PDA

View Full Version : Should the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution be changed or removed??


Pages : [1] 2

ZeroSOFInfinity
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:00 PM
After the incidents in Virginia Tech this week, do you think it's time the US Govt or State change or remove the Second Amendment of the Constitution?

Give your thoughts in here.

By the way, the 2nd Amendment is about the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

"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"

cellophane
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:06 PM
What is it? I'm not familiar with the US Constitution.

TennisGuy21
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:17 PM
This would be a better post if you could include what the second ammendment( It is the right to bear arms )

ZeroSOFInfinity
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:26 PM
^^^
Oh yeah, I forgot! Silly me! :tape:

Will add in now!

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:27 PM
I would like to see the 2nd amendment repealed or modified. We have got to make it difficult as hell to own a firearm. Also, we need to expensive as hell to own a firearm. The logic that only criminals would have guns if we make firearms illegal is absurd. One just needs to look at countries like New Zealand or the Scandinavian countries to see that countries with super-strict gun laws don't descend into chaos and crime; on the contrary, gun deaths become extremely rare.

TennisGuy21
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:27 PM
(yes)I think it should be worked on at least- stricter rules, more registration laws..

Sally Struthers
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:28 PM
I will say this again... people had access to guns 50-60 years ago as well and there were not any mass school shootings like there have been in the last 2 decades. Something on a psychological level has changed in today's youth that makes them more apt to do such things.

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:29 PM
The 2nd Amendment should not be touched.

We should enforce our current laws better.
Make our laws better, each state has the jurisdiction
to do that.

We have thousands of gun laws of every type in the country
already. Let's enforce them better.

However, if this man was intent on causing mayhem,
he would have done it with a gun or without one, with
a legally purchased gun, or an illegally gotten one. He
could have used another weapon or means as well to
cause death to masses if he was bent on doing it.


We should profile our legal immigrants better. Why was
this guy allowed into the nation? Did he ever show any
signs of any problems in the past? Make it harder to get
into this nation, not easier. That's the law we should
be addressing.

If a few people on that campus had the right to carry
a concealed weapon, they would have had a chance to
take out the coward. We cannot rely entirely on our police
forces to protect us - sadly, as we saw yesterday.


Nazi Germany outlawed citizens from owning guns, as did Communist
Russia. As does Washington, D.C., and in large part LA County - does
anyone think those two places are safe and secure for average
citizens? No. Criminals find a way to get guns easily. Law abiding
citizens are forbidden from owning them.

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:31 PM
I do wish the media would not spend more time on this mouse of a human
being, than it does the victims.

They know going in, they will be given sick cult status.

The poster is right, it's a fairly recent trend, the past few decades.
Guns have been around forever in the USA, but, these types of
crimes have not.

We've desensitized our society from violence, from responsibility, and
from growing up.

miffedmax
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:33 PM
I am loathe to change the constitution (especially for something as stupid as flag-burning or banning gay marriage).

The question I have always had is how national licensing laws can be construed as limiting the right to own a gun.

Whenever I pose that question, somebody goes into a rant about how then the government would know who has guns and they'd come and take them away (doubtless in black helicopters piloted by members of the Trilateral Commission). Of course, if I wanted to take over, I'd just buy the NRA's mailing list.

We actually have a lot of laws regulating gun ownership. The problem is that they are all different at the federal, state and local level, laxly enforced and too easily circumvented.

A streamlined, centralized registration system and required safety classes would, IMHO, allow Americans to own guns and reduce violence.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:34 PM
I will say this again... people had access to guns 50-60 years ago as well and there were not any mass school shootings like there have been in the last 2 decades. Something on a psychological level has changed in today's youth that makes them more apt to do such things.

Sally, it's true, but guns today can shoot a lot more rapidly. The way guns are sold in this country is so irresponsible, too. It needs to be extremely difficult, time-consuming and expensive to buy a gun, and it's not.

ampers&
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:36 PM
I made this a post about this in the main thread on the shootings, and I'll just repost it because it's basically what I think about this situation:

One thing that strikes me when these types of tragedies happen in the United States is the fact that countries like Canada have a comparable amount guns but fewer instances of crimes that involve guns. The cycle of violence that is pervasive in this country has a lot to do with people handling guns irresponsibly. Violence is constantly extolled in movies, music, and television. When you have children and young adults being bombarded with images that make it seem as if power and respect come with handling these guns, situations like this will continue to happen. I've heard this before and it fits: guns don't kill people; people kill people. It's more to do with who's handling the guns and because this generation handles them more irresponsibly than past generations, some stricter controls must be made. Fuck the NRA and all those people arguing about their "right." Gun violence ruins entire communities and incidents like this will continue to happen if nothing is done. The 2nd amendment definitely needs to be modified to fit issues we're dealing with today.

Kart
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:38 PM
We should profile our legal immigrants better. Why was
this guy allowed into the nation? Did he ever show any
signs of any problems in the past? Make it harder to get
into this nation, not easier. That's the law we should
be addressing.


That would stop the problem how exactly ?

You've already reasoned he would have gotten hold of a gun anyway so he would have killed people in whatever country he was in.

Or is it only American lives that matter ?

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:38 PM
I made this a post about this in the main thread on the shootings, and I'll just repost it because it's basically what I think about this situation:

One thing that strikes me when these types of tragedies happen in the United States is the fact that countries like Canada have a comparable amount guns but fewer instances of crimes that involve guns. The cycle of violence that is pervasive in this country has a lot to do with people handling guns irresponsibly. Violence is constantly extolled in movies, music, and television. When you have children and young adults being bombarded with images that make it seem as if power and respect come with handling these guns, situations like this will continue to happen. I've heard this before and it fits: guns don't kill people; people kill people. It's more to do with who's handling the guns and because this generation handles them more irresponsibly than past generations, some stricter controls must be made. Fuck the NRA and all those people arguing about their "right." Gun violence ruins entire communities and incidents like this will continue to happen if nothing is done. The 2nd amendment definitely needs to be modified to fit issues we're dealing with today.

This argument would have more force if the killer hadn't been a South Korean. He wasn't raised in this country or culture so we can't really blame the US culture or media.

Sally Struthers
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:39 PM
This argument would have more force if the killer hadn't been a South Korean. He wasn't raised in this country or culture so we can't really blame the US culture or media.

I'm surprised he's Korean anyway. Usually these sort of things and serial killings are done by white males.

TennisGuy21
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I will say this again... people had access to guns 50-60 years ago as well and there were not any mass school shootings like there have been in the last 2 decades. Something on a psychological level has changed in today's youth that makes them more apt to do such things.

People were being killed with guns 50- 60 yrs ago too, it doesnt really change the fact that stricter rules need to be in place to prevent them from getting to the hands of those who are less responsible or have intentions of harmful use.

miffedmax
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:42 PM
I will say this again... people had access to guns 50-60 years ago as well and there were not any mass school shootings like there have been in the last 2 decades. Something on a psychological level has changed in today's youth that makes them more apt to do such things.

I'm not sure that's entirely true--whackos like Charles Starkweather, the Austin sniper and others killed plenty of people back then.

Once major thing to me is that like all technology, guns have improved over the years. Very few guns widely available in the '50s or '60s had anything like the magazine capacity, rate of fire or accuracy of a Glock 9 mm.

I do agree, though, that since these kinds of crime generate so much publicity there is a copycat element at work here.

Apoleb
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Why was
this guy allowed into the nation? Did he ever show any
signs of any problems in the past? Make it harder to get
into this nation, not easier. That's the law we should
be addressing.


Wow. Samsung found the answer for recurring events of school and college gun violence in the US: xenophobia. Isn't jsut amazing how right wingers can somehow turn everything into bigotry?

Even if the problem has to do with growing ills in society rather than guns themselves, it doesn't mean that stricter gun regulations aren't part of solving this issue. I have no doubt in my mind that the more available guns are, the easier for nutjobs to act and kill. In many cases murders are not extremely pre-meditated, so surely when you have an easy access to guns, the more likely you're going to act on your homicidal leanings.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:49 PM
South Korean men have to serve in the army. It's mandatory. That's probably why he was so skilled at shooting and reloading. :sad:

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:51 PM
Drugs are illegal in America.
We have a huge problem with that, and more people will
die from drugs than guns every year.


Rosie is on the air calling for gun bans. This from the
woman who has enough cash to have armed security
guards around her family and homes. Just a tad bit
elitist.


Enforce our existing laws better.
Give the police more tools to do their job, not less.

The UK has a problem with criminals getting guns, and
they are largely illegal there. Crime rates have risen, not
dropped with gun bans in many places.

But, with the internet, guns are easier to get around the
world. Part by part. It's not that difficult to do, anywhere.
Just like drugs, those who want to get them, will find a way.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Good point, but I'm not making my argument based on this one instance; I'm talking about what happens in the majority of situations that involve gun violence in the US. This shooting was huge and brought up the discussion, but I've witnessed gun violence on a smaller but more frequent scale for most of my life while living in this country. 95% of it was done by US citizens. US media and culture had a lot to do with those shootings and most shootings that happen in this country.

Whoops, just found out the South Korean has been in the US since the age of 8. Sorry about that! :o

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:54 PM
That's an interesting point about his mandatory military service and
training.

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:54 PM
That doesn't mean he had not been back in South Korea.

From 8, why did he not have citizenship? Why was he just
on a visa for all those years?

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 04:55 PM
That's an interesting point about his mandatory military service and
training.


I'm wrong. He grew up in the USA! My bad. :o

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:11 PM
The knee jerk predictable reaction to any gun incident in the USA -
we need more gun control/ban the 2nd amendment/take guns away
from everyone but the police & military, etc..... is not an answer.

It's not a solution to a bigger problem.

Congress cannot legislate away evil and crime.
Congress and more laws cannot legislate away a problem
w/i the society, or w/i an individual.
Congress cannot make things all right by making a new law.

It makes us feel better.
Not much else.

timafi
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:11 PM
why the fuck should they profile immigrants more?:rolleyes:
weren't Harris and Klebold american born and that didn't stop them from shooting and killing innocent people at Columbine?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
so the idea of immigrants being profiled more is utter bullshit:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
stop blaming immigrants you xenophobe:mad: :mad:

Helen Lawson
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:16 PM
You can much better regulate the sale and distribution of the assault weapons at issue here without repealing the Second Amendment, but the NRA lobby is too strong.

venus_rulez
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:21 PM
I don't know if I believe that the Constitution should be amended, but our gun laws need to SERIOUSLY be re-examined so that not anyone who wants one can simply go buy a gun. I get the whole "guns don't kill people, people do" but ok then people keep killing people with guns so let's try and limit the access people have to guns by revising our laws.

Marshmallow
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:34 PM
I've heard this before and it fits: guns don't kill people; people kill people.

It's true to an extent. Take away the guns, and if people what to kill other people they will find a way. They will turn to knives and knife crimes may increase.

But it is much harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, even more so to kill a large number of people.

At the end of the day, there are social and psychological issue that need to be addressed, but that kind of change will take generations and tremendous effort. A more efficient albeit first step is to make guns, the more readily available weapons of mass destruction – tougher to get a hold of and to maintain. Less guns available, less gun crime by probability.

But I am really interested in what ticked this man off.

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:39 PM
After JFK killing, Reagan assassination attempt (Brady bill),
Columbine, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City bombing, we
had the Congress create new laws, more laws, supposed to
stop the gun crazy, gun toting, Western mentality American
crime problems....

Congress cannot legislate away criminal behavior. It can try to
curb it, jail those who do commit crimes, etc. But, it cannot
stop it.

Let's put the blame where it belongs, on this one person.

He alone shot the students and faculty.
He alone thought this out long before evidently.
He is the criminal.
He's not a victim, which I'm already heading on the news
(not rich, not white, not popular, loner, isolated, etc.).
He was a coward, loser, and killer.

BUBI
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:49 PM
Usually problems can't be solved by making new laws. I like the U. S. constitution :yeah:

Chrissie-fan
Apr 17th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Since they are meant for killing people I can see no reason why anyone should have the right to bear arms. Of course one can argue that it's the person and not the gun that kills, but that sounds as logical to me as allowing every country to have nuclear weapons. After all, the bomb ain't the problem, if something happens it's the fault of that fruitcake in Iran or North Korea or whatever that pushed the button. If we all agree that we can't risk a lunatic killing millions of people, why should it be ok to risk a psycho killing 1, 10 or 33?

But having said all that, it's already too late. What sense would it make to ban the sale of guns in a society where everyone already owns one?

Halardfan
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:13 PM
Is the sole reason America has more of such incidents and more gun violence because of the right to bear arms and its attendant myths...no...is it a major reason...yes.

The notion that it would have been safer if MORE people had guns is truly insane.

These incidents are not acts of god that no one can forsee or prevent...rather they are a byproduct of the gun culture/worship in parts of the USA.

MS_FP
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:18 PM
People are going to have guns whether they are legal or not. Allowing law abiding citizens to own guns gives them the ability to protect themselves. Yes, it is that black & white. The 2nd Amendment also allows people to hunt and use guns for sport.

Jakeev
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:21 PM
People were being killed with guns 50- 60 yrs ago too, it doesnt really change the fact that stricter rules need to be in place to prevent them from getting to the hands of those who are less responsible or have intentions of harmful use.

But you missed Sally's point. Something has gone terribly wrong with our society and how we handle violence and if isn't guns it's some other weapon of choice we are killing each with.

ElusiveChanteuse
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:30 PM
wow!the person who started this thread is not an american!:lol:
but props to him!:angel:

Chrissie-fan
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:31 PM
People are going to have guns whether they are legal or not. Allowing law abiding citizens to own guns gives them the ability to protect themselves. Yes, it is that black & white. The 2nd Amendment also allows people to hunt and use guns for sport.
Well, it's not my country so it's none of my business, but maybe it's worth considering that these sort of crimes happen a lot more often in the US than in the UK, Europe, Australia or Japan where gun laws are stricter.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:33 PM
You can much better regulate the sale and distribution of the assault weapons at issue here without repealing the Second Amendment, but the NRA lobby is too strong.

Truer words were never spoken! :worship:

Tennis Fool
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:35 PM
I'm surprised he's Korean anyway. Usually these sort of things and serial killings are done by white males.

Actually, I've heard of a few killings by Asians in academia in the past decade or so. One of these was highlighted in the New York Times a few weeks ago.

Also, the student was a US citizen who'd moved to the states in 15 years ago...

Sally Struthers
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:35 PM
You can much better regulate the sale and distribution of the assault weapons at issue here without repealing the Second Amendment, but the NRA lobby is too strong.

I agree about the assault weapons. You don't need an assault rifel for hunting unless the deer is shooting back :o

However, I think these were 9 mm hand guns so the point is moot.

Sally Struthers
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:36 PM
Actually, I've heard of a few killings by Asians in academia in the past decade or so. One of these was highlighted in the New York Times a few weeks ago.


yes but not mass killings like this or Columbine.

Tennis Fool
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:41 PM
yes but not mass killings like this or Columbine.

Well, this guy was set on his professor, I guess he could have taken out more people :shrug:

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:51 PM
Something has NOT gone terribly wrong with American society. Some of you guys have such a limited view of history. There was life before 1980! :lol:

When people first came to North America, there was so much violence (and gun deaths), it greatly exceeds what we are seeing in this day and age. For God's sake, even "civilized politicians" used to have gun duels! :unsure:

You wouldn't believe the number of murders that occurred as people began to settle further and further Westward. The number of gun deaths per capita from the "Wild West" era was much higher than the number of gun deaths per capita today.

Look at Europe. You can see statistics from many countries dating all the way back to the 1300s. The number of murders per capita has fallen in every single century.

I get so tired of hearing people say that society has gotten so evil and awful when something like this happens. For God's sake, learn about the atrocities that were committed in the past. When a shooting like this happens, you shouldn't be thinking, "How can the world be so awful?! This has really shaken me up." Putting aside the atrocities of recent history like the Holocaust, Rawanda, Soviet gulags, WWII, etc., you can look back to the Mongol invasions, the brutal slave trade, the hideously violent Aztecs, the Crusades, the religious wars of Europe, the brutality of the Roman Empire, etc.

What I often find so ironic is that the people who tend to say this are usually very religious, and yet the Bible is filled with some of the most hideously violent stories imaginable. According to the Bible, the Lord would have the Isrealites slaughter entire nations of people (men, women, children, livestock, etc.) These people view the Bible as God's Word, but then say things like, "Look how evil the world is becoming. This kid killed 32 people." All I can think is, "Clearly you were too busy thinking about your upcoming church social or judgment house during history class to pay attention to the lessons on Nero, Ghengis Khan, or Pol Pot." :help:

You think humans in the USA are nasty and vile to each other now? Life is a lot less violent in the USA than it was in 1700s and 1800s. Of course, rehashing these facts doesn't exactly sell papers and get pundits to share their "shocking expert opinions" on Fox News.

(Oh my God, this rant is too long. I should go back to making natural avatars.)

fifiricci
Apr 17th, 2007, 06:55 PM
I find the whole "bearing arms" thing so outdated. It inevitably reminds me of cowboy and indian films, lol! I've been to the USA three times now and still don't get this obsession about carrying guns. I mean, in this day and age, who exactly are you bearing arms against? Someone who jumps you in the queue in Starbucks or McDonalds? Cos I don't think the apaches are gonna come over any hill in any town near you these days, are they? ;)

I've heard some people banging on about needing a gun to feel safe in your own house. Well what about using a bloody good lock and alarm system, or even some kind of panic room, instead? We are presumably just as much at threat of being burgled in our own homes here in the UK, but we just lock the doors and get on with it. I personally hardly ever think in terms of being under such threat in my own environment that I need a weapon about me to blow someone's head off.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:01 PM
^^^

What's even more absurd is that the Constitution give us the right to bear "arms". Arms can be any weapon, not just guns. A grenade is an arm, as is a nuclear bomb. Clearly the government restricts those arms so it should be able to restrict guns as well.

The 2nd Amendment is an embarrassment to the US, but I have hope that things will change once more and more people move to cities. Right now, the country is still controlled in large part by rural hicks because of the way the Constitution set up the government. Small, unpopulated states have a lot more power per capita than big, densely populated states. :sad:

BUBI
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:19 PM
^^^

What's even more absurd is that the Constitution give us the right to bear "arms". Arms can be any weapon, not just guns. A grenade is an arm, as is a nuclear bomb. Clearly the government restricts those arms so it should be able to restrict guns as well.


But it's clearly meant to mean guns, isn't it? Why not be honest and not take everything so literally :rolleyes:

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:19 PM
I've heard some people banging on about needing a gun to feel safe in your own house. Well what about using a bloody good lock and alarm system, or even some kind of panic room, instead? We are presumably just as much at threat of being burgled in our own homes here in the UK, but we just lock the doors and get on with it. I personally hardly ever think in terms of being under such threat in my own environment that I need a weapon about me to blow someone's head off.

Statistically speaking, half of the world has below average intelligence; ergo, the United States (just like every country) is full of a tragically high number of complete morons.

What separates the US from many other Western nations is its pathetically-sensationalistic, fear-crazy media. The American media loves to jump from one bugaboo to the next. (For the morons, a bugaboo is an object of obsessive, exaggerated fear.)

You can see it in every news report on this story. "What is keeping this from happening at your child's school?" "How do you know that your children are safe?" "Could your child be attending school with a child who is likely to act out violently?"

The morons in this country are like sheep. They feed on fear. The media has them scared as hell over the bugaboo d'jour. It can be spinach, kidnappers, brain cancer from cell phones, terrorists, school shootings, predatory gay Congressmen, peanut butter, defective infant car seats, etc. This sells papers and gets ratings.

These morons live in fear, and they think they need guns to keep themselves safe. They say that if guns were outlawed that criminals would have all the guns, and things would get even worse. These are merely the gut reactions of morons. They are absolutely, positively not based on any sound reasoning, science, or statistic.

Look at any country with extremely tough guns laws (i.e. New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, etc.), and you'll see that gun deaths are less frequent than an intelligent post from lizchris!!! :help:

As far as the US already having lots of guns out there, let's just fucking take bullets off the shelves at stores. Yes, there will be bullets still out there, but I guarantee you this guy at Virginia Tech went out and bought his bullets the legal way, and I'm sure it was quite easy for him to buy them without the seller give it a second thought.

We have got to make a change, and the pro-gun and pro-2nd amendment cliches are just not cutting it!

(P.S. Why are Republicans so gung-ho about protecting the 2nd amendment, but don't seem to give a damn about how the Bush Admin. and the Patriot Act have trampled all over the 4th Amendment? :shrug:)

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:23 PM
'Arms' in the USA does not mean any form of ammunition or weapon, as
each State and locality in many cases, has their own laws on the books.

Federal laws oversee the gun issue as well.



Thousands, not a few, gun laws restricting their sale, use, and
concealment are on the books, and have been for a long time.
Shore those laws up, fine. Add more people to the ATF, great.

But, the 2nd Amendment in and of itself is not the problem.

I do wonder what would have happened if a few students or faculty
had a legal concealed weapon on them. If the university had a few
more armed security personnel at each campus building or visible
at various parts of the campus.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:28 PM
But it's clearly meant to mean guns, isn't it? Why not be honest and not take everything so literally :rolleyes:

You have the reasoning skills of someone whose favorite book is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire! :help:

If you want to go with what the Constitution was "clearly meant to mean", it was talking about bayonettes and wooden pistols! Those weapons were able to fire once, and then they had to be reloaded -- a time-consuming process.

You're asking me to be honest?! You're the one that is totally dishonest. The Founding Fathers did not intend to give Americans the inalienable right to own the guns of today! They gave them the right to own the bayonette and the old-fashioned pistol.

It's totally dishonest to claim that the writers of the Constitution have given us the right to own today's weapons.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:30 PM
I do wonder what would have happened if a few students or faculty had a legal concealed weapon on them. If the university had a few more armed security personnel at each campus building or visible at various parts of the campus.

Why do countries like Denmark and Finland not need armed security on every campus to keep safe? Why are there virtually no gun deaths in Iceland even though no students there carry concealed weapons for protection?

BUBI
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:33 PM
Why do countries like Denmark and Finland not need armed security on every campus to keep safe? Why are there virtually no gun deaths in Iceland even though no students there carry concealed weapons for protection?
It's because those countries have a whole different culture and population than USA. It's not because of some laws.

BUBI
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:36 PM
It's totally dishonest to claim that the writers of the Constitution have given us the right to own today's weapons.

Yes and you said that, not me ;)

Selah
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:36 PM
Good point, but I'm not making my argument based on this one instance; I'm talking about what happens in the majority of situations that involve gun violence in the US. This shooting was huge and brought up the discussion, but I've witnessed gun violence on a smaller but more frequent scale for most of my life while living in this country. 95% of it was done by US citizens. US media and culture had a lot to do with those shootings and most shootings that happen in this country.

But the thing is, especially because of globalization, people the world over are experiencing and exposed to the same same media culture, so again the laws concerning owning and obtaining firearms needs to be addressed, obviously along with other things.

Samsung, the argument is wack. So if more people were armed on campus, don't you think it would have turned into the wild, wild west? How would person A know who is the perp, everyone would have been firing because of their perceived notion of danger. Don't be crazy.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:39 PM
It's because those countries have a whole different culture and population than USA. It's not because of some laws.

let me get this straight. Our nation has more guns per capita than any country in Europe. It also has a vastly higher murder rate per capita than any European country. We already have a lot more guns than Europe so why on earth would a solution to our problem be even more guns?

alfonsojose
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:44 PM
:eek: he was a loner who posted on wtahell.com :bolt:

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:45 PM
Yes and you said that, not me ;)

You are really stupid so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to write this ... but anyway.

I was using an ironic argument to show the fallacy of the pro-gun lobby. Obviously, I don't think the writers of the Constitution were including nuclear arms and grenades. They hadn't even been invented yet.

The Constitution says arms which does not mean "guns" as we think of them today. It only means bayonettes and wooden pistols. The pro-gun lobby is dishonest because they don't want the Constitution to be treated in its historical context (i.e. they don't want to admit that the framers of the Constitution were only speaking about bayonettes and wooden pistols when they wrote the word arms).

BUBI
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:48 PM
let me get this straight. Our nation has more guns per capita than any country in Europe. It also has a vastly higher murder rate per capita than any European country. We already have a lot more guns than Europe so why on earth would a solution to our problem be even more guns?
Less guns would be better than more guns. But if people feel need for a gun to feel safe, they should be able to get a gun legally. If they get a gun illegally, it only means more money to organized crime.

fifiricci
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:48 PM
Statistically speaking, half of the world has below average intelligence; ergo, the United States (just like every country) is full of a tragically high number of complete morons.

What separates the US from many other Western nations is its pathetically-sensationalistic, fear-crazy media. The American media loves to jump from one bugaboo to the next. (For the morons, a bugaboo is an object of obsessive, exaggerated fear.)

You can see it in every news report on this story. "What is keeping this from happening at your child's school?" "How do you know that your children are safe?" "Could your child be attending school with a child who is likely to act out violently?"

The morons in this country are like sheep. They feed on fear. The media has them scared as hell over the bugaboo d'jour. It can be spinach, kidnappers, brain cancer from cell phones, terrorists, school shootings, predatory gay Congressmen, peanut butter, defective infant car seats, etc. This sells papers and gets ratings.

These morons live in fear, and they think they need guns to keep themselves safe. They say that if guns were outlawed that criminals would have all the guns, and things would get even worse. These are merely the gut reactions of morons. They are absolutely, positively not based on any sound reasoning, science, or statistic.

Look at any country with extremely tough guns laws (i.e. New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, etc.), and you'll see that gun deaths are less frequent than an intelligent post from lizchris!!! :help:

As far as the US already having lots of guns out there, let's just fucking take bullets off the shelves at stores. Yes, there will be bullets still out there, but I guarantee you this guy at Virginia Tech went out and bought his bullets the legal way, and I'm sure it was quite easy for him to buy them without the seller give it a second thought.

We have got to make a change, and the pro-gun and pro-2nd amendment cliches are just not cutting it!

(P.S. Why are Republicans so gung-ho about protecting the 2nd amendment, but don't seem to give a damn about how the Bush Admin. and the Patriot Act have trampled all over the 4th Amendment? :shrug:)

Thanks for this lucid and honest explanation, it helps those of us who are not from the US to understand an issue that seems straightforward to us, but at the same time not of our culture. Its also refreshing to see someone trying to help others understand rather than just being defensive by shooting their criticisms down in flames. Thanks again.

BUBI
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:51 PM
You are really stupid so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to write this ... but anyway.

I was using an ironic argument to show the fallacy of the pro-gun lobby. Obviously, I don't think the writers of the Constitution were including nuclear arms and grenades. They hadn't even been invented yet.

The Constitution says arms which does not mean "guns" as we think of them today. It only means bayonettes and wooden pistols. The pro-gun lobby is dishonest because they don't want the Constitution to be treated in its historical context (i.e. they don't want to admit that the framers of the Constitution were only speaking about bayonettes and wooden pistols when they wrote the word arms).
Sure there should be some restrictions. Where would you draw the line?

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 07:57 PM
Sure there should be some restrictions. Where would you draw the line?

I'd like gun laws like those in most of Europe. :shrug:

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:00 PM
It's because those countries have a whole different culture and population than USA. It's not because of some laws.

How do you explain the situation in Canada then? The populations of the US and Canada are similarly comprised, and the culture is VERY similar, but the US has many more gun fatalities than we do here in Canada.

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:01 PM
How do you explain the situation in Canada then? The populations of the US and Canada are similarly comprised, and the culture is VERY similar, but the US has many more gun fatalities than we do here in Canada.

You can't ask fools whose opinions are based on dogma and tenants to reason with you. :sad:

cellophane
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:05 PM
How do you explain the situation in Canada then? The populations of the US and Canada are similarly comprised, and the culture is VERY similar, but the US has many more gun fatalities than we do here in Canada.

I would not agree with that. Of course, it's strongly influenced by US culture, but it's not the same. And politically speaking, Canada is certainly different.

BUBI
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:08 PM
You can't ask fools whose opinions are based on dogma and tenants to reason with you. :sad:
You are the one who is simply comparing the laws and murder statistics and make conclusions without seeing the bigger picture. I dont know the situation in Canada, so I can't really answer his question.

Qrystyna
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:18 PM
I find it funny that right-wingers are so into protecting gun laws... it's almost like a form of anarchy, allowing regular citizens to go around carrying guns. Yet these people would balk at calling themselves anarchists.

I really don't know how any person can condone people carrying guns. Yes, it's a crazy violent world, but arming each citizen to the teeth isn't going to improve anything, it's just going to make things worse. That is one of the reasons I sometimes didn't feel safe when I lived in the US... the fact that citizens could possibly be carrying guns around. Ordinary citizens do not need to carry guns for any reason.

Dementieva_Dude
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:25 PM
I would not agree with that. Of course, it's strongly influenced by US culture, but it's not the same. And politically speaking, Canada is certainly different.

Yes, Canadian culture is VERY strongly influenced by American culture, but it is not the same, I agree (it varies regionally, but here in Southern Ontario, it is extrememly similar). Canada is very different from the US politically speaking, but that was exactly my point...the US must make political/legal changes if they hope to reduce these horrific acts.

Mother_Marjorie
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:28 PM
After the incidents in Virginia Tech this week, do you think it's time the US Govt or State change or remove the Second Amendment of the Constitution?

Give your thoughts in here.

By the way, the 2nd Amendment is about the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

"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"
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution will never be amended because Americans will never give up their right to bear arms, in spite of the attempts by the US communists.

*JR*
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:47 PM
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution will never be amended because Americans will never give up their right to bear arms, in spite of the attempts by the US communists.
Communist = anyone who disagrees with Marjorie on a political issue. :tape:

LoveFifteen
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:47 PM
You are the one who is simply comparing the laws and murder statistics and make conclusions without seeing the bigger picture. I dont know the situation in Canada, so I can't really answer his question.

Of course you don't know the situation in Canada. You're totally ignorant of the rest of the world. For some odd reason, you're convinced that we're the only country in the Western world where people need guns to "feel and remain safe".

samsung101
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:53 PM
States can change their gun control laws any time.
That's not new.

Texas has very different laws than, say New York, or
California. Ditto for Florida and Utah and Maine.

They can be contested in court.

But, most laws, if reasonable, are upheld.
Such as calling for a waiting period, ID checks,
limit as to types of weapons sold and how many,
where they can be sold, etc. Virginia will likely do
this now, require a waiting period, a check to see
if there is a prior police/arrest record, etc.

gentenaire
Apr 17th, 2007, 08:58 PM
People are going to have guns whether they are legal or not. Allowing law abiding citizens to own guns gives them the ability to protect themselves. Yes, it is that black & white. The 2nd Amendment also allows people to hunt and use guns for sport.

But in the US you don't have to be a law abiding citizen in order to buy a gun. Everyone can get one, the ones who stick the law as well as people with a mental illness.

gentenaire
Apr 17th, 2007, 09:00 PM
The knee jerk predictable reaction to any gun incident in the USA -


Yes, these gun incidents are so frequent that you end up with predictable responses. If there weren't so many instances, the ammendment wouldn't be put in question so often.

*JR*
Apr 17th, 2007, 09:48 PM
I will say this again... people had access to guns 50-60 years ago as well and there were not any mass school shootings like there have been in the last 2 decades. Something on a psychological level has changed in today's youth that makes them more apt to do such things.
OK, but doesn't society then need to adapt to the new reality? :confused:

BTW, the wording in the Second Amendment about "a well regulated militia" certainly leaves room to restrict gun ownership to members in good standing of groups that accept such regulation.

gentenaire
Apr 17th, 2007, 10:35 PM
I do wonder what would have happened if a few students or faculty
had a legal concealed weapon on them. If the university had a few
more armed security personnel at each campus building or visible
at various parts of the campus.

Mayhem, most likely. You could have ended up with a real shoot-out, after which it's impossible to determine who was the actual gunman who started it all.

Think of Waco. They were so heavily armed to protect themselves from their own government, just like the 2nd amendment says. They all ended up dead.

HippityHop
Apr 17th, 2007, 11:06 PM
Carry and conceal is the way to go. I know that some on here would rather die like dogs cowering and begging for their lives instead of shooting back.

But then on second thought, when something like this happens, you can always call the police.

katya
Apr 17th, 2007, 11:26 PM
They should limit the ammo and only let them have pistols, not rifles, shot-guns, or automatics. the kids are too pressurized and mis-lead nowadays.

Qrystyna
Apr 18th, 2007, 01:08 AM
If somebody comes along and shoots you in the head or the heart you won't be able to shoot back anyway so the gun would be completely useless. Citizens do not need to carry guns..... period. Guns create problems, they don't solve them.

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 01:14 AM
If somebody comes along and shoots you in the head or the heart you won't be able to shoot back anyway so the gun would be completely useless. Citizens do not need to carry guns..... period. Guns create problems, they don't solve them.

amen. letting citizens carry guns is just asking for things like yesterday to happen. the only people who should carry guns are police and soldiers. end of story

Philbo
Apr 18th, 2007, 01:49 AM
I think changing the gun laws would have some small benefit but wouldnt solve the problem. I mean there is no reason anyone needs a semi automatic machine gun on the streets - never ever..

However I think the reason this has become common place is America's fascination with fame. The problem is america doesnt differentiate between fame and infamy. I think some of these kids just want to be remembered..want to make their mark in history and its a lot easier to be remembered for doing something destructive rather than constructive...

But guns are too easy to purchase in America..

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 01:58 AM
How do you explain the situation in Canada then? The populations of the US and Canada are similarly comprised, and the culture is VERY similar, but the US has many more gun fatalities than we do here in Canada.
You are correct...to an extent. Guns are readily available and commonly owned in both Canada and the U.S., yet gun violence is a much greater problem in the U.S. This suggests that the problem is cultural rather than guns. If you want to see the cultural differences, watch television news and entertainment in the U.S. and compare it to Canada's. Listen to commercial radio in the U.S. and compare it to Canada's. Look at the poverty rate in the U.S. and compare it with Canada. Look at the social safety nets for people in the U.S. and compare them with Canada's. Look at the overall crime rate in the U.S. and compare it to Canada's.
There are some significant cultural differences. Go to any border cities and compare them.

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:18 AM
Since they are meant for killing people I can see no reason why anyone should have the right to bear arms.

Interesting. Between my father, my sons and myself, we own roughly 30-40 guns, many of which we regularly use. Yet, none of them have ever been used for killing people. None of us have any violent inclinations or crimninal records. Nor do I feel the need to own a firearm for personal safety. I rarely, if ever lock my house. If I have a bear in my garage, I chase it away by banging pots and pans together, not with a gun.

The fact is, guns are readily available in the U.S. and unfortunately we live in a violent culture. We have a terrible problem with violence, so naturally guns are often used in acts of violence. In some countries, if people are inclined to engage in acts of violence, they strap on a bomb and walk into a bus station or release a chemical or bioligical agent into a subway. I'm not sure I see the difference.

Pasta-Na
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:23 AM
probably change it to "bear condoms". anyway just sad to see that kind of tragedy happened again :fiery:

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:30 AM
Fire arms are not necessarily to kill people. Now I do hate the fact that people have to die due to this. Personally I wish all of them were gone as a spoof, and there were no bad people but what can we do about it?

This South Korean kid with or without the 2nd ammendment could have gotten an AK-47 from the ghetto of Blacksburg easily and that is the reality. The only reason I don't believe is the removal of the 2nd ammendment is because there is evil out there, and people should have the right to conserve their lives against people who will get fire arms anyways!

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:35 AM
After the incidents in Virginia Tech this week, do you think it's time the US Govt or State change or remove the Second Amendment of the Constitution?


Fortunately, the Government can NOT change the U.S. Constitution, only the people can. If this weren't the case, there probably wouldn't be much left of the Bill of Rights by now. The American people generally aren't inclined to strip away our rights.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:37 AM
The 'ghetto'? :lol:
What about from one of the dozens of gun shops located in Virginia? :shrug:

He could have gotten a bazooka darn it even if the right bear fire arms was illegal...

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:42 AM
One thing that strikes me when these types of tragedies happen in the United States is the fact that countries like Canada have a comparable amount guns but fewer instances of crimes that involve guns. The cycle of violence that is pervasive in this country has a lot to do with people handling guns irresponsibly. Violence is constantly extolled in movies, music, and television. When you have children and young adults being bombarded with images that make it seem as if power and respect come with handling these guns, situations like this will continue to happen.

:worship: This is a clear, articulate, convincing argument that the problem is culture, not guns, otherwise Canada would have the same problem with gun violence. Well done!

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:48 AM
:worship: This is a clear, articulate, convincing argument that the problem is culture, not guns, otherwise Canada would have the same problem with gun violence. Well done!

Forget about the culture in the US... we feed the same crap to the both countries... But foreigners and their families do bring a lot of crap...

Who manages the drug coming into this country? Hispanic gangs....

Who did the horrible shooting in Utah about a month ago... a Serbian refugee...

South Korea didn't have the cleanest of the background with their further violent media and history...

Sally Struthers
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:48 AM
Canada also has ~250 million less people

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:55 AM
Instead of changing the second ammendment... we should add one that bans gay marriages and adoptions... No offense... but I just speak out my mind on what is the most urgent to me...

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:59 AM
i think you have just dug yourself a grave. good luck with that!

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:05 AM
Canada also has ~250 million less people

Nonetheless, per capita statistics on crime and violence are vastly different. It's an undeniable fact; by any objective measure, U.S. culture is much more violent than Canadian culture.

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:13 AM
Instead of changing the second ammendment... we should add one that bans gay marriages and adoptions... No offense... but I just speak out my mind on what is the most urgent to me...
Wow. I have a better idea: how about maintaining the Constitution as an instrument that protects the rights of Americans rather than ammending it to limit our rights.

ys
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:21 AM
We should enforce The Amendment. This tragedy would never reach such a magnitude in a state like Texas. The shooter could have shot one, but the second would ahve shot the shooter.

People who need a gun for such purpose will always get a gun.. What do you think? A guy is planning a suicide shooting spree, he is going to be dead tomorrow, he does not care about things like money any more, if a gun costs 5K on a black market, he'll pay, no problem.. But, others will be even more defenseless..

Marshmallow
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:31 AM
I don't know anything about weapons, but can't the sales of live bullets be restricted then? From my understanding, rubber bullets, pellets and stun guns and mase are all non-deadly ways to subdue attackers.

The purpose of guns, however you put it is to kill. It doesn't look like people will give up their arms anytime soon - but in today's world of scientific advancement, surely they can come up with something. [I know my ideas are probably unreasonable, i don't know much about weapons lol but i think you get the point].

I mean, i don't see why they waste millions to look for aliens, when that money could be put into fighting the causes of crime - umemployment, social issues, mental health etc. Too unreasonable?

Qrystyna
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Instead of changing the second ammendment... we should add one that bans gay marriages and adoptions... No offense... but I just speak out my mind on what is the most urgent to me...

Good to know you have your priorities straight. Denying equal rights to other citizens that don't affect you is much more important than preventing violent deaths. :rolleyes:

piercerocks
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:37 AM
should be changed... having the ability to defend your self is one thing, but it stops tragedies like this.. all guns should be destroyed.

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:44 AM
Good to know you have your priorities straight. Denying equal rights to other citizens is much more important than preventing violent deaths. :rolleyes:
The poster, without realizing it, illustrates a point: he's arguing for corrupting the Constitution to twist the Bill of Rights and limit the rights of Americans. It's really nothing worse than what some are advocating in this thread when they suggest that the second ammendment to the Constitution should be scrapped. The second ammendment our founding fathers thought to include in our Bill of Rights! Number two. What next? The first ammendment? Don't laugh. I've read posters here suggest that Americans take our right to free speech too seriously and that certain types of speech shouldn't be protected.

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:46 AM
If somebody comes along and shoots you in the head or the heart you won't be able to shoot back anyway so the gun would be completely useless. Citizens do not need to carry guns..... period. Guns create problems, they don't solve them.


Foolishness! Several years ago in Killeen Texas a mofo went into a cafateria and started methodically killing people. When he ran out of ammo, he would calmly reload and continue the carnage while people were crying and begging for their lives.

If a few people had guns in that situation they could have probably saved at least some of the lives that were snuffed out by that trifling mofo. But then I'm convinced that some folks would have been outraged that innocent people would have dared to save their lives and they would have demanded that the people who dared to defend themselves be prosecuted. I have no doubt about that. None! :(

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:50 AM
omg, seriously what is wrong with you people who thnk its a good idea for everyone to carry guns.

Qrystyna
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:52 AM
omg, seriously what is wrong with you people who thnk its a good idea for everyone to carry guns.

I dunno but apparently I am a "Typical Polyanna" for thinking it's completely wrong. It's just funny some people think it's perfectly OK for citizens to go around with guns strapped to them. Something is wrong here. I guess some people watch too many action flicks. But at least I got a funny new nickname out of it. :lol:

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:53 AM
I fail to see why non-Americans should get to vote on this. :p

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:55 AM
^^^
The 2nd Amendment is an embarrassment to the US, but I have hope that things will change once more and more people move to cities.
So, are there any other rights gauranteed to every American for all time by our founding fathers that you'd like to see changed? Any others you don't like, so fuck it, out they go?

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:00 AM
omg, seriously what is wrong with you people who thnk its a good idea for everyone to carry guns.
I'm a pretty strong advocate for the second ammendment because, among other things, I think our founding fathers were onto something with the Bill of Rights and if we start stripping away those fundamental rights, where do we stop? That said, I think the notion that everyone ought to run around with guns strapped to their hips is really, really stupid.

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:02 AM
So, are there any other rights gauranteed to every American for all time by our founding fathers that you'd like to see changed? Any others you don't like, so fuck it, out they go?

what year did the founding fathers write the bill of rights? a few centuries ago right? it might of been plausable for people to carry guns around in the 1600s or 1700s. but it isnt now. Laws get changed all the time, its called moving with the times.

Vacant
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:04 AM
Instead of changing the second ammendment... we should add one that bans gay marriages and adoptions... No offense... but I just speak out my mind on what is the most urgent to me...

:help: :weirdo:

Did that really need to be said?!

meyerpl
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:23 AM
what year did the founding fathers write the bill of rights? a few centuries ago right? it might of been plausable for people to carry guns around in the 1600s or 1700s. but it isnt now. Laws get changed all the time, its called moving with the times.
The Bill of Rights aren't laws, they're unalienable rights conceived of and handed down by our fouinding fathers; the cornerstones of our democracy. This issue isn't just about guns, it's about the viability and sanctity of the Bill of Rights. You make a good point; the Bill of Rights was drafted over two-hundred years ago and has stood the test of time. Believe this: you aren't the only one with an agenda who would like to erode our rights. Some would do so in the name of security, some in the name of decency, some to protect us from enemies both from abroad and within.
Our freedom comes under frequent enough attack from our own government with the Bill of Rights intact. I hate to think of the slippery slope we'd be headed down if we allowed those rights to be infringed upon. You may not like guns, but try to see the bigger picture. How do you feel about freedom of speech, among other rights? Because any assault on any part of the Bill of Rights is a threat to them all.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:29 AM
The Bill of Rights aren't laws, they're unalienable rights conceived of and handed down by our fouinding fathers; the cornerstones of our democracy. This issue isn't just about guns, it's about the viability and sanctity of the Bill of Rights. You make a good point; the Bill of Rights was drafted over two-hundred years ago and has stood the test of time. Believe this: you aren't the only one with an agenda who would like to erode our rights. Some would do so in the name of security, some in the name of decency, some to protect us from enemies both from abroad and within.
Our freedom comes under frequent enough attack from our own government with the Bill of Rights intact. I hate to think of the slippery slope we'd be headed down if we allowed those rights to be infringed upon. You may not like guns, but try to see the bigger picture. How do you feel about freedom of speech, among other rights? Because any assault on any part of the Bill of Rights is a threat to them all.

Good post.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:30 AM
:help: :weirdo:

Did that really need to be said?!

Duiz will take any opportunity to attack homosexuals. I try not to blame him, though, his parents have obviously brainwashed the poor thing terribly.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:32 AM
I see progress in the granting of new rights, not the removal of old ones.

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:34 AM
The Bill of Rights aren't laws, they're unalienable rights conceived of and handed down by our fouinding fathers; the cornerstones of our democracy. This issue isn't just about guns, it's about the viability and sanctity of the Bill of Rights. You make a good point; the Bill of Rights was drafted over two-hundred years ago and has stood the test of time. Believe this: you aren't the only one with an agenda who would like to erode our rights. Some would do so in the name of security, some in the name of decency, some to protect us from enemies both from abroad and within.
Our freedom comes under frequent enough attack from our own government with the Bill of Rights intact. I hate to think of the slippery slope we'd be headed down if we allowed those rights to be infringed upon. You may not like guns, but try to see the bigger picture. How do you feel about freedom of speech, among other rights? Because any assault on any part of the Bill of Rights is a threat to them all.


im not saying you shouldnt have freedom of speach, im saying that every nutter shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. is it really that hard to understand.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:36 AM
im not saying you shouldnt have freedom of speach, im saying that every nutter shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. is it really that hard to understand.

And how do you expect to stop them, by saying, "okay, it's a law now that you can't have a gun"?

So all the wackjob criminals and terrorists will just say, "well, okay, since it's a law... here are all my weapons."

Riiiiiiight.

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:40 AM
people will hand them in, police will take them off people. they could soon decrease the amount of guns considerably if they tried. sure they wouldnt get everyone but everyone gun less is a safer america.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:44 AM
people will hand them in, police will take them off people. they could soon decrease the amount of guns considerably if they tried. sure they wouldnt get everyone but everyone gun less is a safer america.

So we'll be safer by taking the guns away from law abiding Americans, even if it means that the criminals and terrorists, etc. get to keep theirs. Somehow, that wouldn't make me feel safer.

And you keep saying, "they." Are you saying that Australia has no guns or no problems with guns?

I find it touching that so many people are concerned with our great country, but I assure you that we can make decisions on our own.

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:48 AM
So we'll be safer by taking the guns away from law abiding Americans, even if it means that the criminals and terrorists, etc. get to keep theirs. Somehow, that wouldn't make me feel safer.

And you keep saying, "they." Are you saying that Australia has no guns or no problems with guns?

I find it touching that so many people are concerned with our great country, but I assure you that we can make decisions on our own.

we have not even close to the problem with guns that america do, we migh get like the odd gun murder every year or so. but thats it.
and we will stop giving our opinion on america when it stops forcing its way of life on every one else.

Philbo
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:21 AM
I find it touching that so many people are concerned with our great country, but I assure you that we can make decisions on our own.


I can think of dozens of family members of the victims of the latest shooting who probably dont agree that 'you are doing pretty well on your own' when it comes to gun control.

I feel terribly for the kids who were victims in Columbine and all the others mass murder sprees - how futile must they feel that still nothing has been done about the problem...

Philbo
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:28 AM
I fail to see why non-Americans should get to vote on this. :p


Why shouldnt non americans have an opinion? America spends a lot of its resources shaping the world around them, meddling in the affairs of dozens of other countries, overthrowing regimes, dictating hypocritical free-trade agreements, interfering in the politics of allies and enemies alike, etc etc, and you think we are out of line for having an opinion on gun laws in the USA?

Get over your own arrogance... When the USA stops influencing the rest of the world, we will stop having opinions.

Wigglytuff
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:31 AM
it should by done away with but all these gun toting nut jobs have more political power so what will happen is that after such a deadly shooting, they, being the nut jobs that they are, will ask for even less gun control laws.

dementieva's fan
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:37 AM
I see progress in the granting of new rights, not the removal of old ones.

So while we at granting new "rights". How about we give the right to individuals to voluntarily participate in a death match to settle a conflict or how about giving people back the right to own slaves?:rolleyes: Owning a Gun is hardly a right, you don't have the right to buy a tank and park it in your backyard. If someone has the "right" to own guns it is only fair that they be allowed to own a tank or a nuclear weapon for that matter if they wish to.:rolleyes:

aussie12
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:38 AM
so true, its just extraodinary that people use this kind of thing as an example of why they should have guns. and about america making decisions on their own, it is working well, they invaded a country for no reason, let heaps of people die for no reason after katrina, have multiple mass shootings a year and are hate by most of the world. good job america, you are good at decision making.

dementieva's fan
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:52 AM
So we'll be safer by taking the guns away from law abiding Americans, even if it means that the criminals and terrorists, etc. get to keep theirs. Somehow, that wouldn't make me feel safer.

This is just faulty logic. Do you have a gun at home? If so, do you take it out whenever you go out? By your logic US government should issue a gun to every individual. What about those who don't own guns and are thus under a constant threat from terrorist and criminals. What is there to make them feel safe?:rolleyes:. There are other better ways for self defence that do not involve guns.

Wigglytuff
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:26 AM
I'm a pretty strong advocate for the second ammendment because, among other things, I think our founding fathers were onto something with the Bill of Rights and if we start stripping away those fundamental rights, where do we stop? That said, I think the notion that everyone ought to run around with guns strapped to their hips is really, really stupid.

normally i find you very sensible. but really.

IF the issue was that people wanted to have and carry ONLY the kind of guns that were available in the late 1700s, i would NOT have a problem. indeed if the founding fathers had access to machine guns and all manner of other guns used today they would NOT have written the 2nd amendment as such and everyone knows it. i highly doubt that the founding fathers seeing that 11,000 americans are murdered by gun and seeing all the other wanton violence that happens today would have written the 2nd amendment as it was written.

further one of the great things about the constitution is that though it is difficult when the times call for it can be (and sometimes should be) altered and amended. indeed in the original document slavery was clearly allowed and blacks were for tax reasons only 3/5ths of person. were it not for some changes, amendments, if you will, that would have continued to be the case.

fifiricci
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:21 AM
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution will never be amended because Americans will never give up their right to bear arms, in spite of the attempts by the US communists.

:haha:

fifiricci
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:24 AM
The Bill of Rights aren't laws, they're unalienable rights conceived of and handed down by our fouinding fathers; the cornerstones of our democracy. This issue isn't just about guns, it's about the viability and sanctity of the Bill of Rights. You make a good point; the Bill of Rights was drafted over two-hundred years ago and has stood the test of time. Believe this: you aren't the only one with an agenda who would like to erode our rights. Some would do so in the name of security, some in the name of decency, some to protect us from enemies both from abroad and within.
Our freedom comes under frequent enough attack from our own government with the Bill of Rights intact. I hate to think of the slippery slope we'd be headed down if we allowed those rights to be infringed upon. You may not like guns, but try to see the bigger picture. How do you feel about freedom of speech, among other rights? Because any assault on any part of the Bill of Rights is a threat to them all.

We ain't allowed to carry guns in the mad bad old UK, but I challenge you to find anyone here who thinks that the US is somehow "freer" than us as a result? In fact, our laws are far more liberal than yours in many respects and we don't even NEED a Bill of Rights or a written constitution! For example, in the UK you can be a paid up member of the communist party and express your views freely without being villified for it by paranoid right wingers.

Sometimes, the US vision of "freedom" looks a tad odd from this side of the pond.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:48 AM
Here's an interesting article on the subject we're discussing right now...


U.S. gun laws draw heat after massacre

By PAISLEY DODDS 1 hour, 3 minutes ago



LONDON - The Virginia Tech shootings sparked criticism of U.S. gun control laws around the world Tuesday. Editorials lashed out at the availability of weapons, and the leader of Australia — one of America's closest allies — declared that America's gun culture was costing lives.

South Korea (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=South+Korea)'s Foreign Ministry said the government hoped Monday's shootings, allegedly carried out by a 23-year-old South Korean native, would not "stir up racial prejudice or confrontation."

While some focused blame only on the gunman, world opinion over U.S. gun laws was almost unanimous: Access to weapons increases the probability of shootings. There was no sympathy for the view that more guns would have saved lives by enabling students to shoot the assailant.

"We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country," said Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who staked his political career on promoting tough gun laws after a gunman went on one of the world's deadliest killing sprees 11 years ago.

The tragedy in a Tasmanian tourist resort left 35 people dead. Afterward, Australia's gun laws were changed to prohibit automatic weapons and handguns and toughen licensing and storage restrictions.

Handguns are also banned in Britain — a prohibition that forces even the country's Olympic pistol shooting team from practicing on its own soil. In Sweden, civilians can acquire firearm permits only if they have a hunting license or are members of a shooting club and have no criminal record. In Italy, people must have a valid reason for wanting one. Firearms are forbidden for private Chinese citizens.

Still, leaders from Britain, Germany, Mexico, China, Afghanistan (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Afghanistan) and France stopped short of criticizing President Bush (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=President+Bush) or U.S. gun laws when they offered sympathies to the families of Monday's victims.

Editorials were less diplomatic.

"Only the names change — And the numbers," read a headline in the Times of London. "Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?"

The French daily Le Monde said the regularity of mass shootings across the Atlantic was a blotch on America's image.

"It would be unjust and especially false to reduce the United States to the image created, in a recurrent way, from the bursts of murderous fury that some isolated individuals succumb to. But acts like this are rare elsewhere, and tend to often disfigure the 'American dream.'"

Police started identifying the victims Tuesday. One was a Peruvian student identified as Daniel Perez Cueva, 21, according to his mother Betty Cuevas, who said her son was studying international relations.

Professors from India, Israel (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Israel) and Canada also were killed.

Liviu Librescu, 76, an engineering science and mathematics lecturer, tried to stop the gunman from entering his classroom by blocking the door before he was fatally shot, his son said Tuesday from Tel Aviv.

"My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," Joe Librescu said. His father, a Holocaust survivor, immigrated to Israel from Romania, and was on sabbatical in Virginia.

Indian-born G.V. Loganathan, 51, a lecturer at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, was also among the dead, his brother G.V. Palanivel told Indian media.

"We all feel like we have had an electric shock. We do not know what to do," Palanivel said.


Canadian Jocelyn Couture-Nowak, a French instructor, also died in the shootings, said her husband Jerzy Nowak, head of the university's horticulture department. "We're mourning," Nowak said.

The killings also hit a nerve for Virginia Tech alumni abroad.

"I think if this does prompt a serious and reflective debate on gun issues and gun law in the States, then some good may come from this woeful tragedy," said British Home Office Minister Tony McNulty, who graduated in 1982.

Britain's 46 homicides involving firearms last year was the lowest since the late 1980s. New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded 590 homicides last year.

"If the guns are harder to get a hold of, fewer people will do it," said Michael Dent, a 65-year-old construction worker in London. "You can't walk up to a supermarket or shop and buy a gun like in the States."

But even in Germany, where gun-control laws are strict, a teenager in 2002 shot and killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two students and a police officer at a high school. The shooter was a gun club member licensed to own weapons. The attack led Germany to raise the age for owning recreational firearms from 18 to 21.

"The instant I saw the pictures and heard the commentary, it immediately brought back our own experience," Gutenberg high school director Christiane Alt said of the Virginia Tech killings.

The Swedish daily Goteborgs-Posten said without access to weapons, the killings at Virginia Tech may have been prevented.

"What exactly triggered the massacre in Virginia is unclear, but the fundamental reason is often the perpetrator's psychological problems in combination with access to weapons," it wrote.

The shootings drew intense media coverage in China, in part because the school has a large Chinese student body.

"This incident reflects the problem of gun control in America," Yuan Peng, an American studies expert in China, was quoted as saying by state-run China Daily.

Only 7 percent of the more than 26,000 students at Virginia Tech are foreign, according to the school Web site. But Chinese make up nearly a third of that.
In Italy, there are three types of licenses for gun ownership: for personal safety, target practice and skeet shooting, and hunting. Authorization is granted by the police. To obtain a gun for personal safety, the owner must be an adult and have a "valid" reason.

Italy's leading daily Corriere della Sera's main story on the shootings was an opinion piece entitled "Guns at the Supermarket" — a critical view of the U.S. gun lobby and the ease with which guns can be purchased. State-run RAI radio also discussed at length what it said were lax standards for gun ownership in the United States.

"The latest attack on a U.S. campus will shake up America, maybe it will provoke more vigorous reactions than in the past, but it won't change the culture of a country that has the notion of self-defense imprinted on its DNA and which considers the right of having guns inalienable," Corriere wrote in its front-page story.

Several Italian graduate students at Virginia Tech recounted how they barricaded themselves inside a geology department building not far from the scene of the shooting.

In Mexico, radio commentators criticized the availability of firearms in the U.S. Others renewed Mexico's complaint that most guns in Mexico are smuggled in from the United States.
The killings led newspapers' front pages, with Mexico City's Dario Monitor reporting: "Terror returns to the U.S.: 32 assassinated on university campus." The tabloid Metro compared Mexico's death toll Monday from drug violence to the number of people killed at Virginia Tech, in a front-page headline that read: "U.S. 33, Mexico 20."


The last paragraph says it all.... :help:

Kart
Apr 18th, 2007, 11:52 AM
I fail to see why non-Americans should get to vote on this. :p

That was my initial reaction to this thread though when I thought about it, many of us may visit the US in the future.

Personally I'd rather not get shot.

Though with the recent happenings in London there's no certainty things are totally safe over here.

Wigglytuff
Apr 18th, 2007, 12:48 PM
"What exactly triggered the massacre in Virginia is unclear, but the fundamental reason is often the perpetrator's psychological problems in combination with access to weapons," it wrote.
this is a point that matters.

truth is (gun nuts hate the truth) that KNIVES are far more accessible than guns and yet it is always guns (because of their extreme killing power) that is the choice of weapon in these cases. pain and simple limited access to guns saves lives.

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:18 PM
Instead of changing the second ammendment... we should add one that bans gay marriages and adoptions... No offense... but I just speak out my mind on what is the most urgent to me...

That is an excellent idea! That is a sure-fire way to reduce the heinous violence and astronomical murder rates in the United States. Murder rates and cases of gun violence have skyrocketed ever since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage.

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 02:28 PM
So, are there any other rights gauranteed to every American for all time by our founding fathers that you'd like to see changed? Any others you don't like, so fuck it, out they go?

I'd ask you not to be such a fool, but that's usually an impossible task for a gun-worshiper. The Founding Fathers were granting US citizens the right to own bayonettes and wooden pistols in order to defend against possible attacks from the British (or others) and to keep the peace in the smaller, undeveloped parts of the country without adequate law enforcement. Again, they were granting rights for citizens to own bayonettes. They were not intending to make it an inalienable right to own whatever gun technology would be coming down the pipeline in the future.

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 03:43 PM
The Founding Fathers were granting US citizens the right to own bayonettes and wooden pistols in order to defend against possible attacks from the British (or others) and to keep the peace in the smaller, undeveloped parts of the country without adequate law enforcement. Again, they were granting rights for citizens to own bayonettes. They were not intending to make it an inalienable right to own whatever gun technology would be coming down the pipeline in the future.That's one interpretation of the Founders' intentions. An equally defensible interpretation is that they were guaranteeing the right of the citizens to defend themsleves against any corrupt national government, which was, after all, exactly what the Founders were engaged in when they wrote the document.

"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"

All I have to do is look at Bush, and I want zero infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Corrupt government sometimes requires armed revolution.

Halardfan
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:00 PM
But surely such an armed revolution, in 21st century America is such an outlandish, unlikely prospect, that dealing with the very real problem of rampant gun crime is a far greater prioirity?

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:14 PM
But surely such an armed revolution, in 21st century America is such an outlandish, unlikely prospect, that dealing with the very real problem of rampant gun crime is a far greater prioirity?

It's so true!

I find it absolutely LAUGHABLE that people think owning a handgun will protect them from a corrupt national government.

Look, crazy gun nuts, if the Bush regime wants to become a dictatorship, your gun ain't gonna help you! :o

samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Keith Olberman is incorrect. The high capacity magazine used by the killer
was not covered by the ban - from 1994.

But, the Congress had years to make it permanent, and chose not to -
both Democrat and Republican, under two Presidents.

Bush did not push for it, why would he? It's not his issue, nor was it
his bill. The Democrats with the usual RINO's (of which there were and
are many), did not fight that hard for it either for nearly 10 years.


Morever, many individual states, did place stronger bans in place over
the past 20 years - since the Reagan shooting - and most have been
upheld. As have individual cities and counties. California has, as did
even the state of Texas.

Virginia did not do much.


One man killed these people.
The university procedures sadly likely allowed him to kill far more than
he would have had they done more to alert the campus to a shooter
on the loose.
He would have obtained the guns one way or another, based on how
much hate and venom he had w/i his mind....a guy bent on killing is
going to find a way to do it, with a legal gun or an illegal gun.

samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:20 PM
Millions of Ameicans own guns.
Never use them.
Never want to.
Without incident.
Yes, it is their right as law abiding citizens to be able to own a
weapon per the Constitution.




More people will die in the USA from car accidents, pool drownings, and
allergic reactions - all facts.


Gun sales went through the roof in lovely liberal So. Cal. after the
LA riots (fact). When a lot of people saw what happens when the
govt. cannot or will not intervene w/criminals and lawlessness.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Interesting. Between my father, my sons and myself, we own roughly 30-40 guns, many of which we regularly use. Yet, none of them have ever been used for killing people. None of us have any violent inclinations or crimninal records.
I'm sure that 99,5 % of Americans who have guns use them in an entirely responsible manner, I don't doubt that. The issue it seems to me however is about what is more important, the rights of those responsible people to own a gun or the rights to live of people that fall victim through the acts of the remaining 00,5 %.

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:45 PM
But surely such an armed revolution, in 21st century America is such an outlandish, unlikely prospect, that dealing with the very real problem of rampant gun crime is a far greater prioirity?It's not a Constitutional priority. The states are free to restrict and regulate gun ownership, and they do. But the Federal gov't may not enact an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
I find it absolutely LAUGHABLE that people think owning a handgun will protect them from a corrupt national government.And yet, the authors of the Constitution did NOT think it was laughable. Rather, they thought it so important it's the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

Look, crazy gun nuts, if the Bush regime wants to become a dictatorship, your gun ain't gonna help you! :oI don't own a gun. Never have.

What I DO have is a fondness for Constitutional protections.

Also, quite a number of dictatorships have fallen because the citizenry acquired firearms. Name one that fell without firearms being involved on some level.

samsung101
Apr 18th, 2007, 04:57 PM
What if the anti-gun forces which did not allow Virginia to allow
students to legally own weapons if they passed all the necessary
legal requirements - on campus - had been defeated in recent
years?

The University by law was a no gun zone.

The University by law, was forbidden from doing much about
the writings or behavior of Cho - since he was never charged
w/anything. Freedom of expression, freedom of movement,
open campus, enlightenment, embrace the different, all that
good stuff....all the while, plenty of people had red lights
going off about him.



Would 1 or 2 students with a weapon have been able to take out
or discourage Cho? The campus police, state police, etc., were
nowhere to be found when it counted -sad to say.

How about a culture of self defense being reintroduced to the
men and women of America. How about us learning to take care
of us a lot more, and not relying on govt. so much for any of this.

I am for waiting periods to buy guns.
I am for background checks.
I am for allowing only actual citizens having the right to own guns.
I don't mind if certain types of weaponry are banned or made almost
impossible to get, with extra taxes or liceneses.
I wouldn't mind if, like a car, one had to pass a test to buy a gun.

But, I am not for banning Americans the Const. right to own a weapon.

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:11 PM
And yet, the authors of the Constitution did NOT think it was laughable. Rather, they thought it so important it's the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

I never said it was laughable for the Founding Fathers to think that way. It was perfectly reasonable for the late 1700's.

I said it was laughable for people to think that way in this day and age. Do you really think owning a gun can protect you from a corrupt national government? If the US government and army suddenly turned the country into a ruthless military dictatorship, do you really think your guns would protect you from the smart bombs, nuclear weapons, tanks, bazookas, etc. that the government owns? You just continue to prove to all of our readers what small minds and limited brainpower most gun-lovers have. :help:

I don't own a gun. Never have.

What I DO have is a fondness for Constitutional protections.

Then I'm sure you've been vehemently opposing the Bush administrations grievious disregard for the 4th Amendment, right? :unsure:

Also, quite a number of dictatorships have fallen because the citizenry acquired firearms. Name one that fell without firearms being involved on some level.

The military dictatorship in Argentina from 1976-1983, among many. Can you name one dictatorship that fell because the citizenry suddenly acquired firearms?

gentenaire
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:49 PM
Yes, it is their right as law abiding citizens to be able to own a
weapon per the Constitution.

The moment they use the weapon, they're no longer law abiding citizens.
Cho was a law abiding citizen until a few days ago.
A lot of people who shoot others in the spur of the moment are law abiding citizens until the moment they decide to use the gun.

gentenaire
Apr 18th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Would 1 or 2 students with a weapon have been able to take out
or discourage Cho? The campus police, state police, etc., were
nowhere to be found when it counted -sad to say.

If the police was unable to take out Cho, how do you expect untrained students to do it? There would have been mayhem, confusion and you'd have several gunman walking around. People would struggle determining who started it all.

When you're at home alone and an armed robber is entering your house, you're at a disadvantage anyway. The robber is ready to shoot if there's any movement, while you're not ready at all. In the end, because you're armed, the robber is more likely to kill you than if you're not armed. If he knows you're not armed, he knows you can't be a risk to his life so he won't feel the need to kill you. If you're armed, OTOH...

venus_rulez
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Would 1 or 2 students with a weapon have been able to take out
or discourage Cho? The campus police, state police, etc., were
nowhere to be found when it counted -sad to say.

Sorry, but what you're suggesting by this statement is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on this board and it flies in the face of pretty solid reason and logic. The FIRST thing you're supposed to do in a situation like this is to remove yourself ans quickly and safely as possible and let the PROFESSIONALS handle it. Not bust out your gun from your backpack and run into the hallway to engage a mass murderer. And your assumption that 1 or 2 students would have been able to "discourage or take out" Cho is equally ridiculous. All the laws, social and familial expectations, counseling, and medication didn't stop him from doing what he did, but one or two untrained students brandishing their own weapons, would have?

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:21 PM
I never said it was laughable for the Founding Fathers to think that way. It was perfectly reasonable for the late 1700's.

I said it was laughable for people to think that way in this day and age. Do you really think owning a gun can protect you from a corrupt national government? If the US government and army suddenly turned the country into a ruthless military dictatorship, do you really think your guns would protect you from the smart bombs, nuclear weapons, tanks, bazookas, etc. that the government owns?Didn't the Soviet Union have all those advantages over the mujahadeen in Afghanistan? Who won? Didn't the USA have all those advantages over the Viet Cong? Who won? Doesn't the USA have all those advantages right now over the resistance in Iraq? Is the USA winning? The American military isn't a juggernaut.
The military dictatorship in Argentina from 1976-1983, among many.You MUST be kidding. The transition to the Alfonsin administration was incredibly violent. The fact that the fighting was between factions of the military doesn't mean the gunfire doesn't count. In fact, the last military uprising wasn't put down til 1990.

Can you name one dictatorship that fell because the citizenry suddenly acquired firearms?Who said anything about 'suddenly'? However, Kenya qualifies as an example of the acquistion of firearms allowing the otherthrow of a dictatorship. So does the American Revolution.

gentenaire
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Doesn't the USA have all those advantages right now over the resistance in Iraq?

The resistance consists mainly of bombs. Are you suggesting we all have the right to own bombs?

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:38 PM
The resistance consists mainly of bombs. Are you suggesting we all have the right to own bombs?a) What gets reported in the Western news media about the resistance consists mainly of bombs.

b) I'm not 'suggesting' anything. The Constitution says we have the right to own firearms. And the reasoning of the period is, in my judgement, applicable today. MORE applicable, as the disparity between the firepower of the government and the firepower of the citizenry is greater now than it was then.

The entire reason for the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizenry FROM the government. Go actually READ Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution. They're all about things the government CANNOT do, and CANNOT regulate, except for the third.

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:41 PM
Then I'm sure you've been vehemently opposing the Bush administrations grievious disregard for the 4th Amendment, right? :unsure:Of course. Also their violations of the Amendment VI, Amendment VIII, and arguably Amendment I.

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:44 PM
I am for waiting periods to buy guns.
I am for background checks.
I am for allowing only actual citizens having the right to own guns.
I don't mind if certain types of weaponry are banned or made almost
impossible to get, with extra taxes or liceneses.
I wouldn't mind if, like a car, one had to pass a test to buy a gun.

But, I am not for banning Americans the Const. right to own a weapon.It is viscerally repugnant to find myself on the same side of an issue as you. Would an exchange of insults belie the fact that, for all practical purposes, our positions on this are identical?

I'll start. You're an idiot. Now you go.

volley1
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:49 PM
It is viscerally repugnant to find myself on the same side of an issue as you. Would an exchange of insults belie the fact that, for all practical purposes, our positions on this are identical?

I'll start. You're an idiot. Now you go.

Cat fight!!! meow!!!

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 06:49 PM
Didn't the Soviet Union have all those advantages over the mujahadeen in Afghanistan? Who won? Didn't the USA have all those advantages over the Viet Cong? Who won? Doesn't the USA have all those advantages right now over the resistance in Iraq? Is the USA winning? The American military isn't a juggernaut.

What a pathetic analogy! :o

You're honestly going to equate the weaponry of the mujahadeen, the Viet Cong, and the Iraqi resistance to the guns that American citizens want to have to protect themselves from a corrupt national government?! :rolleyes:

You MUST be kidding. The transition to the Alfonsin administration was incredibly violent. The fact that the fighting was between factions of the military doesn't mean the gunfire doesn't count. In fact, the last military uprising wasn't put down til 1990.

You stated, "Quite a number of dictatorships have fallen because the citizenry acquired firearms." The citizens of Argentina did NOT need to acquire guns to end that military dictatorship.

Who said anything about 'suddenly'? However, Kenya qualifies as an example of the acquistion of firearms allowing the otherthrow of a dictatorship. So does the American Revolution.

The American Revolution was hardly a case of overthrowing a dictator. I can see I'll get nowhere with a fool like you.

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:22 PM
You're honestly going to equate the weaponry of the mujahadeen, the Viet Cong, and the Iraqi resistance to the guns that American citizens want to have to protect themselves from a corrupt national government?! Yes.
You stated, "Quite a number of dictatorships have fallen because the citizenry acquired firearms." The citizens of Argentina did NOT need to acquire guns to end that military dictatorship.Last I checked, the members of the Argentine military were citizens. Argentina is an unusual case, since it was factional fighting within the military, but, in factual terms, armed citizens WERE fighting the government.
The American Revolution was hardly a case of overthrowing a dictator.Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the powers of the English King at the time.

I can see I'll get nowhere with a fool like you.You'll certainly get nowhere with fool arguments like yours.

Selah
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:27 PM
It is unbelievable just how easy it was for Cho to buy those guns in Virginia. I was even more astonished to hear that the majority of illegal guns used in murders in New York are bought in Virginia. NY's laws are pretty stringent. Those kinds of non-laws to purchase guns in States like Virginia need to be changed. I don't see how anyone can argue against making it tough to obtain a gun. Granted this kid was troubled and harbored murder for a while and was seemingly planning his attack, the ease at which he was able to get a gun surely attributed to him actually carrying out his rage. I'm glad at least the debate is waging again but like we know, it'll probably go away once the next sensational story comes along. i.e. In some way, Imus and I guess the hip-hop fellas must be thanking their lucky stars for this story.

Halardfan
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:46 PM
The problem is there is a patchwork of regulation, some states have laws that give a sensible meaure of gun control whereas some oppose even the tiniest form of regulation, and allow you to buy enough weapons to launch a private army.

There should be an over-arching law that provides a sensible level of gun control throughout the US.

Surely no sensible person can make the case that the murderer should have had such easy access to guns and ammo...with his dubious mental state?

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:00 PM
I can think of dozens of family members of the victims of the latest shooting who probably dont agree that 'you are doing pretty well on your own' when it comes to gun control.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Why shouldnt non americans have an opinion? America spends a lot of its resources shaping the world around them, meddling in the affairs of dozens of other countries, overthrowing regimes, dictating hypocritical free-trade agreements, interfering in the politics of allies and enemies alike, etc etc, and you think we are out of line for having an opinion on gun laws in the USA?

Get over your own arrogance... When the USA stops influencing the rest of the world, we will stop having opinions.

I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion, I said you don't get a vote. If you don't like something the US does, that's fine. But you're not a US citizen and you don't get a say. :shrug:

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:03 PM
So while we at granting new "rights". How about we give the right to individuals to voluntarily participate in a death match to settle a conflict or how about giving people back the right to own slaves?:rolleyes: Owning a Gun is hardly a right, you don't have the right to buy a tank and park it in your backyard. If someone has the "right" to own guns it is only fair that they be allowed to own a tank or a nuclear weapon for that matter if they wish to.:rolleyes:

If people want to kill each other in a death match, let them. :shrug:

The slavery thing is an extreme and illogical example. Why? Because if you made people slaves, that would be taking all their rights from them. That is very contrary to what I have said that I wanted.

And owning a gun *is* a right in this country. It's also a law that we can't own nuclear weapons.

If you're going to use radical examples, make sure they apply.

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:03 PM
omg, seriously what is wrong with you people who thnk its a good idea for everyone to carry guns.

So in a situation like this you have two choices if you are not armed: 1. Be murdered. 2. Wait for the police to save you. If there are others, I'll be waiting with bated breath to hear them.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:04 PM
This is just faulty logic. Do you have a gun at home? If so, do you take it out whenever you go out? By your logic US government should issue a gun to every individual. What about those who don't own guns and are thus under a constant threat from terrorist and criminals. What is there to make them feel safe?:rolleyes:. There are other better ways for self defence that do not involve guns.

I don't have a gun, I won't ever have a gun. I don't like guns.

But if someone killed twenty people with a baseball bat, should we make owning one illegal? Of course not. What people here are advocating is punishing everyone for what a few people *might* do. That's dangerously close Nazi Germany and the USSR. That's a path I'd rather not go down.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:06 PM
That was my initial reaction to this thread though when I thought about it, many of us may visit the US in the future.

Personally I'd rather not get shot.

Though with the recent happenings in London there's no certainty things are totally safe over here.

I can understand that opinion, but you must also admit that foreigners coming to the United States is a decision they can make on their own. If you don't think it's safe, you don't need to come.

I don't think any country decides its laws to appease foreigners.

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:07 PM
I believe in gun 'control,' as in, restricting who can own guns and what types of guns they can own. But to say that no one can own one... it just doesn't seem like something that should be done in a free country.

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Mayhem, most likely. You could have ended up with a real shoot-out, after which it's impossible to determine who was the actual gunman who started it all.

Think of Waco. They were so heavily armed to protect themselves from their own government, just like the 2nd amendment says. They all ended up dead.


So being shot like fish in a barrel is preferable to a real shoot out? Is it even possible that if someone was shooting back, that this guy might have been killed or disabled (preferrably killed) before he slaughtered so many people?

Scotso
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:08 PM
So in a situation like this you have two choices if you are not armed: 1. Be murdered. 2. Wait for the police to save you. If there are others, I'll be waiting with bated breath to hear them.

How would the police save you? Surely we can't allow them to have guns!

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:12 PM
:help: :weirdo:

Did that really need to be said?!


No it didn't need to be said. In fact let's repeal the amendment of the constitution which gives the poster the right to say something so offensive.

hingisGOAT
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:19 PM
I can't be bothered to read through 11 pages of idiocy (I stopped at page 3), because everytime someone uses the "self-defense" excuse I cry on the inside.

Here are some statistics for :weirdo:s like samsung to ponder:

A gun bought with the intent of self-defense is 43 times more likely to be used for intentional or accidental homocide.

Despite this, 100-200 million Americans have access to guns in their homes.

The fatality rate for assaults involving guns is 5 times higher than assaults involving knives.

So your "right" to have guns as an American directly contradicts my right to feel safe and secure as both an American and a human being. Gun owners/lobbyists are truly the most disgusting, self-centered people in this country.

griffin
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:20 PM
So being shot like fish in a barrel is preferable to a real shoot out? Is it even possible that if someone was shooting back, that this guy might have been killed or disabled (preferrably killed) before he slaughtered so many people?

You forgot to add "accidentally shooting innocent classmates yourself" and "having the police mistake YOU for the killer and kill you in turn" to the option list for those carrying guns to "defend" themselves.

The lives saved by citizens with guns in the rare instance of a shoot-out would be far and away offset by the added deaths through accidental shootings, by criminals who got hold of your gun, and by the added availability of guns during heated arguments, domestic disturbances and the like.

Wanna pack something that'll make you a hero? It would make far more sense and save far more live for you to carry a portable cardiac defibrilator.

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:21 PM
How would the police save you? Surely we can't allow them to have guns!

No one here is advocating that policemen shouldn't have guns.

hingisGOAT
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:23 PM
If you've believed the government/media propoganda throughout the years of the "burglar" coming into your house at night to terrorize your family, buy a damn German Shepard and keep a baseball bat behind your bed. This way, your family is safe from harm, and your kids will have a dog to pet and a sport to play instead of accidentally killing themselves.

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:29 PM
I wish the United States could split into two countries.

All the crazy, stupid, super-religious, gun-loving, NASCAR-watching trailor trash who are afraid of the "evil government" and taxes could take half the country. They'd be free to jail gays, worship George W. Bush, make evangelical Christianity the compulsory state religion, and build a giant wall along their borders.

Then the rest of us could have the other half of the country, and we could enjoy a country without rampant gun worship and gun violence, a country where people are allowed to marry the consenting adults that they love, a place where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on all aspects of politics, and a country that doesn't get involved in military action in every single decade. :)

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:33 PM
You forgot to add "accidentally shooting innocent classmates yourself" and "having the police mistake YOU for the killer and kill you in turn" to the option list for those carrying guns to "defend" themselves.

The lives saved by citizens with guns in the rare instance of a shoot-out would be far and away offset by the added deaths through accidental shootings, by criminals who got hold of your gun, and by the added availability of guns during heated arguments, domestic disturbances and the like.

Wanna pack something that'll make you a hero? It would make far more sense and save far more live for you to carry a portable cardiac defibrilator.

I didn't forget to add anything. The problem in this situation is that the killer was shooting fish in a barrel and the police were nowhere to be found before he did his dirty work.

I'll take my chances on a shoot out and all the inherent risks of that rather than waiting for the police to save me. I suppose that there are others who would rather rely on the good graces of the rampaging murderer to save their lives. Since I can only speak for myself I'll just have to say "to each his/her own."

griffin
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:39 PM
This situation is beyond rare.

You'd risk 1-100 odds that the gun you're carrying might be used against you or some other innocent bystander for the 1-1,000,000 chance you might run into a rampaging murderer?

Yes, I will wait for the cops. It's SAFER for all involved.

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 09:38 PM
I wish the United States could split into two countries.

All the crazy, stupid, super-religious, gun-loving, NASCAR-watching trailor trash who are afraid of the "evil government" and taxes could take half the country. They'd be free to jail gays, worship George W. Bush, make evangelical Christianity the compulsory state religion, and build a giant wall along their borders.

Then the rest of us could have the other half of the country, and we could enjoy a country without rampant gun worship and gun violence, a country where people are allowed to marry the consenting adults that they love, a place where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on all aspects of politics, and a country that doesn't get involved in military action in every single decade. :)

^^^

Oops! This is actually a bad idea because the "United Evangelical States of Freedom" would find a way to declare war on the "United Reasonable States of Sanity" within a year after the split! :scared:

griffin
Apr 18th, 2007, 09:56 PM
Nah, we'd fend them off with our queer cooties.

Apoleb
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:08 PM
The funny thing is that even those pro-gun right people wouldn't be OK with university students normally having guns in their pockets when they go to their classes. Imagine a situation where students are armed, along the professor in the middle of the class. :weirdo: This isn't the 19th century anymore, and this is not the Wild Wild West. Even those pro-gun people come up and say we should have metal detectors in schools and universities instead of changing the constitution, and on the other hand, they tell you with a straight face that if students had guns there wouldn't have been 32 deaths. So basically the argument "if the students had guns, lives would be saved" doesn't work.

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:23 PM
This situation is beyond rare.

You'd risk 1-100 odds that the gun you're carrying might be used against you or some other innocent bystander for the 1-1,000,000 chance you might run into a rampaging murderer?

Yes, I will wait for the cops. It's SAFER for all involved.

Well, I guess it's a case of pick your poison. I wonder what the families of the people who were slaughtered think.

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:26 PM
^^^

Oops! This is actually a bad idea because the "United Evangelical States of Freedom" would find a way to declare war on the "United Reasonable States of Sanity" within a year after the split! :scared:


Not to mention the fact that they would be jealous of the fact that there would be no crime in the URSS (USSR?) :devil:

griffin
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:30 PM
I wonder what the families of the people who were slaughtered think.

I would never be so arrogant as to pretend to know.

I wonder if they don't have a range of opinions, and I wonder if it would be that much different if their children/brothers/sisters had been murdered in say, a road-rage incedent that got out of hand because someone was carrying a gun for "protection."

LoveFifteen
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:31 PM
Well, I guess it's a case of pick your poison. I wonder what the families of the people who were slaughtered think.

They probably think, "I can't believe a kid, who was widely known to write bloody, hideously violent stories, can purchase a deadly weapon in under an hour by just walking into a gun store." :o

HippityHop
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:42 PM
They probably think, "I can't believe a kid, who was widely known to write bloody, hideously violent stories, can purchase a deadly weapon in under an hour by just walking into a gun store." :o

Possibly. And they certainly would be correct in thinking that.
Perhaps they also think that it's foolish to not be able to take a "kid" (I have trouble calling a 23 year old grown man a "kid". But that's just me) who is clearly crazy as a bat and lock him up in an asylum.

But then again that would violated his rights and we certainly can't have that. :tape:

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:49 PM
Surely no sensible person can make the case that the murderer should have had such easy access to guns and ammo...with his dubious mental state?I wouldn't want to make that case. But 'sensible' people? Who judges 'sensible'? Whether or not they agree with me?

The people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have had several centuries to decide what they want on this issue. Am I to consider them non-'sensible' because their gun laws amount to criminal negligence?

The first line of the Bill of Rights is instructive here.
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
The entire reason there IS a Bill of Rights is to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers the Constitution by the government of the United States. Certainly, most of the Framers could not have envisioned the weaponry of today. However, Franklin and Jefferson were both pretty imaginative guys. More to the point, when they wrote the Constitution, it was intended to be a document that addressed foundational principles that would hold up over time.

In other words, the fact that guns are so much more destructive today has nothing to do with the principles behind the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

One might easily re-word the 2nd Amendment to read,

'The citizens need to be armed for the country to be free'.

NOTE: The Framers knew what a standing army was. However, in a document where every word was chosen carefully, they specified 'militia'. As in, armed citizens as opposed to professional soldiers.

Many argue the 2nd Amendment is factually untrue. We have a standing professional military, so 'a well regulated militia' is no longer 'necessary to the security of a free state...'

However, the Framers definition of a 'free' state included the citizens having the ability to defend themselves against abusive government. Taking that as a starting point, ht e presence of a professional military actually makes 'a well regulated militia' MORE necessary to the security of a free state, since the power of the government to deny the citizens their rights is so much greater when the government has a professional military to enforce it's will.

I'm not trying to reduce this to a poli-sci lesson. However I really don't think the Constitution is the appropriate place for a remedy.

Halardfan
Apr 18th, 2007, 11:53 PM
But surely your founding fathers are capable of getting things wrong, that amidst their laudable and noble ideas there were also things that in todays real world are not appropriate or wrong.

Ive been watching Fox News again, which is never good for my blood pressure, and the view of the gun lobby seems to be cementing into the idea that hey, if all the students had guns this would have been so much better.

Im honestly frightened by this twisted logic. Youd have shootings all the time, the law of the wild west reborn.

Apoleb
Apr 18th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Ive been watching Fox News again, which is never good for my blood pressure, and the view of the gun lobby seems to be cementing into the idea that hey, if all the students had guns this would have been so much better.

Im honestly frightened by this twisted logic. Youd have shootings all the time, the law of the wild west reborn

:haha: It's amazing no? I'm really trying hard to imagine myself going into class with a gun in my jacket, knowing that probably most students do have one, and the professor too. Or maybe he'd be allowed to have an Ak47 to preserve order in his class.

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:45 AM
i just hate the argument that banning guns will take away your freedom. many democracies have tight gun laws and are more free than the USA. australia isnt exactly a communist country.

Tennis Fool
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:00 AM
The Bill of Rights aren't laws
Actually, to be more precise, they are the first 10 amendments (changes) to the Constitution. Although it is hard to change, due to the hurdle needed to pass, amendments have been deleted, changed, and of course, added.

I also say that I disagree that movies/art influence nutcases. Nutcases just find the most accessible mass destructive weapon of the moment, and use it. In the future, it could be lasers. Should we then blame "Star Wars"? :shrug:

Tennis Fool
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:19 AM
You forgot to add "accidentally shooting innocent classmates yourself" and "having the police mistake YOU for the killer and kill you in turn" to the option list for those carrying guns to "defend" themselves.

The lives saved by citizens with guns in the rare instance of a shoot-out would be far and away offset by the added deaths through accidental shootings, by criminals who got hold of your gun, and by the added availability of guns during heated arguments, domestic disturbances and the like.

Wanna pack something that'll make you a hero? It would make far more sense and save far more live for you to carry a portable cardiac defibrilator.

Really? I'm all for a multi-player gun version of "Whack-A-Mole" :silly:

drummer girl
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:20 AM
In Aus one of the very few things that i have agreed with Howard was the gun laws enforced (banning of semi-automatic rifles and much stricter rules on gun ownership in general) after the Martin Bryant incident. If he had a shotgun rather than a semi automatic, so many lives would have been saved.

The fact is i 100% think that if we had the same laws that america has, we would have as many senseless, sad, mass etc killings that the USA (and other countries with similar laws) has. The fact is here, regardless of whether some lunatic wants to shoot up the world, they cannot get their hands on the guns. The motives the same, the opportunity isn't.

I personally think its very sad that America has a culture that promotes something that kills so many of its population. I also think its sad that here its made a huge impact, and they're thinking of bringing even harsher laws in which i totally condone, yet the American government STILL believes that easy gun access is fine... when a kindergartner can bring a gun to school and shoot another 5 year old what type of country is this?

but look this is imo...

HippityHop
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:50 AM
Incidentally wasn't this college a "gun free zone"?

kiwifan
Apr 19th, 2007, 03:18 AM
Incidentally wasn't this college a "gun free zone"?

and psychos don't follow the rules, you see the tape on this clown? :scared:

he had more than just guns in his arsenal, shit if there were no guns he would have a bow and arrows and once those doors are chained, killing is killing.

someone brilliantly posted earlier (another thread) that pot is banned in the USA...

...wonder if anyone can get a hold of that in my cute little town, Hollywood.
:smoke:

Fingon
Apr 19th, 2007, 03:45 AM
and psychos don't follow the rules, you see the tape on this clown? :scared:

he had more than just guns in his arsenal, shit if there were no guns he would have a bow and arrows and once those doors are chained, killing is killing.

someone brilliantly posted earlier (another thread) that pot is banned in the USA...

...wonder if anyone can get a hold of that in my cute little town, Hollywood.
:smoke:

exactly, the guy have decided to kill others and himself, gave a shit about the consequences. If he couldn't buy a gun legally then he could obtain it illegally, it's not that difficult if you take the risk.

Or, he could just go on the internet and find out how to make a bomb with supplies that can be bought in a hardware store or a pharmacy, or should we ban them too?

It's the typical going for the wrong target, and using a massacre to send a message. the problem isn't in guns, it's in the murderers brain.

HippityHop
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:30 AM
exactly, the guy have decided to kill others and himself, gave a shit about the consequences. If he couldn't buy a gun legally then he could obtain it illegally, it's not that difficult if you take the risk.

Or, he could just go on the internet and find out how to make a bomb with supplies that can be bought in a hardware store or a pharmacy, or should we ban them too?

It's the typical going for the wrong target, and using a massacre to send a message. the problem isn't in guns, it's in the murderers brain.

I simply don't understand why it's so hard for some people to not realize that if you ban guns in an area, that's a perfect place for this kind of thing to happen. You'll notice that he did not go into a police station and start shooting. If he was so "crazy" why didn't he go into a police station?

Even psychopaths prefer targets that can't shoot back. :( And who won't shoot back? The law abiding folks who think that a gun free zone is just hunky dory. After all, they are law abiding so why would they not think that everyone else is?

Qrystyna
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:30 AM
Also, quite a number of dictatorships have fallen because the citizenry acquired firearms. Name one that fell without firearms being involved on some level.

There is quite a few examples.

Portugal 1974 "Carnation Revolution"
Poland 1988
East Germany 1989 "Peaceful Revolution"
Hungary 1989
Czechoslovakia 1989 "Velvet Revolution"
Bulgaria 1989
Serbia 2000
Georgia 2003 "Rose Revolution"
Ukraine 2004 "Orange Revolution"

There is probably others I have missed as well.

Philbo
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:24 AM
I think especially people from outside America can see how twisted and fucked up the logic is that the solution is more guns, more gun ownership etc..

The argument that people would still obtain guns illegally doesnt hold water. Yes, some of the most determined killers would still find a way of killing people. But if it was a lot tougher to get your hands on a gun there would be a noticable reduction in the amount of gun homicides...

All I can say is thank god I dont live in America and Im not american.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:35 AM
There was a study once I read on the newspaper... I don't know where it was.... But the thing is that what they is grant every household with one gun they had to keep there. Apparently crime rate went almost extinct on a town were crime was often happening. The conjecture is that this happened because the potential criminals feared of self-defense.

You know you can't stop traffickers from distributing guns illegally, but you can give people the right to even them in case of an assault. No, "My Little Pony" was shown on PBS, and it wasn't shown on CNN Headline news as factual reality featuring Anderson Cooper as anchor. We must stop being idealists, and must start being realists with a proactive approach to this issue. Bad people will get their guns whether it is legal or not, and giving people the opportunitty to defend themselves is essential.

My sister in Guatemala has had some issues of her own, having had 3 assaults with organized crime, and if my brother-in-law wouldn't have been armed in two of them, they would probably lost the lives of my sister, niece, and his.

This debate has been over since a very long time ago.

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:35 AM
No one here is advocating that policemen shouldn't have guns.

Policemen are people. They can go nuts and murder others. They can also have their guns stolen. Unless we get rid of ALL guns we wouldn't be safe from them. :p

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:36 AM
I wish the United States could split into two countries.

All the crazy, stupid, super-religious, gun-loving, NASCAR-watching trailor trash who are afraid of the "evil government" and taxes could take half the country. They'd be free to jail gays, worship George W. Bush, make evangelical Christianity the compulsory state religion, and build a giant wall along their borders.

Then the rest of us could have the other half of the country, and we could enjoy a country without rampant gun worship and gun violence, a country where people are allowed to marry the consenting adults that they love, a place where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on all aspects of politics, and a country that doesn't get involved in military action in every single decade. :)

Why is it that on this board someone can't have a different opinion without being called stupid? I'm not religious, I hate NASCAR, I'm gay, I hate Bush, but I believe that people should be allowed to own guns.

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:40 AM
i just hate the argument that banning guns will take away your freedom. many democracies have tight gun laws and are more free than the USA. australia isnt exactly a communist country.

Preventing people from doing things is limiting their freedoms. That's just fact. Some of these limits are necessary, but I don't think this is one of them for ALL people.

Of course felons and such should not have guns.... but for normal people, I don't think you should remove them.

Tight gun laws have not stopped gun crimes in any country.

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:41 AM
Look at this:

"A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels between the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, to Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42." (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf)

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:42 AM
The problem is not guns, the problem is the mentality of people and the lack or proper help for the mentally ill.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:42 AM
I think especially people from outside America can see how twisted and fucked up the logic is that the solution is more guns, more gun ownership etc..

The argument that people would still obtain guns illegally doesnt hold water. Yes, some of the most determined killers would still find a way of killing people. But if it was a lot tougher to get your hands on a gun there would be a noticable reduction in the amount of gun homicides...

All I can say is thank god I dont live in America and Im not american.

With all the wealth and diversity and uniqueness and population in America.. Both the best and the worse can be easily generated here. You can't judge America because of what is done by some South Korean native...

Remember that you only see the most twisted things on the news because what the media does is show you the greatest disasters to draw the market through empathy...

But people forget about news like= this...

Marathon run more than a race
Couple remains positive despite their growing health concerns

By Elaine Jarvik (http://deseretnews.com/dn/staff/card/1,1228,82,00.html)
Deseret Morning News
If a 53-year-old man can run two marathons in two weeks, he'll probably be fooled into thinking he's healthy, even though his body knows otherwise. Even if he has a persistent tremor in his shoulder, he won't be worried.
http://deseretnews.com/photos/4021184.jpgLaura Seitz, Deseret Morning News
Bob Marshall and wife Debi stand by a tree adorned with sneakers and Gatorade bottles.

But four days after running the Chicago Marathon last October, Bob Marshall sat in his doctor's office in Salt Lake City and got the bad news. He had ALS, a disease with the gloomiest of prognoses.
Now, six months later, just as promised, Bob is losing ground. He can no longer open a water bottle or tie his running shoes, two facts that are especially ironic given the fact that today he'll be running the Boston Marathon.
But that's how it sometimes is with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. You might lose fine motor coordination but your legs will still plod along at a fairly respectable pace. And then slowly, but never slowly enough, you start to lose use of your arms and legs as well, and then your voice, and, finally, the muscles that control your breathing.
The fact that he can stand in his kitchen and look all the way down that road is what is particularly scary, Bob says. Like a marathon, ASL starts out OK and ends up a grueling test of endurance.
Bob will be in the second pack of runners on Patriot's Day in Boston. When the starting gun for this second wave goes off at 10:30 in the morning in the suburb of Hoppington, Bob will head off at a 12-minute-mile pace. Every few miles he'll walk. Running and walking alongside will be his good friends Tom Loken, Paula Vernon and Donna Thomas, who can each run a lot faster but have chosen to keep Bob company.
Bob qualified for the Boston Marathon, the granddaddy of all marathons, by just four seconds, running a 3:34:56 in St. George. Time was on his side that day.
This is the Marshall family's second piece of really bad news. The first was Bob's wife's diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 14 years ago, when she was 37. Debi has told this story so many times she rattles off the numbers: "I was given days, if not hours, to live. I had five children under the age of 10. I've had 64 chemotherapy treatments and I receive blood transfusions every three weeks." She's been bald seven times. Of the 25 people in her original lymphoma support group, only three are still alive.
http://deseretnews.com/i/advertisement3.gifdocument.writeln(AAMB6); var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1); document.write(''); http://63.225.61.6/IMPCNT/ccid=9677/area=dn.local.article.position1Y/adsize=300x250/aamsz=300x250/keyword=/site=/acc_random=602960/pageid=602960



"I guess the point is, we've counted on me dying and have prepared the kids for that. And Bob was always going to be here." Bob's diagnosis left Debi disoriented, "like being underwater," she says. "I couldn't see clearly. I'm a real list person, but I didn't know what to do."
Over the past six months, Bob and Debi have worked hard to be upbeat (Debi puts words of encouragement on Bob's pillow every day) and philosophical. ("If I look back on Oct. 26, I'm grateful I got that diagnosis instead of dying of a heart attack," Bob says.)
There is no cure and no known cause of ALS. Anecdotally, "quite a few people with ALS were runners and soccer players and football players," so maybe injuries play a part, he says. Once a person has ALS, strenuous exercise can make him weaker, but doesn't seem to make the disease progress any faster. Regular exercise that stretches the muscles helps with flexibility, but weightlifting or running don't make the muscles stronger.
"You know what's so hard?" says Bob. "Opening baggies." And pulling up his socks.
Sitting in their kitchen on a gray spring day, the Marshalls talk about the meaning of their double whammy of random bad luck.
"Maybe we're supposed to get the message out not to give up," Debi says.
"That's not why we got it," says Bob. "That's what we're going to do with it."
"I feel like we were meant to give people some hope," answers Debi, who at 51 is nearly always exhausted and in pain, and one doctor's visit away from more bad news. "I just make myself get up and go. Get up and live. Today is what we have."
But hadn't they already learned that lesson already? That's what Bob wonders.
The Marshalls have lived with death for so long that nobody in the family looks for euphemisms. "Team Terminal," Bob and Debi's children call their parents.
They'll all be at the finish line in Boston. Bob is hoping to make it across in the six hours and 45 minutes allotted for a medal. Most of the other runners and their families will have already gone home by then, but the Marshalls will be celebrating.

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:44 AM
I also read that 16% of homocides in Australia are committed with guns. This tells us two things:

1) Despite Australia's gun control laws, people still acquire guns and kill people with them.
2) A lot of people who don't have access to guns just find other ways to murder.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:44 AM
Policemen are people. They can go nuts and murder others. They can also have their guns stolen. Unless we get rid of ALL guns we wouldn't be safe from them. :p

Even then... Guns will be smuggled from Mexico to surge gang efforts to dominate the drug markets...

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:44 AM
You can't judge America because of what is done by some South Korean native...



:rolleyes:

As I recall, you were the same person who had interestingly biased opinions on the whole Don Imus affair and who thinks Indians should start behaving like the smart civilization they are. hmmmm..... :scratch:

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:45 AM
With all the wealth and diversity and uniqueness and population in America.. Both the best and the worse can be easily generated here. You can't judge America because of what is done by some South Korean native...

You are such an racist and bigoted fool. Unfortunately people CAN judge our country by what people like you say and do. :rolleyes:

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:45 AM
:rolleyes:

Even if it would have been done by BTK... It is still one in 360 millions...

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:50 AM
You are such an racist and bigoted fool. Unfortunately people CAN judge our country by what people like you say and do. :rolleyes:

I felt the attack was directed toward Americans... I am just establishing the point that he wasn't even raised with an American mindset... I have seen some Anime that is far more violent and cruel that some R rated movies out there....

Even then... South Koreans rock... no direct attack meant at all... It is just my second favourite people in Asia just behind Singapura... :p

Here in Salt Lake, we had our rampage of our own, and we had a Serbian teen who went Bersek on youth and elderly alike in a mall... but we have learned to forgive him... He came from a war-torn life...

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:51 AM
Here in Salt Lake,

If I were a stereotyping fool like you are, I would have suggested that this explains it. :p

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:54 AM
If I were a stereotyping fool like you are, I would have suggested that this explains it. :p

I didn't live in Salt Lake all my life... Not even close...

My opinions should not decide whether I am a fool or not... Values are different thus radically different opinions and inclinations...

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:55 AM
My opinions should not decide whether I am a fool or not...

:lol: You're funny, I give you that.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:56 AM
:lol: You're funny, I give you that.

The fact that I like to be sarcastic, although I lack a sense of humour... well that is foolish... I give you that

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:01 AM
I felt the attack was directed toward Americans... I am just establishing the point that he wasn't even raised with an American mindset... I have seen some Anime that is far more violent and cruel that some R rated movies out there....

:lol: So anime caused this massacre?

He lived in this country since he was 8. He was more American than Korean.

You have no right to use his nationality as an excuse.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:11 AM
:lol: So anime caused this massacre?

He lived in this country since he was 8. He was more American than Korean.

You have no right to use his nationality as an excuse.

I had the arguement thrown at me somewhere in this thread that American culture and mindset was too violent and that such caused his rage... the anti-America movement caused me to mention that little fact..

Nonetheless, it is shouldn't be an excuse.. What really caused his death? That is hard to know... it could be the laws, it could be his family, or it could be his own mind... Perhaps this death was meant to be for a reason, and perhaps, from what we learned from this, we can prevent this happening on the future, and give help to those souls suffering so much already... Perhaps his death, and the death of all those people were the toll to alarm many families and friends around the country and perhaps world, to know that they should help those ones who are being left out and help them carry their burdens, before the evil of humanity possesses them and another massacre of equal or greater magnitude happens...

Guns solely can't kill people... Second Ammendment was made to stay...

Erika_Angel
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:26 AM
Nearly all of the students at VA Tech grew up in the American Culture from birth. Only one of those students is a pathetic, mass-murdering bastard.

Someone has to be truly sick to cause such heinous crimes. You can't blame that on culture or even gun laws, they are just f*cked up in the head.

That being said: Guns are wrong and I think the Second Amendment should be abolished. It would make the country a lot safer even if there were still sickos wondering around.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:28 AM
That being said: Guns are wrong and I think the Second Amendment should be abolished. It would make the country a lot safer even if there were still sickos wondering around.

How would you stop the bad guys from having guns?

You know heavy firearms are being smuggled by dozens or hundreds everyday here in the US... The bad guys are always going to have the guns if they want to... How do prohibiting guns for the good people would help?

Halardfan
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:44 AM
Again, let me get this striaght, are Pro gun people saying that they have zero problem with somone of this guys known instability being able to legally go to a store and tool himself up for a massacre, no questions asked?

Are there avenues to illegally get guns...doubtless...but it is surely reasonable to make it more difficult for him, to have stronger checks and restrictions rather than openly cater to his every insane need and fantasy.

The gun store guy who sold him his arsenal, showing little remorse, talks about oh, should have let all the other students use their guns on campus that would make it so much safer...





:help: :help: :help:

Erika_Angel
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:48 AM
How would you stop the bad guys from having guns?

You know heavy firearms are being smuggled by dozens or hundreds everyday here in the US... The bad guys are always going to have the guns if they want to... How do prohibiting guns for the good people would help?

If anything it would lower the amount of gun related suicides of youths in America.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:50 AM
Again, let me get this striaght, are Pro gun people saying that they have zero problem with somone of this guys known instability being able to legally go to a store and tool himself up for a massacre, no questions asked?

Are there avenues to illegally get guns...doubtless...but it is surely reasonable to make it more difficult for him, to have stronger checks and restrictions rather than openly cater to his every insane need and fantasy.

The gun store guy who sold him his arsenal, showing little remorse, talks about oh, should have let all the other students use their guns on campus that would make it so much safer...





:help: :help: :help:

You bring up a good poijnt.. instead of a abolishing the 2nd ammendment.. why not have an alternative...

Like some Church of Scientology personality test that will say whether they are happy enough to carry a gun or not...:p

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:52 AM
I also read that 16% of homocides in Australia are committed with guns. This tells us two things:

1) Despite Australia's gun control laws, people still acquire guns and kill people with them.
2) A lot of people who don't have access to guns just find other ways to murder.

yes but australia has a pretty low murder rate when compared to the usa. and of course people can still get guns but gun laws do decrease the amount of guns in circulation, hence the number of murders go down. its quite simple.

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:03 AM
just look at the stats people
murders with firemarms per capita -

#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people

murders with firearms

#4 United States: 8,259
#21 Australia: 59

murders per capita:
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people

murders:
#6 United States: 12,658
#32 Australia: 302

The USA is the leading industrialised country in all these categories

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:08 AM
The USA is the leading industrialised country in all these categories

If I am right it is also the only industrialized country with a third world country so close...

Halardfan
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:08 AM
You bring up a good poijnt.. instead of a abolishing the 2nd ammendment.. why not have an alternative...

Like some Church of Scientology personality test that will say whether they are happy enough to carry a gun or not...:p

No need, he already had been deemed “an imminent danger to himself and others” by health care professionals, and had been reported to the police for harassment by more than one student and goodness knows what else...this is not the kind of person who should be given unfetered access to firearms.

Tell me Im wrong!

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:11 AM
If I am right it is also the only industrialized country with a third world country so close...

so is it mexicos fault now? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:12 AM
Banning guns would not solve anything. Only the most law-abiding citizens would give up their guns. Criminals and organized crime would celebrate :(

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:12 AM
No need, he already had been deemed “an imminent danger to himself and others” by health care professions, and had been reported to the police for harassment by more than one student and goodness knows what else...this is not the kind of person who should be given unfetered access to firearms.

Tell me Im wrong!


Well... I do agree with you... he shouldn't have been given access to firearms... But things aren't black and white, you can't just say you won't give any more firearms to anyone...

I was saying that perhaps we should have a personality test of some sort that would allow only good people to hold firearms... even then... he can can get a bazooka illegally so easily here in the US... that is not even funny..

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:15 AM
so is it mexicos fault now? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I am saying that Australia's and USA's neighborhoods are completely different... you can't compare!

Or what? Are Samoans flooding into your country like crazy? and bringing enough drugs to feed North America, and Europe with drugs? or I am just crazy.. I can't imagine what would be going in Australia if this happened... perhaps it would be a holocaust time for you guys down under...

So yah... we can't compare... You are lucky for being in a "pacific" ocean...

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:19 AM
I am saying that Australia's and USA's neighborhoods are completely different... you can't compare!

Or what? Are Samoans flooding into your country like crazy? and bringing enough drugs to feed North America, and Europe with drugs? or I am just crazy.. I can't imagine what would be going in Australia if this happened... perhaps it would be a holocaust time for you guys down under...

So yah... we can't compare... You are lucky for being in a "pacific" ocean...

you obviously know nothing about australia, we are surrounded by much poorer nations than mexico. and yes we have quite a large population of samoans. and whats with the holocaust remark?

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:23 AM
you obviously know nothing about australia, we are surrounded by much poorer nations than mexico. and yes we have quite a large population of samoans. and whats with the holocaust remark?

True... but when we speak about population, and the conventionality of immigration and the smuggling... I don't think water comes so easy... no comparison...

And what I meant by the other remark is that such comparison is as intangible as that of you committing a holocaust against samoans...

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:29 AM
True... but when we speak about population, and the conventionality of immigration and the smuggling... I don't think water comes so easy... no comparison...

And what I meant by the other remark is that such comparison is as intangible as that of you committing a holocaust against samoans...

well we do have the third largest country just north of us, just that we can contol our borders. anyway i just think america need to change some of its laws and look at itself before it starts invading countries and saying their way is the best, because it isnt. America needs to fix it gun laws, have better foreign relations and set up some more government benefits (like healthcare). i find it outrageous that a country like america doesnt have healthcare for people who cant afford it.

HippityHop
Apr 19th, 2007, 08:06 AM
I think especially people from outside America can see how twisted and fucked up the logic is that the solution is more guns, more gun ownership etc..

The argument that people would still obtain guns illegally doesnt hold water. Yes, some of the most determined killers would still find a way of killing people. But if it was a lot tougher to get your hands on a gun there would be a noticable reduction in the amount of gun homicides...

All I can say is thank god I dont live in America and Im not american.

As an American, I thank God that you don't and aren't also. God is good.

gentenaire
Apr 19th, 2007, 11:54 AM
A lot of the black market guns were once bought legally. If it's easy to buy guns, there are far more guns around and the black market is a lot bigger, making it a lot easier for criminals to get access to guns.

Scotso
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:22 PM
yes but australia has a pretty low murder rate when compared to the usa. and of course people can still get guns but gun laws do decrease the amount of guns in circulation, hence the number of murders go down. its quite simple.

No, it's not that simple. Did you read what I posted about Switzerland? People there can even own assault weapons, yet they have a lower murder rate than countries that have much high gun control.

It's not about the guns, it's about the people.

LoveFifteen
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:21 PM
It's not about the guns, it's about the people.

Ooooooh, why didn't you say so? If it's the people, then it's definitely a great idea to let murderous, blood-hungry people have access to guns!!! :rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:40 PM
I am just establishing the point that he wasn't even raised with an American mindset... I have seen some Anime that is far more violent and cruel that some R rated movies out there....

how the fuck do you know that you brainless twit? did you sit ate his dinner table? did you know his sister? did you meet his parents? have you been to his house?

AND for the record Anime is JAPANESE you ignorant bastard. and Japan is one of the least violent and safest nations in the world. Gun violence in japan is almost unheard of. and violence of any kind is relatively rare. so dont even try to blame anime or the japanese for this you ignorant prick.

Wigglytuff
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:44 PM
It's not about the guns, it's about the people.

it is. its about mindless gun totting fools who think that everyone should be able to have guns and routinely allow violent or dangerous persons to have guns. thus leading to 30,000 plus gun preventable gun related deaths.

mandy7
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Wow, Duiz, you're a retard.

Anyhow, i voted the 1st option, the amendment should fuck off already

Wigglytuff
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:55 PM
If I am right it is also the only industrialized country with a third world country so close...

holy shit you did not just say that. what are you going to blame next the horse head nebula? the brand of computer he used? the ipod? netflix?

LoveFifteen
Apr 19th, 2007, 03:00 PM
If I am right it is also the only industrialized country with a third world country so close...

Spain and Portugal are close to Morocco and Algeria. Australia is close to Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. :shrug:

*JR*
Apr 19th, 2007, 03:01 PM
...

The people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have had several centuries to decide what they want on this issue. Am I to consider them non-'sensible' because their gun laws amount to criminal negligence?

I'm not trying to reduce this to a poli-sci lesson. However I really don't think the Constitution is the appropriate place for a remedy.
Regarding your first quoted paragraph, part of the "problem" is that there are of course no border controls between states. That's why the NRA has always been disingenuous in citing the high rate of gun crime in Washington, DC which has strict gun controls. Bad ppl simply get them from Virginia, etc. (thru intermediaries who can then claim after a "respectable interval" that it was stolen B4 the gangbangers put it to use if they can't get it themselves there legally).



Or, he could just go on the internet and find out how to make a bomb with supplies that can be bought in a hardware store or a pharmacy, or should we ban them too?
We control those things as best as we can, though often only after a tragedy. For example, the sale of ammonium nitrate fertilizers was controlled due to the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

And someone mentioned the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. I flat out reject the idea that it should allow the publication of instruction manuals on how to make things like bombs, etc.

HippityHop
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:25 PM
Why shouldnt non americans have an opinion? America spends a lot of its resources shaping the world around them, meddling in the affairs of dozens of other countries, overthrowing regimes, dictating hypocritical free-trade agreements, interfering in the politics of allies and enemies alike, etc etc, and you think we are out of line for having an opinion on gun laws in the USA?

Get over your own arrogance... When the USA stops influencing the rest of the world, we will stop having opinions.


This is one post that I can wholeheartedly agree with. :worship:
For the life of me I can't understand why we spend resources in places where people have such a strong dislike for us. Even if we had a positive result in other countries, nobody would appreciate it. It's kind of like charity. People might need it, but there seems to be something about human nature which makes us resent those who do for us what we can't seem to do for ourselves.

Why on earth is this administration trying to put a missle defense system in Eastern Europe? There clearly is no more Soviet threat. Why in the hell do we still have troops in places like Germany when we need them for this misguided war in Iraq? :confused:

South Korea is one of the most vibrant economies in the world and we still have our people there in harm's way. WTF? :(

We got involved in the whole Bosnia situation out of feel goodism. It clearly wasn't that big a deal since the Europeans were willing to let it go.

We are involved in this foolishness in Iraq trying to establish a democracy in an area where it's impossible. I initially thought that all people on earth would want to live in a democratic society like the US but I admit that I was mistaken. Of course I also wish that we would close off immigration from those countries even though I know it's a complicated issue. If people want the kind of freedoms that we enjoy in the US they will gain them for themselves in their own countries.

And there are folks who want us to get involved in the Sudan. It's a tragic situation there but it's time to let someone else shoulder the burden of saving the world from itself. We have enough to do at home.

Volcana
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:15 PM
Regarding your first quoted paragraph, part of the "problem" is that there are of course no border controls between states. We do however, regulate interstate commerce. There is also a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. If there's a major outflux of Virgina guns to the rest of the country, those would be the appropriate agencies to address it.

Why hasn't that happened? 1) A lot of Americans don't trust the Federal gov't, and view them as constantly going after the citizen's firearms. And 2) as you alluded, the NRA is very strong.

And someone mentioned the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. I flat out reject the idea that it should allow the publication of instruction manuals on how to make things like bombs, etc.The Supreme Court does not agree with you. Neither does reality. Plans for a nuclear bomb are available on the Internet for the truly dedicated. Designs for 99% of the weapons ever manufactured are freely available. And even before the internet, if you had a decent local library and a familiarity with the text 'The Anarchist's Cookbook' has been around for decades.

The Federal gov't may as well look magnanimous, and guarantee the free flow of information. Because it's going to flow anyway. The government censored most of the photos from Abu Ghraib. But they found their way onto the internet anyway.

The problem isn't the availability of guns itself. It's a relatively large number of people who want to lash out violently. If you have relatively few of those people, you can afford to have a lot of guns around. If you have a lot of them, it's a good idea to hide the sharp objects.

Tell me why the USA produces such a high percentage of potential mass murderers. Maybe it's a side effect of an otherwise good thing. (I doubt this.) A country can have a lot of guns per capita if the population is peaceful. If the population is violent, then if you have a ot of guns around, you'll have a lot of gun deaths.

*JR*
Apr 19th, 2007, 08:50 PM
We do however, regulate interstate commerce. There is also a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. If there's a major outflux of Virgina guns to the rest of the country, those would be the appropriate agencies to address it.

Why hasn't that happened? 1) A lot of Americans don't trust the Federal gov't, and view them as constantly going after the citizen's firearms. And 2) as you alluded, the NRA is very strong.

The Supreme Court does not agree with you. Neither does reality. Plans for a nuclear bomb are available on the Internet for the truly dedicated. Designs for 99% of the weapons ever manufactured are freely available. And even before the internet, if you had a decent local library and a familiarity with the text 'The Anarchist's Cookbook' has been around for decades.

The Federal gov't may as well look magnanimous, and guarantee the free flow of information. Because it's going to flow anyway. The government censored most of the photos from Abu Ghraib. But they found their way onto the internet anyway.

The problem isn't the availability of guns itself. It's a relatively large number of people who want to lash out violently. If you have relatively few of those people, you can afford to have a lot of guns around. If you have a lot of them, it's a good idea to hide the sharp objects.

Tell me why the USA produces such a high percentage of potential mass murderers. Maybe it's a side effect of an otherwise good thing. (I doubt this.) A country can have a lot of guns per capita if the population is peaceful. If the population is violent, then if you have a ot of guns around, you'll have a lot of gun deaths.
Regarding the regulation of interstate commerce, what good does it do here when guns and ammo can freely cross state lines in the trunk of a car? :confused:

Regarding the availability of the information needed for lets say another 9/11, the fact that we can't totally stop it doesn't mean that governments around the world shouldn't do their best.

And yes, the problem is ultimately human action, but government (acting as the vast majority more worried about terrorists than one of Lakeway's conspiracy groups) :tape: has the responsibility to do its best.

Also, we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand on things. For example, Michael Jordan once rebuffed complaints about the crime associated with the high price of Air Jordans by correctly noting that ppl like Jack Nicklaus have long had endorsed clothing, etc.

True, but totally irrelevant, as the Golden Bear's stuff didn't prompt killings, muggings (for the stuff or the money to buy it) or push kids who wanted to fit in ova the line into becoming street level drug runners (and then dealers).

MJ chose to ignore a reality that would have meant passing up a lot of money. (Kudos to Stephon Marbury, whose Starbury shoes sell for $14.98 a pair). Was it a double standard when compared with a Jack Nicklaus? You bet. Did that lessen the bad effects of Air Jordans I listed above? No way.

There are no absolutes in the real world re. guaranteeing ppl's safety. Which doesn't mean that society shouldn't do the best it can within reason.

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Yes, America has changed and the Constitution has changed with it, yet through two centuries of conflict and change, Americans have always agreed on one thing: the sanctity of the original ten amendments; the Bill of Rights. To deviate from this principle and alter the basic rights gauranteed by our founding fathers would set a dangerous precident. There are plenty of reactionary nut-jobs in all three branches of government who would love nothing better than to fine-tune the Bill of Rights more to their liking.

Perhaps a better question is, should America have tougher gun control laws and stricter enforcment of existing laws? People who are quick to adulterate the Bill of Rights seem oblivious to the fact that, pursuant to federal law, it was already illegal for this shooter to own or possess firearms due to his diagnosed mental illness.

Anyone who thinks simply making guns illegal will solve the problem need only look at the success of the "war on drugs". The problem is societal, no amount of legislation will solve it.

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 12:38 AM
im not saying you shouldnt have freedom of speach, im saying that every nutter shouldnt be allowed to own a gun. is it really that hard to understand.
Under existing federal law, no "nutter" is allowed to own a gun.

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 12:53 AM
I wish the United States could split into two countries.

All the crazy, stupid, super-religious, gun-loving, NASCAR-watching trailor trash who are afraid of the "evil government" and taxes could take half the country. They'd be free to jail gays, worship George W. Bush, make evangelical Christianity the compulsory state religion, and build a giant wall along their borders.

Then the rest of us could have the other half of the country, and we could enjoy a country without rampant gun worship and gun violence, a country where people are allowed to marry the consenting adults that they love, a place where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on all aspects of politics, and a country that doesn't get involved in military action in every single decade. :)
I realize you're posting in jest, but you seem to think that people who don't see things your way are ignorant and wrong-headed. You may be surprised to find that a society comprised of people who think and feel exactly like you might be anything but utopian. Believe it or not, there are people from the opposite of your end of the political spectrum who are intellectually credible, rational, intelligent people; many of whom not only know how to spell trailer, they've never lived in one.:)

aussie12
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Under existing federal law, no "nutter" is allowed to own a gun.

well how was the gunman sold a gun then

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:15 AM
well how was the gunman sold a gun then
Good question. I can only tell you that laws prohibiting felons, persons diagnosed with mental illness and persons convicted of crimes of domestic violence from owning or possessing firearms are very loosely enforced.

*JR*
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:18 AM
well how was the gunman sold a gun then
Because he voluntarily spent 2 days in a mental ward without contesting the recommendation, it didn't wind up on a record that would "follow him". (The idea is not to stigmatize accepting treatment or diagnosis, where ppl might then resist it). I'm sure this will now be changed regarding gun laws.

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:26 AM
We ain't allowed to carry guns in the mad bad old UK, but I challenge you to find anyone here who thinks that the US is somehow "freer" than us as a result? In fact, our laws are far more liberal than yours in many respects and we don't even NEED a Bill of Rights or a written constitution! For example, in the UK you can be a paid up member of the communist party and express your views freely without being villified for it by paranoid right wingers.

Sometimes, the US vision of "freedom" looks a tad odd from this side of the pond.
I don't disagree. There are plenty of paranoid right wingers in the U.S. who vilify many forms of free speech, free expression and the pursuit of happiness; all the more reason why we need our Bill of Rights left intact.

HippityHop
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:55 AM
I don't disagree. There are plenty of paranoid right wingers in the U.S. who vilify many forms of free speech, free expression and the pursuit of happiness; all the more reason why we need our Bill of Rights left intact.


Agreed. But let's not forget the left wingers who would love to silence the speech that they don't agree with. Remember the speech codes that were(are) so prevalent on college campuses? Those all come from the left.

The sad fact is that most people love freedom of speech for themselves. However it's the folks with whom they disagree whose speech they question.

aussie12
Apr 20th, 2007, 02:01 AM
well you migh call me ignorant, but anyone who suggests its a good idea for everyone to have access to gun, is plain crazy

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 02:26 AM
well you migh call me ignorant, but anyone who suggests its a good idea for everyone to have access to gun, is plain crazy
I wouldn't call you ignorant. Anyone who would suggest such a thing would be crazy. Fortunately, I don't recall ever hearing anybody suggest that everyone should have access to guns.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:32 AM
I realize you're posting in jest, but you seem to think that people who don't see things your way are ignorant and wrong-headed. You may be surprised to find that a society comprised of people who think and feel exactly like you might be anything but utopian. Believe it or not, there are people from the opposite of your end of the political spectrum who are intellectually credible, rational, intelligent people; many of whom not only know how to spell trailer, they've never lived in one.:)

:lol:

Funny you mention that... I thought I was alone.

I don't know where does this scarcity mentality comes that because you think different, you are wrong. People simply grew up with different values that are highly more valued that the others.

Our education system sucks here in the US...

Qrystyna
Apr 20th, 2007, 09:04 AM
We are involved in this foolishness in Iraq trying to establish a democracy in an area where it's impossible. I initially thought that all people on earth would want to live in a democratic society like the US but I admit that I was mistaken.


That's the problem... the USA with its two-party system is not overly democratic itself.

*JR*
Apr 20th, 2007, 12:58 PM
That's the problem... the USA with its two-party system is not overly democratic itself.
Most Western countries are basically two party systems. The only difference in the US is that the narrowing is done B4 a one round general election, and others sometimes have the coalition formed afterwards, or have a runoff between the Top 2 (as France presumably will as usual after Sunday's vote). Though the Brits and Ozzies also usually have one party win outright in one round.

meyerpl
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:19 PM
Again, let me get this striaght, are Pro gun people saying that they have zero problem with somone of this guys known instability being able to legally go to a store and tool himself up for a massacre, no questions asked?

No. It is already illegal for "someone of this guy's known instability" to purchase a firearm. Most pro-gun people are for enforcing existing laws restricting unfit people from purchasing guns and vigorously prosecuting anyone who commits a crime while using a firearm. Pro-gun people tend to believe that anyone convicted of using a firearm to commit a crime should be sent to prison for a very long time. It's noteworthy that some posters who are upset about gun violence are the same folks who decry the criminal justice system and sentencing practices in the U.S. as too harsh.

I wouldn't call myself a "pro-gun" person as much as a "pro-Bill of Rights" person. I'm all for gun control but I don't think the Bill of Rights should be adulterated, for reasons I've already explained. Fortunately, even most folks who are opposed to gay marriage at least have the wisdom to realize that it's unwise to fuck with the Constitution over the issue.