Hello, I am against fire arms.

reply to post by AdamLaw


I'm kind of surprised there aren't some. This issue usually brings out both sides...in force.

But the day is still young...so there's hope for you.

I disagree with you, but I respect the way you've come across. Kudos, sir.

Originally posted by j230ns
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

not in this state i wouldn't. in this state it is in the hands of prosecution to prove it was not self defense, which in this case it would have been. and even if i had to prove it, the pocket knife with his prints on it would have been enough.

edit on 1-10-2012 by j230ns because: edited to add last sentence

I guess you could have shot him in the leg and legitimately claim that even with a deadlier weapon all you wanted to do is subdue the threat.

reply to post by AdamLaw


deadliness of weapon is irrelevant. someone can stab or beat someone just as dead with something less than a firearm. actually shooting to wound will often get you paying their hospital bills in many states. I am not about to get stabbed over a prescription and not going to give it up because i have no reason to when the situation shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Originally posted by j230ns
reply to post by AdamLaw

 

deadliness of weapon is irrelevant. someone can stab or beat someone just as dead with something less than a firearm. actually shooting to would will often get you paying their hospital bills in many states. I am not about to get stabbed over a prescription and not going to give it up because i have no reason to when the situation shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Thank you for participating in the debate my friend. I must go work but I'll be back for more tonight!

reply to post by AdamLaw


i may be around, its been a good chat.

reply to post by AdamLaw


Stand your ground laws apply in that case, I should think. Many states have such statutes on the books. If you can not safely move away, you have legal grounds to use lethal force without fear of prosecution should you be attacked.

It's a widening of the "Castle" rule. Which is based upon English common law. Upon which much of American law is based.

reply to post by AdamLaw


I think what you posted was very articulate. The wording to me for the second amendment does seem to suggest it is for a militia. But I digress. I keep reading about comparing the uk to the us on this thread but I don't think they can be compared really. The US could not simply revoke this now it has been in place for so long. There are simply too many guns out there and too many people who like having their guns for protection.

I think the real issue here is that the good citizens don't want to give up their guns. Which is fine. It's not them that cause the problems. It's the bad people who need their guns removed from their possession.

So I say ban the guns from the bad guys and let the good guys keep theirs!

Ok, so that's a simplistic view! But then everyone is happy (unless your a bad guy of course)

reply to post by seagull


my state got rid of any duty to retreat the year before last. as far as i am concerned a duty to retreat is nothing but a danger to a law abiding citizen as it forces them to attempt to outrun whoever is accosting them. in order for self defense to apply they must have nowhere to go or already have their attacker on top of them potentially already causing grievous bodily harm to them before they can defend themselves.

reply to post by j230ns


Oh, I agree with you. But "stand your ground" is better than nothing. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to try to retreat in the face of threat if they have the means, and ability to deal with it.

reply to post by sparky31


I can walk anywhere in my country (USA) too without being shot... I fail to see the point of your comment. I used to live in texas.. where guns are everywhere and not once I was i ever afraid of being shot. Usually the only place you might get hurt in is where criminals abound.. which even if you had gun bans in the country criminals break laws so they would still have firearms.. that is what criminals do... they break laws.

It is more relevant now. You have an obligation to protect your family and owning a weapon or two........the ones that go bang.......is almost a necessity in some parts of our great country.
It is more relevant now for more reasons than I have time to type. Plus they are fun to take out on the range after you have finished your honey-do list. Hitting center mass is just as relaxing as cutting the grass.

reply to post by CplAwesome


I like hitting center mass. don't much care for cutting the grass...in fact, I'd go so far as to say I dislike cutting the grass.

reply to post by seagull


Adam,

The only defense against a gun is A GUN. A gun is the great equalizer, big man has "respect" for a little man with a gun. Most important, a gun can make you a Hunter and without a gun you are PREY.

reply to post by pistolerooo


generally the big man has contempt for the little man with the gun and tries to get it banned and claims real men fight with their fists. i know its a generalization but even generalization come from somewhere.

Welcome to ATS Adam. Please forward me a photo of yourself and your family, your current address, vehicle description and tag number. That way, if you are ever in a life or death situation, and I am present, I wont use my guns to defend your life/ the lives of your family out of respect for your wishes. Wouldnt want to stomp on your ant-gun convictions....

reply to post by AdamLaw


The militia's main role is to secure and protect a free state, not from foreign enemies, but from a tyrannical and out of control government. The 2nd amendment of the bill of rights is what guarantees the other 9. The state militia is to be under the command of the state Governor, completely separate from the federal military.

i don't own a gun myself but strongly believe it is the right to own, carry, and use such weapons. the provision wasn't put into to protect us from foreign enemies, it was to protect us from the scum bags we have in office now, and the ones that tried to rule us 200 years ago.
i am all for limiting it to rifles and pistols however, as no one needs an uzi, for hunting or defense well maybe the blind, but that is it. ^^

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


an uzi shoots the same 9mm or .45 at the same rate as any other semi-auto handgun that is available on the market. a full auto uzi costs $2500+ and can only be owned in certain states. and since when is a full auto not any good for dealing with a tyrannical government?

reply to post by AdamLaw


Hello and welcome.

While I am utterly against killing anyone or harming another in any way shape or form because I am a peace maker by nature, I am a fighter by nature too. I know that. When attacked, I have attacked back by instinct. I take great offence to bullying and that includes a governing body.

I adhere to my Father's commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" but I know my nature in instinct, desperation and injustice, especially in an unfair situation. I would like to think that it will never come to that because in that moment I probably would withhold and pull back from the fatal blow. However, fight I will until that very end point. If it came to that very end point I think I would rather be killed than to kill another. It would be the 'until that moment" that I would unleash my fury.

I would do everything in my power to avoid such a conclusion, that of using violence. But when push comes to shove..............I will unleash that quiet volcano fully loaded and ram it down the attackers throats.

Originally posted by AdamLaw
For American citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms could have been relevant 200 years ago.

It is even more relevant today, IMO.

Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?

You are missing the elephant in the room with that question. The US was never intended to have a standing army like you describe. The ability to have a modern and trained people capable of defending the nation is quite feasible without the massive standing army we have.

Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?

It’s both. The right to defend yourself, ie. right to life, is a basic human right(individual.) The Bill of Rights represents the limits of government over a persons and human rights. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the people (collective) were never out-gunned by the government.

If it upholds the constitutionality of the federal law of 1934, it is for a reason that is not likely to set a law: the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the type of weapon involved in the case considered (a sawed-off shotgun), because it is not part of the usual weapons of a militia.

The government is the three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each one, more than one or all three can be wrong at any given time over any given issue. It has happened in the past, is happening and will always happen.

Realize, the 2nd Amendment is the ultimate right in keeping the government in check. Is it surprising to think that they would manipulate it to their advantage? They have manipulated every other right and guarantee of the Constitution to increase their collective power and control over the people

Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the times we live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?

Absolutely. Aside from the fact that the government should not have a standing military, the people should have the ability to have the same arms the government has access to on the presumption that government decides to become oppressive and/or tyrannical.

Twentieth-century Americans have rejected the principles of freedom of their ancestors. Believing that the socialist welfare state would provide them with a “safety net” of governmental security, they traded the liberty bequeathed to them by their ancestors for the paternalistic state. Thus, they adopted all the things to which their ancestors had said No: income taxation, welfare, regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, and gun control.

Hornberger.

I have never seen this quote but it is quite telling.

First, let’s make the distinction that the people have not decided to adopt these things, but the representatives of the people. On that fact, we can argue that the representatives, for some time now, have not represented the people, but manipulated them for their own individual and corporate powers. With the exception of the prohibition act, very few laws that have been passed by congress or executive order or ever repealed, despite how contrary to freedom and the constitution they may be. Remember, from its inception, it is the nature of government to try and grow and become more powerful, despite any benevolent origins such as our own.

All the issues in the quote are directly responsible or related to the problems we have encountered as a nation and the issues we are now dealing with.

Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American citizens?

It is not the government’s role to prevent crime. In fact, they cannot. They can only punish for crimes committed. A prohibition on something doesn’t deter involvement in that something; it only makes that something itself a crime. In that way, government isn’t deterring crime, but instead creating it. As such it only empowers itself and not the people.

To want to ban firearms one is making the following statements/assumptions:

- The government is benevolent and would never use authoritarian force against its people.
- Law enforcement is always going to be there to protect the citizenry from criminals.
- People are responsible to drive thousand pound heaps of metal 70 mph and elect people who declare and wage war but are not responsible enough to own or use a tool for their own defense.
- The 2nd Amendment is the only right that is out-dated.

At the core of all the debates on restriction or elimination of rights, and the problems we encounter these days, is the collapse of a moral, ethical and just society.