What!! Guy goes on a rampage with a gun and no gun control thread yet?

[MORON]

So any nice american friends have a M4/M16/AK/FNFAL you can sell me?

*proceed his plan to take over the world

Lots of GUNS = MAD on a personal level....

[aaglo]

A gun does not kill anybody, it is merely a tool in the hand of a killer. But still guns suck.

Say, if one of the strongest associations (or so it seems) in a country is National Rifle Association, is it cool or not?

[Dis]

*Mr. Burns voice*- Excellent!

It's so easy to bring up a gun control debate here at apolyton. I never get tired of them .

[aaglo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The only relevant facts are the following:
1)The right to bear arms and to own guns are protected in multiple places by the US Constitution.
2)The Constitution can be amended to ban gun ownership.
3)Such a Constitutional amendment will NOT happen in the United States. Period. Even if there was Congressional support - which there isn't - there is not enough support in the States.

1) The constitution is old, and "right to own guns" comes right from the barbaric ages.
2) please, do that! Fellow americans - you've got the ball on this issue. Please amend this ridiculous "right"...
3) No it won't (until NRA is completely destroyed - this association is completely vain).

One wise man once said (I don't remember who - propably an american): "USA is the only country that has gone straight from barbarism to decay - without the usual period of civilization" (refer to clause 1).

[Wraith]

--"So any nice american friends have a M4/M16/AK/FNFAL you can sell me?"

Not unless someone here has a federal class 3 dealer's permit. You have no idea how much hassle and expense you have to go through to get something like that.

--"It's so easy to bring up a gun control debate here at apolyton. I never get tired of them ."

They're easy to get tired of when your arguments get ignored the more you bring in to back them up. Guess this is a battle of personal opinions, not facts.

--"The constitution is old,"

The same Euros whinging about the US being a baby nation almost inevitably go on to say this sort of thing in these threads. It is very interesting to note this behavior, but I fail to see the relevancy of the argument. After all, the freedom of speech and assembly are were codified at the same time, so are they outdated too?

--"Please amend this ridiculous "right"..."

Please learn the proper definition of "right" in this context...

--"One wise man once said (I don't remember who - propably an american):"

Oscar Wilde, I think.

Wraith
I can't help thinking that the world would be a better place if everyone would listen to me

[drake]

A 90 pound woman using pepper spray can "equalize" things just fine. You don't need to blow a hole through someone to "equalize" things.

Guns are probably one of the most detrimental inventions ever created. Killed un-countable amounts of people. And will continue to do so.

Some people, in other un-related threads, say they didn't want to live in a police like state. Well, what is better, a little regulation, or a paranoid society of vigilante idiots? (why are gun sales up since 911? Are people really that stupid to think a gun will protect them from terrorism?)

Why don't we just give everyone a holster and let the fastest guns sort it out? Thats justice from the "ol' west" for ya

Guns and other technologies that are only designed to kill are definetly a sign of the times. They are detrimental to society and it's growth. While everyone has and feels the need for one, how can you say you live in a free society? How is living in fear free? Civil rights this and that, but like I said, where are your civil rights when you are gunned down? Where are your civil rights when someone is scraping your brain matter off the wall?

Freedom isn't being able to have a gun. Freedom is being able to live in a society where you don't need one.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by drake
A 90 pound woman using pepper spray can "equalize" things just fine.

You're not serious, are you? Because now you're just being naive.

[drake]

how is that naive? If sprayed directly in the eyes it is a very effective defense.

Are you saying you need to kill or critically injure someone in that situation?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by drake
how is that naive? If sprayed directly in the eyes it is a very effective defense.

A) The spray you can buy as a civilian is significantly weaker from that available to law enforcement.

B) The spray starts decaying the day its manufactured. So, it may not be effective when you need it most. Further reducing its defensive effect.

C) There are people that are immune to its effects.

[Roland]

On the homicide rate: It's also worth noting that the US incarceration rate is 7-10 times higher. Gun legislation may play into that, but there is a much broader difference in the "culture" of crime and repression.

Wraith:

"It's not my fault they decided they'd prefer government promises of safety. It is the easy way out, since excercising rights requires an effort."

There is no constitutional right to gun ownership here, and I'm not aware of it being even discussed. It is a very specific US phenomenon, so please don't generalize this to "rights" in.. well... general. The simple legal right to own a gun is hotly debated in Austria from time to time, the same goes for say France.

"The right to bear arms is a part of the Bill of Rights, the fundamental protections from government that were required before the Constitution could be accepted in the first place. It's there because it's a very important right that they felt needed to be specifically protected."

For the federal government. Do you think the various amendments that (supposedly) extended the Bill of Rights to the states also does that with the 2nd amendment ? If not, I fail to see how the 2nd amendment would stop state legislation on the issue. If yes, what restrictions does it allow ?

scipio:

"When we say War on Drugs over here, we're not kidding around. I'm not sure how dedicated European nations are to eradicating this particular 'scurge'."

For soft drugs, someone in crimonolgy came up to describe the approach as the 4-4 rule: 4 % of cases get reported, and out of that 4 % end in a conviction. Might well be a 2-2 rule now.
The repression of hard drugs is a lot more serious, but there are no special powers related to that.

"Also, the USA has had Federal levels of law enforcement to add on top of state and local law enforcement for far longer than the EU has been around. Can you shed light on whether there were multi-national drug law enforcement efforts in place in Europe for the last 30 years?"

Not sure what you mean there. Police forces exist at a federal and "state" level in Germany, Switzerland and Spain. Criminal law is usually codified at the national level. At the EU level there is only Europol which is not an "operational" police force but only does analysis and information sharing.

[Wraith]

--"A 90 pound woman using pepper spray can "equalize" things just fine."

Not nearly as well as a gun. The strength and decay issues have already been addressed, but those aren't the only ones. There's also a range problem. Pepper-sprays only project out a few feet, so the attacker has to be very close before you can even threaten them with it, much less hit. You also have to hit them in the eyes for it really do anything (what if they're wearing sunglasses?). And if you live in Lubbock, don't even think about trying to use pepper spray since the wind makes it just as likely to hit yourself as what you're aiming at.

--"Well, what is better, a little regulation, or a paranoid society of vigilante idiots?"

Paranoid vigilante idiots. They'll get themselves cleaned out of the gene pool real quick, which will live the reasonable people to live their lives in freedom.

--"Are people really that stupid to think a gun will protect them from terrorism?"

Depends on the kind of terrorism. Won't do anything against a car-bomb or similar, but they could be useful in other situations. 9/11 just made people a little more aware that the government can't provide the safety it promises in exchange for your rights.

--"While everyone has and feels the need for one, how can you say you live in a free society?"

Who says I feel the need for one? Only gun I own right now is a family heirloom, an old Winchester .22 rifle I inherited from my grandfather. And that's in my parent's care, which is a couple hundred miles away from where I live.

--"It is a very specific US phenomenon, so please don't generalize this to "rights" in.. well... general"

It is a general right, though. The Bill of Rights was not a granting of privledges, it was an acknowledgement and protection of pre-existing rights. Gun ownership is nothing more than a property rights issue.

--"Do you think the various amendments that (supposedly) extended the Bill of Rights to the states also does that with the 2nd amendment ?"

Yes, I do. In addition, most states have their own gun-rights clauses in the state constitutions.

--"If yes, what restrictions does it allow ?"

Very little. Disallowing convicted criminals and mentaly unstable people from buying/owning weapons, and disallowing concealed carry in public buldings (by which I mean government-owned buildings).

Wraith
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
-- Charles Austin Beard

[Roland]

Wraith:

"It is a general right, though. The Bill of Rights was not a granting of privledges, it was an acknowledgement and protection of pre-existing rights."

I don't believe in natural rights, but let's assume that for a moment - there are so many "acknowledgements" of natural rights, and they all differ widely. The US Bill of Rights is just one. And the inclusion of arms seems to be quite unique.

"Very little. Disallowing convicted criminals and mentaly unstable people from buying/owning weapons, and disallowing concealed carry in public buldings (by which I mean government-owned buildings)."

Where do you get that ? IIRC it only says "not infringed"...

Also, considering that the right is related to the militia, what about requiring training ? How do you enforce the "disallowing convicted criminals and mentally unstable people" ?

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."

I like that quote.

[Wraith]

--"And the inclusion of arms seems to be quite unique."

Well, it was based on English Common Law, so it isn't totally unique.
I still don't see why there needs to be a seperate category for guns, though. They're just a type of private property. If you allow for private property rights, there's the root of any gun-rights debate.

--"Where do you get that ? IIRC it only says "not infringed"..."

Same way they get the "shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the First Amendment" style of things. People who have proven themselves to be a danger to others (convicted criminals, although I would limit this to those convicted of violent crimes, ie. not speeding or tax evasion) do give up some rights.

--"Also, considering that the right is related to the militia, what about requiring training ?"

Well, this has been covered many times in these debates. Militia was just everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 willing to carry a gun. We're not talking National Guard here.
Of course, you'd be a moron to buy a gun and not get some training in it, but it's not against the law to be a moron yet.

--"How do you enforce the "disallowing convicted criminals and mentally unstable people" ?"

Same way we do it now. The FBI's Instant Background Check system. This has been in place for quite a while, and it is a requirement that all gun dealers run buyers through this system (yes, even if they're selling at gun shows) before they can close the sale.

--"I like that quote."

So do I

Wraith
"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?"
-- Harlon Carter

[DinoDoc]

Wraith: Where do you get your quotes from? I'd really like to know becuase I need some new sig material.

[Roland]

"Well, it was based on English Common Law, so it isn't totally unique."

Closely linked to the feudal right of resistance. Although I do not think it is a good source on natural rights as the same legal system allowed for slavery well into the 19th century, disallowed women and the poor from voting etc etc.... and that old right only applied to free men, correct ?

"They're just a type of private property. If you allow for private property rights, there's the root of any gun-rights debate."

So if I acquire them with my own money, I have a right to own nuclear weapons ?

"Same way they get the "shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the First Amendment" style of things."

IOW, there is room for interpretation...

"Militia was just everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 willing to carry a gun."

Then why did it need to be "regulated" ?