Second Amendment: Guns or no Guns ??

The saying still stands, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people or themselves". If you look at the statistics, you might find that people are killed in greater percentage by means other than guns, very few people are killed by the previously banned guns. It just took a few instances of mass shootings to bring the issue to light.

Floride? It only works when it is in contact with the enamel of your teeth, rest clogs your kidneys and other organs. Most active people in good health and drink pleny of water may just pas it on, but we need to look at statics of area with and without.

Originally posted by Volkgeister

Originally posted by Lanceman
How many gunowners do you know that would turn their guns in to the government if asked to do so ?

Only good, honest law abidding ones

Wrong. Only those who do not understand the constitution and only those who do not understand that we are not obligated to abide by an unconstituional law and the courts are not obligated to enforce one (That keeps congressmen from being sued).

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I'm sorry, but the Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with the list of problems that you presented on your post.

I'll agree that we indeed have a many problems that the Second Amendment can't solve. But then, the Second Amendment wasn't created to solve them.

agreed.


you take a way our right to own our guns and youll get even more problems.

...You could be right. If what it comes down to during Martial Law is hand-to-hand combat and intrusions by human authorities into the personal and private homes of the citizens, yes--

...keeping a gun around could be very important.

...No, it won't help with these other problems; but reading the news lately with the way military training is changing the natures of our local cops into a globalist-unified mindset in which ALL DISSENT becomes illegal,

...I figure, I'm an old lady so it doesn't matter. OR, God will protect me. But I've never had a gun, never shot a gun, and I don't LIKE them.

...So, maybe the Gun Lobby isn't all bad after all. Hmmm.

Well I don't realy care, becouse even if they are outlowed I will still keep mine soo...

The level of Trust in our society must have hit a new low.

That makes sense too.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of trust in our society, at all. It is just good common sense.

My trust or distrust for my fellow citizen has nothing to do with the guns that I own. I am fortunate to have been raised around guns, and have that respect for firearms ingrained in my own culture. And I will pass that respect on to my own children. It is when the passing of that respect ends, that tradition stops, that gun ownership will become illegal in the US.

It won't happen in my lifetime.

Well, Bush Senior said in one of his splurted comments on NYTIMES that they're gonna outlaw guns because that's what's good for people.

We'll see.

I don't Own a gun, Nor have I ever Fired a gun. But i'm all for THe right to bear Arms!! I do think they need to cut down on criminals with firearms, And personally those people that live out in the middle of nowhere and stockpile thousands of dollars of weapons. Freak me out a bit. But as long as they don't go POinting guns or threatening anybody it's all fine by me. IT's all about discipline. you don't teach your child a few basic fundmentals early on, and they do stuff like play with daddy's gun. IF you dont' like guns ,fine Don't have them in your home i don't. But i do think that once you take away or tweak the bill of rights oour country will go to crap oooppps........... too late. Of course if your really concerned about someone coming in and raping you and killing you. Get a really big dog. Odds are this will make your home safer than a firearm. Unless you have one of those signs "Trespassers will be shot".

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by bordnlazy]

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Well, Bush Senior said in one of his splurted comments on NYTIMES that they're gonna outlaw guns because that's what's good for people.

I never heard that. I doubt very much that he ever said that.

Well, it's in the NYTIMES transcripts, housed in RATS.

Interesting chats, to be sure.

The following is an article that was in my home news paper. I believe this sums it up. And I give the writer an A+ . I hope this article removes all doubt.

In a recent letter, Jim K... says that violators of gun laws should be punished more severely. This opinion is misguided because all gun laws are void. They are a direct violation of the constitution which is the supreme law of the land.
Since there is much ignorance about our heritage of liberty, here is a brief summary the Constitution:
Basic human rights such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not come from government.

People are born with these rights.These rights precede government and are superior to all man made laws. Natural rights are inalienable which means that they are not subject to majority rule or any other rule. The right of self-defense is one of these natural rights and the purpose of the second ammendment is put the fact into the law.

Every free person has the right to arm himself. All laws that restrict gun ownership are void because the constitution prohibits such laws.
The only purpose for creating a government is to defend individual rights, there is a duty to replace that government. If a government refuses to obey the constitution and cannot be removed peacefully, it needs to be overthrone by force.
Gun licensing laws are ridiculous because they are like asking the fox to guard the chicken house.
The founders understood that the biggest threat to freedom comes from within and not from foreign monsters. Likewise, the threat from private criminals is miniscule compared to the threat posed by the organized force of the government.
Throughout history, the vast majority of all violence and crime has been committed by government agents in the name of unjust laws and wars.

In a free society, government agents are servants and these servants are not authorized to disarm thier masters. The final check against government tyranny is an armed population intent on guarding thier liberties.
In a police state, the people fear the government. In a free society, the government fears the people. In a free society, government agents are restrained from abusing thier authority by a healthy fear of an armed populace. Likewise, private criminals are also restrained. The Founders understood that unrestricted access to guns is necessary to guarrentee and preserve freedom.

In a free society the individual is sovereign, not the state. That is the whole point of the constitution. It is about the universal principle of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
The belief that the enactment of unjust laws reduces private crime is contrary to the facts.
In the last several decades, thousands of gun laws together with thousands of other unconstitution laws that violate individual rights have been enacted. And millions of honest decent people have been arrested. The result of all this government violence, crime, and prisons has not reduced private crime. On the contrary, more and more people have no respect for the law.
In any case, human beings who exercise thier natural rights are not criminals, no matter what any law says. Criminals are those who violate the lives, liberty, and property of others.
Murder, assault, and theft are crimes when they are committed by individuals. And they are crimes when they are committed by organized groups such as governments. The commandment or natural law, "Thou shall not steal", does not mean, "Thou shall not steal unless some majority says that it is okay".
The most fundamental political question is about the relationship between the individual and the state. Who serves Whom? Are you a communist or other collectivist who believes that the individual must serve the group, or, do you support the principle of individual freedom and personal responsibility?