The 2nd amendment: Is it really necessary?

[Crimson King]

I somehow knew this would happen, I'm now being confused with anti-gun people now. AWESOME.


When did I say I was in favor of prohibiting gun usage? I'm in favor of cracking down on illegal gun trade, when did that become synopsis for banning legal guns?

And this is harder than you are letting on. You can get rid of the gun dealers who operate illegally, but there will always be blackmarket guns sales. By restricting it more, you will make those that do get into the country worth more. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm saying it's quite impossible. Replace illegal weapons with synthetic drugs. No matter how tight you regulate things; the illegal stuff will get in.

Which is a problem that a wall can't solve. If our drug laws were more lax do you really think Mexican criminals would becoming here? Of course not our drug laws in many ways play a role in the increased crime rates associated with drugs. But this isn't about how evil Mexico is.

Uhh... my point on building a wall (which was around ALL of the US, not just between us and Mexico) was that THAT is the only way to restrict all blackmarket sales. As for Mexico being such a drug haven, there are a lot of reasons for that that I have studied, and it's not for the topic.

Mexico and Cuba have very, very bad economies. As long as they can easily make a few grand off guns and drugs they sell here, they will continue to do so. Like I said, I'm not against keeping illegal weapons out of people who shouldn't have it's hands, but i am realistic in that I know it's harder to do than to say that.

 

[Aesir]

And this is harder than you are letting on.

Whether it's hard or not shouldn't really matter, because of the limitations that were placed on during the Reagan Administration law enforcement agencies can't do their jobs and enforce the law.

You can get rid of the gun dealers who operate illegally, but there will always be blackmarket guns sales. By restricting it more, you will make those that do get into the country worth more. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm saying it's quite impossible. Replace illegal weapons with synthetic drugs. No matter how tight you regulate things; the illegal stuff will get in.

You do realized guns cross over to MEXICO more often then the reverse right? Furthermore legalize drugs and you'll hit crime hard. We all know prohibition is garbage and it never works. I'm not arguing for prohibition, I never said cracking down on just illegal gun trade was the answer. A lot of issues are intertwined into this, it's not a simple quick fix. Legalize drugs and gangs will no longer have any sort of business power. Crack down on the illegal gun trade and we can keep guns off the streets. Get out of the horrible trade agreements we're in and Mexico can finally have a working economy that isn't dependent on the black market, if both Mexico and America can enforce their own laws it'll go a long way in cleaning things up.

I never said it'll be a perfect solution one doesn't exist but it's better then just building a wall around the country, isolationism is not the answer.

Uhh... my point on building a wall (which was around ALL of the US, not just between us and Mexico) was that THAT is the only way to restrict all blackmarket sales. As for Mexico being such a drug haven, there are a lot of reasons for that that I have studied, and it's not for the topic.

Mexico and Cuba have very, very bad economies. As long as they can easily make a few grand off guns and drugs they sell here, they will continue to do so. Like I said, I'm not against keeping illegal weapons out of people who shouldn't have it's hands, but i am realistic in that I know it's harder to do than to say that.

A wall isn't going to solve this problem, if anything it'll only make matters worse. It'll just fuel Mexican extremism and we'll have terrorists south of the boarder who want to blast our country to hell.

If you really think a wall is going to help maybe you should go ask Israel how that's worked for them.

 

[Crimson King]

You really need to read better. Hypothetically speaking, unless we are completely cut-off from the world, that is the only way to actually stop blackmarket goods from getting in. Realistically, it's just impossible no matter what.

 

[Aesir]

You really need to read better. Hypothetically speaking, unless we are completely cut-off from the world, that is the only way to actually stop blackmarket goods from getting in. Realistically, it's just impossible no matter what.

I'm reading just fine, but thanks.

Of course realistically you'll never stop crime, the goal is to make it hard for criminals to commit crimes and to bring those criminals who do to justice.

If it was possible to stop crime we wouldn't need laws to begin with.

 

[Deleted member]

You could easily remove guns. Make the criminal punishment for owning one totally excessive - for example, x amount of years in prison with no debate.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

You could easily remove guns. Make the criminal punishment for owning one totally excessive - for example, x amount of years in prison with no debate.

I would rather allow guns than put people in prison for a disproportional punishment.

 

[Deleted member]

The objective is to remove the liberty to own guns... the only way to do that is to make the deterrent blatant and excessive. For example, if you're caught sneaking into the public transit system in Toronto, you are fined $500 right then and there. Do you risk paying $500 for escaping $2.75?

Some people do, but most don't.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

We have provisions against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Still, discussing a punishment is fruitless. I am a citizen of this country, and I approve of people owning guns. Many others do as well. There is no point in figuring out how to ban all guns if we're fine with them being around. I'm sorry you are so uncomfortable with that. Guns are the least of anyone's problems. If I want to beat someone with a chair, I can. As a result, I feel much better knowing I can purchase one of the better weapons for the purpose of defending my family and me.

 

[Deleted member]

What a hilarious fallacy

*puffs chest out, puts hand on heart*

"This is the USA, we like guns here, no point discussing that"

But seriously you're a) assuming that guns are a good thing and b) that the vast majority of Americans don't want stricter gun laws

a) You beg the question

b) I believe nearly 45% would rather have stricter gun laws

That post made me realize that defenders of the Second Amendment are like children. Some of them play with their shiny toys nicely, but some of them throw them at other kids in the sandbox. They start to whine when the parent takes the toy away.

 

[manhunter098]

Legally sold and registered firearms do have positive qualities Delorted, they CAN help prevent you from being a victim to a crime and prevent a crime in progress. Isn't preventing a crime positive?

To really demonstrate the positive effects of banning guns you are going to need to show that overall it will bring down crime, especially crime committed with firearms, and you are going to need to demonstrate how someone can be safe from a criminal assault without a firearm. If you cant demonstrate that Im not sure I can see any benefit behind banning firearms. Well, thats not really necessary for you to prove your point, but it would certainly help to make your case a little stronger.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

What a hilarious fallacy

*puffs chest out, puts hand on heart*

"This is the USA, we like guns here, no point discussing that"

But seriously you're a) assuming that guns are a good thing and b) that the vast majority of Americans don't want stricter gun laws

a) You beg the question

b) I believe nearly 45% would rather have stricter gun laws

That post made me realize that defenders of the Second Amendment are like children. Some of them play with their shiny toys nicely, but some of them throw them at other kids in the sandbox. They start to whine when the parent takes the toy away.

The problem I have with your whole attitude is that you somehow feel the government consists of people who are smarter and "wiser" than the general public. The government is not supposed to play the role of mommy and daddy who know what is best for us. The government is an extension of the will of the people. It is an organization designed to enforce the rules put in place by society.

We have proven we can handle guns. You obviously cannot. If you don't want to own a gun, so be it. What business is it for you to tell me I cannot have one? The reason I mentioned being a citizen of USA was that you try to talk down to me (and taken to a whole new level in your last post). You think you know what is best for me, but you don't. I think people are well within their rights to own guns.

But hey, I'll play your game. You're a severely misguided far left extremist who believes that abortion is a "pro choice" issue... but suddenly you're not so in favor of choice when it comes to owning a gun.

 

[Deleted member]

Dude how dumb can you be at this point? Like seriously just because you think "people are well within their rights to own guns" doesn't mean that it's correct! The only reason it's a right is because it was a necessary amendment centuries ago! As a SENTIENT person, I am well within my right to question anything and everything, so when I ask why gun ownership you need not see me as some crazy anti-American fool! Americans are deeply rooted with their "values" but many of these "values" have begun to look incredibly medieval in the face of modern social change. So yeah, it's COMPLETELY my business to be all "Hey Buzz, I don't believe you have the right to own a gun!" You being an American citizen is not carte blanche to act superior to anything that I or any other third party suggest on how to better your country.

I've never said that I want the government to become the so-called Nanny State - I've never said anything to that effect!

My comments regarding American insanity have been general and tongue-in-cheek, not personal remarks regarding things COMPLETELY irrelevant to both the context of "choice" and this debate. So **** off for that one.

 

[Crimson King]

That post made me realize that defenders of the Second Amendment are like children. Some of them play with their shiny toys nicely, but some of them throw them at other kids in the sandbox. They start to whine when the parent takes the toy away.

I've never said that I want the government to become the so-called Nanny State - I've never said anything to that effect!

That post made me realize that defenders of the Second Amendment are like children. Some of them play with their shiny toys nicely, but some of them throw them at other kids in the sandbox. They start to whine when the parent takes the toy away.

Actually, you did.

Also, slapping huge punishments for possessing guns will not stop them. Have you seen our drug penalties? Some can result in you being declared a felon after one a few busts. Felon status means you can't vote, most jobs won't take you, you can't own a weapon, etc. That doesn't stop people from using drugs, and the same goes with guns.

In fact, if someone is going to break into a house with a firearm to rob the family, wouldn't he be MORE likely to murder everyone since being caught means he could be sentenced to for a long time just for possessing a gun?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Dude how dumb can you be at this point? Like seriously just because you think "people are well within their rights to own guns" doesn't mean that it's correct!

And you think you know better? That's what gets me. "Correct" according to whose standard??? You operate using this superiority complex. You continue to talk like you're my father and that you know what's best for me. Del, you are not as enlightened as you would like to believe. If guns were as terrible as you claim, America would have exterminated itself long ago.

 

[Deleted member]

You are losing respect at a ridiculous rate with me. Oh my god dude how do I have a superiority complex when I am questioning something a certain percentage of American people hold to be correct? Did Galileo have a superiority complex when he suggested the earth was round? You don't need to answer that question. Just know that you are rejecting my right to free speech if you're getting unjustifiably upset at someone who thinks your country's gun perversion is silly.

It's what I THINK. I don't care about what you think unless we're debating. That's when I begin to listen to your side and that's when I begin to say mine. That's when YOU begin to listen to me. Vice versa. Debating 101.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

You are losing respect at a ridiculous rate with me. Oh my god dude how do I have a superiority complex when I am questioning something a certain percentage of American people hold to be correct? Did Galileo have a superiority complex when he suggested the earth was round? You don't need to answer that question. Just know that you are rejecting my right to free speech if you're getting unjustifiably upset at someone who thinks your country's gun perversion is silly.

It's what I THINK. I don't care about what you think unless we're debating. That's when I begin to listen to your side and that's when I begin to say mine. That's when YOU begin to listen to me. Vice versa. Debating 101.

It has nothing to do with the mere fact that you question it. It's the fact that you question it, receive answers, and continue to pretend that you know better. You believe that citizens owning guns is somehow a problem. It's not. You believe that letting people own guns increases the number of gun crimes. It doesn't. You believe all these things, and none of them are true. That is why I say you have a superiority complex.

 

[Crimson King]

You are losing respect at a ridiculous rate with me. Oh my god dude how do I have a superiority complex when I am questioning something a certain percentage of American people hold to be correct? Did Galileo have a superiority complex when he suggested the earth was round? You don't need to answer that question. Just know that you are rejecting my right to free speech if you're getting unjustifiably upset at someone who thinks your country's gun perversion is silly.

Galileo said the Earth rotated around the Sun. It was known for a long time that the Earth was round.

He's not rejecting your right to free speech; he is expressing his OWN right to disagree with your opinion. Your arguments are really stupid because you are presenting your opinion of things as a fact. Case in point, you said 45% of Americans DON'T want gun ownership.

b) I believe nearly 45% would rather have stricter gun laws

How is this even a point? In an election, their vote would lose because we go by a majority anyway. Having the minority make the decision for the majority is communism.

 

[Deleted member]

Sorry, thank you for correcting me on Galileo, I meant to mention heliocentricity.

The latest Gallup poll, if I recall correctly, is nearly 45% for stricter gun ownership laws. That means that there is a very big amount of people who are pro gun control. Buzz made it seem everyone in America likes guns and that it wasn't questioned. That's the only point I was trying to make, obviously we go by majority.

Buzz, why you believe that I'm ignoring your points is beyond me. The last couple posts we've simply been discussing my right to question the Second Amendment.

 

[RDK]

Del, come on now. Buzz has a point when he says that you're being ridiculous claiming to be pro-choice on policies such as abortion, but then you advocate stricter laws when it comes to gun ownership. It all comes down to civil liberties.

I still don't understand how you think that guns are no longer needed as a form of protection just because we don't live in the 1700's.

 

[Deleted member]

Can someone PLEASE show me why abortion and gun control are linked?! Why do you guys keep bringing it up?!

I'm for stricter gun laws - that doesn't mean I support banning them entirely. I've said before that you could eliminate guns entirely by placing a severe fine / punishment on owning one, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

[RDK]

Can someone PLEASE show me why abortion and gun control are linked?! Why do you guys keep bringing it up?!

I'm for stricter gun laws - that doesn't mean I support banning them entirely. I've said before that you could eliminate guns entirely by placing a severe fine / punishment on owning one, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Do you agree that being able to own a firearm is an important part of every citizen's rights?

 

[aeghrur]

Do you agree that being able to own a firearm is an important part of every citizen's rights?

I don't.
It's a privilege, not a right.
Otherwise, we would give guns to felons as well... =/

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I don't.
It's a privilege, not a right.
Otherwise, we would give guns to felons as well... =/

Actually, felons lose basic rights as a result of their criminal behavior.

 

[aeghrur]

Well bah, how the hell is that a right then?
I thought rights were things which is due to anyone, while privileges are something given to people under certain circumstances.

 

[Crimson King]

Well bah, how the hell is that a right then?
I thought rights were things which is due to anyone, while privileges are something given to people under certain circumstances.

The rights are given by the constitution, which is an agreement. If you break the law, ie. one of the things you, as a citizen agree not to, the constitution is no longer applicable except for a few laws pertaining to the rights of criminals.

You still have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness, but by breaking the law, you violated someone else's rights previous, and you deserve the same treatment.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I don't.
It's a privilege, not a right.
Otherwise, we would give guns to felons as well... =/

No, not at all.



Under UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, bearing arms is a RIGHT, not a privilege

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.

Granted, there's a debate to be had about whether it's a state or individual right (individual) but I'm not going into that here.


So why can we be deprived of a right?

or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Right here, due process of law can deprive you of anything, which is why it's so important to keep an eye on what laws are passed.



The difference between a right and a privilege?


A privilege is granted to you by an outside force, a right is something you already have.


Basically, if it's a privilege, the government can grant the ability to bear arms as it sees fit, if it's a right, we have a pre-existing right to bear arms, and the government does not have the authority to prevent us, only to remove that right due to our actions (and in certain instances, our state).

 

[Deleted member]

Do you agree that being able to own a firearm is an important part of every citizen's rights?

Absolutely not.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

What about swords? If I cannot own a gun, can I own a wide array of swords? What about bows/arrows?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Absolutely not.

Ok, so why not?


The 2nd amendment has been quoted many times, and it suggests it's a fundamental right, why do you believe that it isn't, unless you're just being inconsistent.

 

[Crimson King]

What about swords? If I cannot own a gun, can I own a wide array of swords? What about bows/arrows?

This. If I can't have guns, then neither can the police, and I should be able to have a crossbow. There is no reason the police should have faster and more efficient weapons than the citizens of a country.

 

[Deleted member]

You people jump on me at every second. He asked me if it was an important part of every citizen's rights. Frankly, I just don't see how owning a gun is an important right. I also wouldn't even consider it a right. By this token you should be able to own a tank, and then a warhead, and well..

It should be a privilege. You straw man me if you say "if I cannot own a gun, can I own a sword?" I'm not saying you can't own guns, I'm just saying you need stricter privilege laws.

 

[Aesir]

You people jump on me at every second. He asked me if it was an important part of every citizen's rights. Frankly, I just don't see how owning a gun is an important right. I also wouldn't even consider it a right. By this token you should be able to own a tank, and then a warhead, and well..

See every American has that libertarian voice inside their head that wants the government to be afraid of them. By having every American own a gun we feel safer knowing if our government ever crosses the line we can just go and over throw it. Needless to say that wouldn't be an easy task considering they have the army, marines and airforce behind them so it's not like they really would fear us but you get the idea.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't get the idea. That symbolism doesn't mean much when gun violence is rampant.

 

[Pr0phetic]

I don't get the idea. That symbolism doesn't mean much when gun violence is rampant.

I'm thinking what your failing to see is gun violence mostly* happens ILLEGALLY, aka guns that are not registered and were obtained the wrong way, used by violent people. The 2nd amendment doesn't promote gun violence neither does it catalyze it.