Ban the Gun, Repeal the Second Amendment.

reply to post by Alfie1


And what would your response be if the CT killer had used a knife instead of a gun, a baseball bat, or a crowbar? Ban knives? Baseball bats? Crowbars? It's a tragedy what happened in Newton, but one done by a man (term used loosely) wielding a weapon. Not a weapon all by itself.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

What are you talking about? Workerrights? WTH does that have to do with guns? If you ever did some research you would find we have WAY better social systems then the USA.

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Sure you have stricter gun laws and the incidence of gun murders is down, but your yearly knife murders have exceeded our yearly gun murders.

And, for the record, you don't speak a different language thanks to our "police actions."

a) that is simply untrue :-

www.juancole.com...

b) If you are repeating the old tripe that we would be speaking German if it wasn't for you that is equally untrue. We had long beaten off any threat of Nazi invasion before the Japs bombed you into the war.

reply to post by SumerianSoldier


Ohh that one is easy..

The answer is... drumroll.... Less people would be dead?

Think about that batman darknight shooting. What if holmes came in there with a knife. Would it have been that bad?

Repeal the Second Amendment? I knew folks would be throwing that around after the atrocity that took place at the elementary school in CT. It is just like clock work. Ban this repeal that! One size fits all, and our benevolent government will keep us safe! Not a bad bone in their body? Oh the pessimist in me! I can recall instances from history where that approach was taken. Tyranny thrives when a civilian population is disarmed. Anybody recall when the British troops were heading to Lexington and Concord? They were on their way to disarm the civilian militia in colonial Massachusetts.

Battles of Lexington and Concord

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.

If the British had accomplished their mission? The Colonists would have been sitting ducks and the British could do to them whatever they wanted. Then we can look at tyrannies from the last century, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. They made sure to have a monopoly on firearms before killing millions of people. Can't give the people a fighting chance to resist. Yet, the learned citizenry thinks the US government is incapable of heinous acts? I remain skeptical. Like how the old adage goes,

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

"Do not trust the horse, Trojans. Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts."

I have to agree with that adage. People should be given the right to protect themselves, their families, and property from tyranny and criminals. The American population loses all of that if they cave into knee-jerk reactions and sensationalistic impulses. What happened in CT and elsewhere are atrocities and should chill the blood of any warm blooded person. However, lets not go overboard with repeal Amendments to a legal document that has lasted over 200 years and remains as relevant as it ever was. Besides, there is already a stringent ban on firearms.

Gun Control Act of 1968

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Anyone ever read that? Very stringent by my standards, and more than ample if it were enforced properly. However, if people want to live in a police state, and stare down tyranny with torches and pitchforks? Whom am I to say otherwise, although I don't want to. I am fairly certain there are quite a few other people who feel the same? I suppose we have encountered another slippery slope?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Reality is that it IS people that kill people. You can ban guns, knives and baseball bats if you want. If a person wants to kill some one, they will pick up a rock and beat them over the head with it!

You can ban guns all you want... But all that does is disarm the law abiding citizens. Making a piece of paper that says you can't own a gun, does not and will not stop some one from getting a gun if they want one.

Let me ask you, did the gun load it self up? Did it cock it self? Did it fire itself?

If you can answer yes to any of those questions, then maybe you are right that guns should be banned...But I don't think you can. Guns are loaded by people, cocked by people and fired by people....

Ban guns and take away our right to bear arms, you are leaving the criminals armed and stripping away a VERY important amendment.

Do you know why that right is there? It was put there to arm the citizens should we feel that our government has become destructive of it's own ends and the citizens need to revolt and fight to put a new government in place.

It's the same reason we have the right to form a militia of the people... And to those who say that a diplomatic approach to changing the government would work...Well...In reality, in the land of billion dollar corporations and their lobbyists... Diplomacy does not work that well when your politicians are distracted by bribes disguised as campaign donations...

If you disarm the law abiding citizens, you are leaving the criminals armed and the government with far more power than they should have.


As some in favor of banning suggest, we are not against banning because we have these cops and robber fantasies of shooting the bad guys... We are against banning because in reality, you would leave the criminals armed and leave the law abiding citizen with no realistic way of removing or replacing it's government should it become destructive of it's own ends.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Emphasis mine... It is our right to alter or abolish and to institute a new government, should ours become destructive of it's own ends. Say, for example, some day, we end up electing the next Adolf Hitler... That would be a good time to fight back with our armed citizens and militias...

Before you say that could never happen here....Many people in Germany never expected Hitler to do what he did, either.

Amendment II

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.

Emphasis mine again... This right shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state. That's about as straight forward as it gets.

There you have it. This is why we should not ban guns or abolish the second amendment.

Talk all you want, but the second you start talking about stripping away rights... I think you will find that people are no longer listening.

Rights are called rights for a reason, my friend.


Popular or not, that is where I stand.

Peace and love

reply to post by hesse

What are you talking about? Worker rights?

that they are as important to you and less so to us as gun rights are to us and not so much as to you.

mind your business and stay out of ours you don't understand, like we should mind our business and stay out of yours we don't understand.

A European "concerned" about American gun rights....yeah, sure pal

Like an American concerned about big business in Europe dealing with excessive workers rights.

If I don't like you I won't comment out of "concern" I will do so to be a prick because it annoys you and what I say goes against what is important to you.

YOU DON´T GET US....this is a big deal to us.

Originally posted by hesse
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Im not even going to answer that. It´s just silly and childish... Sorry. So do you have any real reasons?

Hell I could bash youre head in with my playstation controller. = silly

And you are trying to paint us "hicks and rednecks" as the violent ones? In 2012 there were a grand total of 0 violent crimes here, and there is more guns than people.

The funny thing is that im american. This is the on thing I will never understand, about US! You don´t know why I choose to live over seas. I have my personal reasons... You are right, I guess there is no way we on the otherside of the pond can stop senceless killing.

reply to post by hesse


the guy calling us barbaric isn't.

I'm not for or against either side, but I have a question to all who are in FAVOR of gun ownership.

I live in a country where getting a gun is near impossible since owning them is completely illegal. Despite the fact that crime rates are incredibly high here, we never have these kinds of issues. NO school shootings or mall shootings or anything.

If guns don't kill people, then why is there less gun related violence in my country?


Again, not trying to start anything, just trying to understand.

reply to post by TKDRL


I would like to hear something new from you all. So what CAN be done about people being killed by guns?

What is your idea?

Originally posted by hesse If you ever did some research you would find we have WAY better social systems then the USA.

So you are just egotistical, am I getting that correct? We should all get our heads out of our back end and do things your way? You are making yourself appear to be self righteous...still haven't answered what I have to done to deny myself the right of protection.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

 

so what about the 2011 Norway attacks.

Just because you haven’t had over 100 killed yet doesn’t mean that it’s not going to happen.

What are you going to be saying to me the day that 5 terrorists arm themselves up and go walk into 5 schools and start a slaughter.

Then you will all be asking “how could we have let them get those guns”.

The Mumbai attack occured using weapons that were not available to civilians. The London bombers used rucksacks full of explosives that were certainly illegal for them to manufacture or possess. When the next substantive attack occurs (and I have no doubt that it will at some point) then it is unlikely that they will be using firearms that any civilian in the country could legally obtain. We will not be asking "how could we have let them" because we will not have let them. They will have obtained them despite the restrictions.

As a general rule, the people who are likely to follow the law are unlikely to be the people you have to worry about. As another general rule, people who want to do something bad will do it anyway; if one tool is not available then another tool will be used.

It is easy to obtain illegal firearms in the UK, despite having exceptionally tight restrictions and heavy monitoring at the borders. Some are smuggled, some are converted, increasingly some are being made from scratch in workshops around the country. Only a few years ago, an Englishman (no less) wrote a fairly famous book on how to build a functional submachine gun from standard plumbing parts available over the counter in the UK.

I have no specific objection to the licensing process currently in place in the UK, as in itself it is not unreasonable and encourages people to develop safe handling and secure storage habits. I personally believe that handguns and semi-automatic centrefire should be reclassified as section 1.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


OK, I so being against guns is anti american right? OK, I guess I will just have to keep my smart a$$ mouth shut? I never said anything about barbaric...

reply to post by hesse


Nothing can be done, aside from locking everyone in the world up in their own little cage, and that would be ridiculous.

Originally posted by IronheadMagnet
If guns don't kill people, then why is there less gun related violence in my country?


Again, not trying to start anything, just trying to understand.

People are the only consiousness involved in gun crime, firearms can make no descisions for themselves #1.

#2 "Gun related violence" ....let's compare overall homicide, and assault rates rather than cherry picking our numbers by what makes the loudest noise.

reply to post by Alfie1


You posted a link that didn't include knife murders anywhere on the page. maybe you misread my post. I said the UK's knife murders have exceeded our gun murders, and you have stricter gun laws.

Here's a link from one of your own papers in 2008. Link

Another with current gun murders by country. Link

reply to post by hesse


I was talking to someone telling him that the person he spoke to before that called us "too barbaric" for guns could be countered by comparing his European social struggles with American constitutional struggles.

I never called you anti American. You are pretty jaded bub, to assume that.

Let me guess rabid liberal looking for a rabid conservative to fight?

Yeah, the solution lies with you....

reply to post by Shark_Feeder



I dont know man. What are you talking about? I was answering somebody else..

Well I have protection, it´s called a FIST. That seems to be a weapon that doesnt work when every idiot owns a gun.

Anyway, im outta here.. Please don´t get to mad at me. I have been watching to much TV coverage of the shooting. I am deeply sad about all those kids. For me it´s about the KIDS!

So don´t eat me alive for being pissed about guns! Go out and eat the idiots that can´t be responsible enough to carry a gun!!
BYE!