations that should prevent a person from purchasing a gun?

 

-Absolutely. There are several requirements people should be forced to meet before being able to purchase a gun, including but not limited to: being proficient in gun use, having a clean criminal record, and being mentally stable.

 

If the right to bear arms is so needed and protected that all people should be able to have guns, do insane people also have that right or should it be denied?

 

-Denied.

 

Should a felon be able to purchase a gun and if so would you consider a law preventing one from doing so unconstitutional?

 

-No.

 

If other means of self-defense (i.e tasers) can be used as well as guns in a self-defense situation would you support heightening gun control laws in order to promote greater use of such measures?

 

-No.

 

These are some other questions on a more personal note.

 

Do you own a gun? (if not don't bother with the rest of these questions)

 

-Several.

 

Do you shoot targets with that gun?

 

-Yes.

 

Do you shoot live targets with that gun? (nonhuman of course)

 

-No.

 

If you do shoot live targets do you take pleasure in it?

 

-No.

 

If you take pleasure in it then you are saying that you enjoy hurting/killing weaker things, true or false?

 

-N/A

 

And if you do take please in hurting/killing weaker things is that something the constitution should protect?

 

-Playing rhetoric games is cheap and that's a fallacious line of reasoning. "Do you engage in free speech? Do you say hurtful, condescending, or otherwise negative things about people? If you do then you are saying that you approve of bullying? If you do, should the constitution protect bullying?" You could continue down the line until you interpret the first amendment as supporting suicides. But yes, I do believe the constitution should protect "hurting/killing weaker things" as it pertains to hunting.

 

The obvious disconnect in this thread is that some people view guns as just another item with its purpose, not inherently different from a television or a chair, while others seem to class guns as some sort of contraband, like uranium or something. They ask "Why do you need this?" rather than "Do you want this?" Personally, I prefer a society where I can own what I please, to a reasonable extent, without having to justify its use. And I include my guns in that "reasonable extent."

[Dheginsea]

 

Do you think the constitution is always right, and that it applies to all situations even though the world we live in today is a world the writers of the constitution could never have imagined?

 

-Yes.

 

 

Okay it's late i don't really have much time right now, so ill start with this point.

 

Your basically saying that the people who wrote the constitution could create a government that would work successfully in any age? Why would they be so smart, and we so dumb we can't figure out what kind of system we need in this day in age? How could they have factored in: The internet, ,computers, phones, cell phones, e-mail, cars, radio, nukes, machine guns, planes, helicopters, movies, tv, video games, space flight, DNA, High-speed rail, etc.

[TrueBeaver]

Okay it's late i don't really have much time right now, so ill start with this point.

 

Your basically saying that the people who wrote the constitution could create a government that would work successfully in any age? Why would they be so smart, and we so dumb we can't figure out what kind of system we need in this day in age? How could they have factored in: The internet, ,computers, phones, cell phones, e-mail, cars, radio, nukes, machine guns, planes, helicopters, movies, tv, video games, space flight, DNA, High-speed rail, etc.

Well to start with, they were incredibly well-read people. They had studied ancient civilizations and took the good aspects while fixing the bad. They were well-versed in Bacon, Hobbes, Newton, Locke, and many other political thinkers. They also had the benefit of seeing first-hand a tyrannical government and then a overly decentralized government (under the Articles of Confederation) and were able to incorporate aspects accordingly.

None of those things you listed pertain to governmental systems. They pertain to governmental policy. If we were to rewrite the constitution now do you think we'd include clauses like "The rights of the citizens to keep and own televisions shall not be infringed."? The Constitution is not like the USC, it outlines the boundaries of the federal government, specifies what it can and cannot do. It's a document of mainly negative liberties, whereas the USC is mainly positive liberties and pertains to the things you mentioned.

 

Edit: And no, I don't think the USC is always right, and that it applies to all situations.

[Dheginsea]

Okay it's late i don't really have much time right now, so ill start with this point.

 

Your basically saying that the people who wrote the constitution could create a government that would work successfully in any age? Why would they be so smart, and we so dumb we can't figure out what kind of system we need in this day in age? How could they have factored in: The internet, ,computers, phones, cell phones, e-mail, cars, radio, nukes, machine guns, planes, helicopters, movies, tv, video games, space flight, DNA, High-speed rail, etc.

Well to start with, they were incredibly well-read people. They had studied ancient civilizations and took the good aspects while fixing the bad. They were well-versed in Bacon, Hobbes, Newton, Locke, and many other political thinkers. They also had the benefit of seeing first-hand a tyrannical government and then a overly decentralized government (under the Articles of Confederation) and were able to incorporate aspects accordingly.

None of those things you listed pertain to governmental systems. They pertain to governmental policy. If we were to rewrite the constitution now do you think we'd include clauses like "The rights of the citizens to keep and own televisions shall not be infringed."? The Constitution is not like the USC, it outlines the boundaries of the federal government, specifies what it can and cannot do. It's a document of mainly negative liberties, whereas the USC is mainly positive liberties and pertains to the things you mentioned.

 

Edit: And no, I don't think the USC is always right, and that it applies to all situations.

 

What i meant was that with all of these changes shouldn't the system of government be altered, and that one type of government should not work for all scenarios (sorry if i was a little vague the list seemed to make more sense to me).

[RpgGamer]

Frozen Butts.

 

[TrueBeaver]

 

What i meant was that with all of these changes shouldn't the system of government be altered, and that one type of government should not work for all scenarios (sorry if i was a little vague the list seemed to make more sense to me).

Ah, alright I think I understand what you mean now.

 

I don't see any reason our current system should be altered. The only scenario to come up since the Constitution was ratified that I view as seriously constitutionally questionable was the concept of judicial review.

 

On second thought, maybe I don't understand what you're saying. Could you give an example? I just don't see why the Constitution should be altered due to the internet, computers, phones, cell phones, e-mail, cars, radio, nukes, machine guns, planes, helicopters, movies, tv, video games, space flight, DNA, High-speed rail, etc. Our system of government has worked fairly well for two hundred-some odd years and has proven flexible enough to change with the times while remaining rigid enough to not be exposed to the prevailing political wind at any given time. The only modern issue I'd like to see added via an amendment would be a Balanced Budget Amendment.

[Dheginsea]

Hey sorry I haven't responded to your post yet I'm taking a small break from the internet though I'm pretty sure I'll answer your post tomorrow as that is when my break will end.

[TrueBeaver]

I look forward to it :thumbup:

[Dheginsea]

 

What i meant was that with all of these changes shouldn't the system of government be altered, and that one type of government should not work for all scenarios (sorry if i was a little vague the list seemed to make more sense to me).

Ah, alright I think I understand what you mean now.

 

I don't see any reason our current system should be altered. The only scenario to come up since the Constitution was ratified that I view as seriously constitutionally questionable was the concept of judicial review.

 

On second thought, maybe I don't understand what you're saying. Could you give an example? I just don't see why the Constitution should be altered due to the internet, computers, phones, cell phones, e-mail, cars, radio, nukes, machine guns, planes, helicopters, movies, tv, video games, space flight, DNA, High-speed rail, etc. Our system of government has worked fairly well for two hundred-some odd years and has proven flexible enough to change with the times while remaining rigid enough to not be exposed to the prevailing political wind at any given time. The only modern issue I'd like to see added via an amendment would be a Balanced Budget Amendment.

 

Ya, I think you understand what i was trying to say, but I want to talk about something I found recently.

 

This statistic is taken from My link

 

"A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides"

 

so in those shootings every time a gun was used correctly (self defense) it was used incorrectly 22 times (11 if you do not count suicides). Now here's my questions, do the needs of the many outweigh the few? If those guns weren't there 1 person would have either defended themselves using other means or the crime against them would have continued. However if the weren't there then the 22 (11 if you don't count suicides) of those criminal assaults, or homicides, or unintentional shootings, or suicides may not have occurred.

 

So, do the needs of the many outweigh the few?

[Furah]

That link doesn't source the supposed studies. Not to mention it doesn't only count guns the user legally owned, which would be the only ones out of the equation if they were made illegal. On top of that, 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories.) [1]

 

What we need is crime control, not gun control.

[TrueBeaver]

Ya, I think you understand what i was trying to say, but I want to talk about something I found recently.

 

This statistic is taken from My link

 

"A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides"

 

so in those shootings every time a gun was used correctly (self defense) it was used incorrectly 22 times (11 if you do not count suicides). Now here's my questions, do the needs of the many outweigh the few? If those guns weren't there 1 person would have either defended themselves using other means or the crime against them would have continued. However if the weren't there then the 22 (11 if you don't count suicides) of those criminal assaults, or homicides, or unintentional shootings, or suicides may not have occurred.

 

So, do the needs of the many outweigh the few?

If those guns weren't there 7 people would have assaulted someone else with a different weapon and 11 would have attempted suicide by other means. Further, that statistic overlooks gun use for hunting, recreational shooting, etc. As Furah said, it's a crime control problem. This paper indicates that the conclusion of John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime (hall issue laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, steadily decrease violent crime.) is accurate, although they admit it does not settle the debate.

Our piece of this puzzle, however, suggests that the model specified in the original Lott-Mustard paper cannot be dismissed outright.

Admittedly, there is a plethora of papers both for and against gun control.

 

What it boils down to, for me, is freedom. People should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or for no reason at all - it doesn't matter. If they use the gun in an improper manner (killing someone, for example) then they face the consequences. Further, banning something that people obviously want under the guise of protecting them only backfires (see: Prohibition). It puts law-abiding citizens in a bind while not taking care of the problem: criminals.