2nd amendment
-
With the way things are going only two groups will be armed. Military (police) and criminal. Thus average Joe will not be able to defend themselves in case of an uprising. Wait that might be what the government is afraid of.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
Based on that argument no one should buy life insurance because they haven't died yet.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
rights? no such thing, these are things that by general acceptance are allowed, by a stroke of a pen can be removed
From this and your other comments it seems likely that you have no idea how the Constitution works.
jschell wrote:
Based on that argument no one should buy life insurance because they haven't died yet.
no its like you buying life insurance from a company that has never paid out on a policy - they may pay but history says they wont
jschell wrote:
From this and your other comments it seems likely that you have no idea how the Constitution works.
from comments here and other sites it could be argued that it doesnt
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed, maybe you should be licensed for a gun too? and required to attended and pass training before ownership, no pass = no gun.
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards
The car analogy is nonsense of course. Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble,
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
The UK has pretty much disarmed its population and we are still here.
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
The Idea that guns make you safe is wrong
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
fine have your guns but the argument that it is to prevent Govenment/some other Govenment from taking over is pure rubbish
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that could not be enforced when basically all citizens were armed.
Quote:
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter. The car analogy is nonsense of course.
of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine
Quote:
Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
similar as in silly and pointless? do i need to progress this silly analogy too? why is the restriction ,license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept? or is it a worry that so many of these "gun owners" would find themselves short of the requirement?
Quote:
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
why would it by like this? or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour? a better one would be doctors, here you have something with the potential to injure and/or kill. but it is acceptable to require the training and license of this profession but somehow not of guns!
Quote:
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement for a society as was being sugested thier aare no restriction on gun ownership in Nigeria should we adopt thier govenment?
Quote:
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers! why do you think that the miltary are spending so much on non leathal weapon developement? why do you think that the police are trained to di just that? this sounds like the argument of a 5 y/o
Quote:
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that
-
djj55 wrote:
With the way things are going only two groups will be armed.
By choice perhaps but not by law. Recent suits make it apparent that private gun ownership is a right.
If you have not noticed, our "rights" depend on what the government say they are. If the government says we cannot carry guns then that is what is our right. :sigh:
-
Quote:
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter. The car analogy is nonsense of course.
of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine
Quote:
Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
similar as in silly and pointless? do i need to progress this silly analogy too? why is the restriction ,license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept? or is it a worry that so many of these "gun owners" would find themselves short of the requirement?
Quote:
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
why would it by like this? or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour? a better one would be doctors, here you have something with the potential to injure and/or kill. but it is acceptable to require the training and license of this profession but somehow not of guns!
Quote:
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement for a society as was being sugested thier aare no restriction on gun ownership in Nigeria should we adopt thier govenment?
Quote:
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers! why do you think that the miltary are spending so much on non leathal weapon developement? why do you think that the police are trained to di just that? this sounds like the argument of a 5 y/o
Quote:
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
milita are not a good way of providing a defensive/offensive miltary, in fact they tend to be worse than recruiting from scratch (or conscription as is the usual case with the US)
Is that why the Swiss have been conquered so many times :doh: Yeah... You should really do some fact checking before you make a claim about something. A milita has shown effectiveness in providing defense. In the past the US was to not get involved in international affairs and used them exclusively. That was the way the founding fathers wanted it. Getting involved created the military complex now before us. This does not make it right. However, just because the US has a military complex does not mean it should not also have militias. More importantly it does not take the right of smaller groups (or individuals) to arm and organize for militias.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
If you have not noticed, our "rights" depend on what the government say they are. If the government says we cannot carry guns then that is what is our right. :sigh:
djj55 wrote:
If you have not noticed, our "rights" depend on what the government say they are. If the government says we cannot carry guns then that is what is our right.
Basically all I can say is to that is that it nonsense because it is based on an illogical assumption. Because people live in groups there WILL be some consensus methodology applied to reach social agreements. That is standard philosophoy 101 and socialogy 101. And anything that is a "right" is conferred and regulated by the methodology. There is no other option when onr lives in groups. The alternative to a "government" is individual enforcement and history makes it clear with a vast number of examples that the outcome there is most often based on might makes right (where 'might' is based the available personal skills.) Thus per my comment because the US Supreme Court has made a significant recent ruling that upholds personal ownership the right that is only conferred anyways by the US government stands.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
milita are not a good way of providing a defensive/offensive miltary, in fact they tend to be worse than recruiting from scratch (or conscription as is the usual case with the US)
Is that why the Swiss have been conquered so many times :doh: Yeah... You should really do some fact checking before you make a claim about something. A milita has shown effectiveness in providing defense. In the past the US was to not get involved in international affairs and used them exclusively. That was the way the founding fathers wanted it. Getting involved created the military complex now before us. This does not make it right. However, just because the US has a military complex does not mean it should not also have militias. More importantly it does not take the right of smaller groups (or individuals) to arm and organize for militias.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
and exactly how many times has the swiss militia been called to defend switzerland? and the fact that the keep all the ill gotton gains of so many world powers has nothing to do with it? please give examples of militia beeing successfull in defending a country? and as the US militia has invaded Canada twice I dissagree that it has stopped the US being involved in world affairs it also meant that when the US was called to stand against agression it had no force to do it with and was forced to conscript one can you provide a source of this right? you have a consistution that says you can but how is this a right?, as pointrd out before your consistution has only recently been applied to all your populus so how can anything in it be a right?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
and exactly how many times has the swiss militia been called to defend switzerland? and the fact that the keep all the ill gotton gains of so many world powers has nothing to do with it? please give examples of militia beeing successfull in defending a country? and as the US militia has invaded Canada twice I dissagree that it has stopped the US being involved in world affairs it also meant that when the US was called to stand against agression it had no force to do it with and was forced to conscript one can you provide a source of this right? you have a consistution that says you can but how is this a right?, as pointrd out before your consistution has only recently been applied to all your populus so how can anything in it be a right?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and exactly how many times has the swiss militia been called to defend switzerland?
Seems like their deterrent of having a militia has been quite effective.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and the fact that the keep all the ill gotton gains of so many world powers has nothing to do with it?
You really think they would have been able to keep those gains with out the militia??? Really? Really? Thats what you think? I mean wow :wtf:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
please give examples of militia beeing successfull in defending a country?
I will give you one and leave research to yourself. US Revolutionary war. So now you will say that was so long ago it is irrelevant. Hardly. Considering this is the key point. They HAD the militia and WON. They decided having the militia was critical to fight off the oppression. Also there are more recent examples. You can do that leg work. Google is your friend.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and as the US militia has invaded Canada twice I dissagree that it has stopped the US being involved in world affairs
The war of 1812 is different. For one it was a direct (and officially announced war) involving the US and the British Empire. Today's military is used to "keep peace" between other nations. So I am not really sure what your point was... The war was directly involving the US. For that reason the militia would be expected to be used.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
can you provide a source of this right? you have a consistution that says you can but how is this a right?, as pointrd out before your consistution has only recently been applied to all your populus so how can anything in it be a right?
Now you are just talking gibberish. The constitution simply states the right so the allowed governance can not act against it. The allowed governance acts on behalf of the constitution. With out it they do not exist. Are you following me? The constitution does not grant any rights. It is like a contract between we the people and our governance. If they breach it, then we do not allow them to govern us. As for the claim that only recently been applied to "all of our populus", the culture of the past centu
-
djj55 wrote:
If you have not noticed, our "rights" depend on what the government say they are. If the government says we cannot carry guns then that is what is our right.
Basically all I can say is to that is that it nonsense because it is based on an illogical assumption. Because people live in groups there WILL be some consensus methodology applied to reach social agreements. That is standard philosophoy 101 and socialogy 101. And anything that is a "right" is conferred and regulated by the methodology. There is no other option when onr lives in groups. The alternative to a "government" is individual enforcement and history makes it clear with a vast number of examples that the outcome there is most often based on might makes right (where 'might' is based the available personal skills.) Thus per my comment because the US Supreme Court has made a significant recent ruling that upholds personal ownership the right that is only conferred anyways by the US government stands.
I am just a pessimist. :) Just because the current US Supreme Court said okay does not mean in the future it will not reverse itself. I think there would be a revolt before the government could take away all the guns. Note that I have never owned a gun. Not to say I oppose ownership just never felt the need. That may change.
-
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b[^] Great music and clearly has a good understanding of the way our constitution "Should" be interpreted. Unfortunately he is right and we have a police state going on. Granted its not total lock down, but our rights have been trampled to near nil over the last 100 years. I don't understand why most people don't understand this. I hear the classic "Its outdated. You can't fight an apache with a rifle" To which my response is "Good point. We should consider getting an Apache for the neighborhood watch" :D Last night on TV I heard a good one. The argument of "Why would you ever need to shoot that many bullets so fast?" Responce: "Do you need a car that can go 250mph? Should that be made illegal as well?"
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Americans and their nutty theories always fascinate me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Quote:
Simple. Because the Constitution mentions nothing at all about cars. Nor horse drawn carriages for that matter. The car analogy is nonsense of course.
of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine
Quote:
Similar analogy is that one should introduce a tax and license to attend a church.
similar as in silly and pointless? do i need to progress this silly analogy too? why is the restriction ,license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept? or is it a worry that so many of these "gun owners" would find themselves short of the requirement?
Quote:
And what about letting "untrained" people raise children? That is certainly asking for "trouble". Not to mention of course that the Constitution says nothing at all about that so one could certainly insist on it.
why would it by like this? or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour? a better one would be doctors, here you have something with the potential to injure and/or kill. but it is acceptable to require the training and license of this profession but somehow not of guns!
Quote:
China is still around too and has been so for a lot longer than the UK so based on that statement the UK should model itself after China right?
no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement for a society as was being sugested thier aare no restriction on gun ownership in Nigeria should we adopt thier govenment?
Quote:
So why do the UK special forces and military use guns? They must be idiots right? Maybe if they were trained better they could talk the armed assailants into putting themselves into jail?
why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers! why do you think that the miltary are spending so much on non leathal weapon developement? why do you think that the police are trained to di just that? this sounds like the argument of a 5 y/o
Quote:
And yet that is specifically why it was added to the Constitution and specifically added because that is exactly what the British government attempted to do - take away the arms of the colonies. And in part because free expression was also being restricted and that
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine
I responded to what I quoted - your words. If you got them elsewhere I can't help with that.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept?
Because, as you seem unable to grasp, it is specifically in the US constitution.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour?
Yes, killing is natural behavior for humans. Long, long history with millions of examples. Guns are a tool and are not a behavior.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
a better one would be doctors,
US Constitution says nothing about doctors.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement
Errr...no you provided a silly argument about history and I provided another.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers!
Specious. Your unqualified contention was that "guns make you safe is wrong". And thus your statement applies to special forces as well.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
I remember them taxing you, preventing you expanding into indian terrotories, clamping down on smugglers but not disarming them.
History. The British governors attempted to limit the importation of gunpowder because the governors were trying to limit gatherings and with the population armed the limited forces available to the governors could not do that.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
milita are not a good way of providing a defensive/offensive miltary, in fact they tend to be worse than recruiting from scratch (or conscription as is the usual case with the US)
Sigh...The point is that the US Constitution specifically allows it. Just as it specifically says that the government cannot billet troops in private citizens property without compensation. And it is likely that that provision has n
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine
I responded to what I quoted - your words. If you got them elsewhere I can't help with that.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept?
Because, as you seem unable to grasp, it is specifically in the US constitution.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour?
Yes, killing is natural behavior for humans. Long, long history with millions of examples. Guns are a tool and are not a behavior.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
a better one would be doctors,
US Constitution says nothing about doctors.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement
Errr...no you provided a silly argument about history and I provided another.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers!
Specious. Your unqualified contention was that "guns make you safe is wrong". And thus your statement applies to special forces as well.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
I remember them taxing you, preventing you expanding into indian terrotories, clamping down on smugglers but not disarming them.
History. The British governors attempted to limit the importation of gunpowder because the governors were trying to limit gatherings and with the population armed the limited forces available to the governors could not do that.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
milita are not a good way of providing a defensive/offensive miltary, in fact they tend to be worse than recruiting from scratch (or conscription as is the usual case with the US)
Sigh...The point is that the US Constitution specifically allows it. Just as it specifically says that the government cannot billet troops in private citizens property without compensation. And it is likely that that provision has n
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine I responded to what I quoted - your words. If you got them elsewhere I can't help with that.
And if you cant read the thread I cant help that
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept? Because, as you seem unable to grasp, it is specifically in the US constitution.
oh and that makes it right?
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour? Yes, killing is natural behavior for humans. Long, long history with millions of examples. Guns are a tool and are not a behavior.
so making it easier is ok? the problem with guns is that they make it so easy to kill, yes you can kill with a knife or a rock but it is far harder to do, any moron with opposable thumbs can kill with a gun, also how can using a MANMADE OBJECT be natual behaviour?
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: a better one would be doctors, US Constitution says nothing about doctors.
it also doesnt say anything about going to the moon, or health care or thousands of other things
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement Errr...no you provided a silly argument about history and I provided another.
like the consitution then
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers! Specious. Your unqualified contention was that "guns make you safe is wrong". And thus your statement applies to special forces as well.
You police forces are also trained in the use of guns, and look how safe was that for those bystanders in New York?
Quote:
Sigh...The point is that the US Constitution specifically allows it.
sign.. and that makes it right, a document written for a different ear and for different reasons can be used to justify someething that the founding fathers would nt have even guessed at. cleaver argument, reminds me of the reglions
-
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: of course the analogy is false but it wasnt mine I responded to what I quoted - your words. If you got them elsewhere I can't help with that.
And if you cant read the thread I cant help that
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: license and training before ownership of something that is DESIGNED to kill, such a hard concept? Because, as you seem unable to grasp, it is specifically in the US constitution.
oh and that makes it right?
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: or are you saying the use of guns is natural behavour? Yes, killing is natural behavior for humans. Long, long history with millions of examples. Guns are a tool and are not a behavior.
so making it easier is ok? the problem with guns is that they make it so easy to kill, yes you can kill with a knife or a rock but it is far harder to do, any moron with opposable thumbs can kill with a gun, also how can using a MANMADE OBJECT be natual behaviour?
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: a better one would be doctors, US Constitution says nothing about doctors.
it also doesnt say anything about going to the moon, or health care or thousands of other things
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: no but the point was that gun ownership is NOT a requirement Errr...no you provided a silly argument about history and I provided another.
like the consitution then
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: why do you think special forces need guns? because they are trained to fight against gun carriers! Specious. Your unqualified contention was that "guns make you safe is wrong". And thus your statement applies to special forces as well.
You police forces are also trained in the use of guns, and look how safe was that for those bystanders in New York?
Quote:
Sigh...The point is that the US Constitution specifically allows it.
sign.. and that makes it right, a document written for a different ear and for different reasons can be used to justify someething that the founding fathers would nt have even guessed at. cleaver argument, reminds me of the reglions
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
And if you cant read the thread I cant help that
Again I responded to what you posted.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
oh and that makes it right?
It certainly has the same weight as say the British Royalty. And perhaps even harder to remove. If the people of the US, strongly, felt that it should be removed than it could be. Other than that "right" is subjective.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so making it easier is ok? the problem with guns is that they make it so easy to kill,
Wrong. First you are the one introducing the argument that behavior has something to do with it. Second, guns have been extremely effective at EQUALIZING the ability of any one person to protect themselves. Prior to the ready availability of guns a man needed to spend a great deal of time learning skills and that man would also need sufficient physical ability to do so. In contrast a woman in a wheelchair wouldn't have a chance without a gun. And that equalization was just a logical process that followed from things like the crossbow, which also was an equalizer.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
it also doesnt say anything about going to the moon, or health care or thousands of other things
Which is exactly the point because one can pass a law against going to the moon or healthcare.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
like the consitution then
The constitution is not a "silly" argument - if you think so then you lack historical knowledge about it. Not only in the forming of the US but throughout the US history and spanning many different areas.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
You police forces are also trained in the use of guns
And thus your argument is that all police forces should be un-armed. I won't vote for that law.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
for a different ear and for different reasons can be used to justify someething that the founding fathers would nt have even guessed at.
If you actually read history it is obvious that allowing personal, unrestricted gun ownership is EXACTLY what they wanted. And they did in fact understand t
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
And if you cant read the thread I cant help that
Again I responded to what you posted.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
oh and that makes it right?
It certainly has the same weight as say the British Royalty. And perhaps even harder to remove. If the people of the US, strongly, felt that it should be removed than it could be. Other than that "right" is subjective.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so making it easier is ok? the problem with guns is that they make it so easy to kill,
Wrong. First you are the one introducing the argument that behavior has something to do with it. Second, guns have been extremely effective at EQUALIZING the ability of any one person to protect themselves. Prior to the ready availability of guns a man needed to spend a great deal of time learning skills and that man would also need sufficient physical ability to do so. In contrast a woman in a wheelchair wouldn't have a chance without a gun. And that equalization was just a logical process that followed from things like the crossbow, which also was an equalizer.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
it also doesnt say anything about going to the moon, or health care or thousands of other things
Which is exactly the point because one can pass a law against going to the moon or healthcare.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
like the consitution then
The constitution is not a "silly" argument - if you think so then you lack historical knowledge about it. Not only in the forming of the US but throughout the US history and spanning many different areas.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
You police forces are also trained in the use of guns
And thus your argument is that all police forces should be un-armed. I won't vote for that law.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
for a different ear and for different reasons can be used to justify someething that the founding fathers would nt have even guessed at.
If you actually read history it is obvious that allowing personal, unrestricted gun ownership is EXACTLY what they wanted. And they did in fact understand t
Quote:
It certainly has the same weight as say the British Royalty. And perhaps even harder to remove. If the people of the US, strongly, felt that it should be removed than it could be. Other than that "right" is subjective
what a silly argument
Quote:
Wrong. First you are the one introducing the argument that behavior has something to do with it. Second, guns have been extremely effective at EQUALIZING the ability of any one person to protect themselves. Prior to the ready availability of guns a man needed to spend a great deal of time learning skills and that man would also need sufficient physical ability to do so. In contrast a woman in a wheelchair wouldn't have a chance without a gun. And that equalization was just a logical process that followed from things like the crossbow, which also was an equalizer.
no it ONLY makes it an equaliser when the other person is armed your argument would work if you only laoowed the weak and defensless to be armed, is that the case? yes before guns you had to learn the skills I ask why has this changed? because guns kill so easly it is not neccessary to learn to be able to kill you can do it on a whim.
Quote:
Which is exactly the point because one can pass a law against going to the moon or healthcare.
cant they? why not? what exactly stops thyour govenment being in a law preventing space exploration? of stating that everyone must pay healthcare insurance or not pay healthcare insurance
Quote:
The constitution is not a "silly" argument - if you think so then you lack historical knowledge about it. Not only in the forming of the US but throughout the US history and spanning many different areas.
you are the one thats saying a document writtren 200 years ago is perfect and cannot be improved on
Quote:
And thus your argument is that all police forces should be un-armed. I won't vote for that law.
I havent been arguing for the banning of guns thats your fear apprearing, I have been saying why not restrict ownership to liciensed and fully trained individuals, as the NY shooting shows this would not be a CURE but it would however reduce the problem, but you equate licience with banning as if thier is no middle ground, that attitude seems to gene
-
Quote:
It certainly has the same weight as say the British Royalty. And perhaps even harder to remove. If the people of the US, strongly, felt that it should be removed than it could be. Other than that "right" is subjective
what a silly argument
Quote:
Wrong. First you are the one introducing the argument that behavior has something to do with it. Second, guns have been extremely effective at EQUALIZING the ability of any one person to protect themselves. Prior to the ready availability of guns a man needed to spend a great deal of time learning skills and that man would also need sufficient physical ability to do so. In contrast a woman in a wheelchair wouldn't have a chance without a gun. And that equalization was just a logical process that followed from things like the crossbow, which also was an equalizer.
no it ONLY makes it an equaliser when the other person is armed your argument would work if you only laoowed the weak and defensless to be armed, is that the case? yes before guns you had to learn the skills I ask why has this changed? because guns kill so easly it is not neccessary to learn to be able to kill you can do it on a whim.
Quote:
Which is exactly the point because one can pass a law against going to the moon or healthcare.
cant they? why not? what exactly stops thyour govenment being in a law preventing space exploration? of stating that everyone must pay healthcare insurance or not pay healthcare insurance
Quote:
The constitution is not a "silly" argument - if you think so then you lack historical knowledge about it. Not only in the forming of the US but throughout the US history and spanning many different areas.
you are the one thats saying a document writtren 200 years ago is perfect and cannot be improved on
Quote:
And thus your argument is that all police forces should be un-armed. I won't vote for that law.
I havent been arguing for the banning of guns thats your fear apprearing, I have been saying why not restrict ownership to liciensed and fully trained individuals, as the NY shooting shows this would not be a CURE but it would however reduce the problem, but you equate licience with banning as if thier is no middle ground, that attitude seems to gene
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
no it ONLY makes it an equaliser when the other person is armed
I am guessing that you have never been in a serious bar fight with a serious bar fighter. Nor been in a fight where there were several people attempting to hurt you. Then I expect that you would find that gun does in fact make it more equal even when the other person is not armed.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
your argument would work if you only laoowed the weak and defensless to be armed, is that the case?
Hardly. Equal means equal, it doesn't mean superior.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
cant they? why not? what exactly stops thyour govenment being in a law preventing space exploration? of stating that everyone must pay healthcare insurance or not pay healthcare insurance
Nothing. There is however a specific reason why they can't pass laws against guns. That is why it is different.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
you are the one thats saying a document writtren 200 years ago is perfect and cannot be improved on
Wrong. First, it is your claim not mine that gun laws are an improvement, not mine. Second I have specifically said several times that there is a specific way in which gun laws could be allowed or even required. It would require that enough people wanted that. And that methodology is specifically built into the constitution. But the people do not want that. Not even close. And, again, because the US is a democracy the people get to decide that.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
I have been saying why not restrict ownership to liciensed and fully trained individuals, as the NY shooting shows this would not be a CURE but it would however reduce the problem,
There is no evidence that is true. Actually there is evidence that suggests it isn't true, since Chicago has some of the strictest (and potentially illegal) restrictions and yet has one of the highest crime rates associated with guns.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
As it is gun crime is out of control, if nothing is done it WILL reach a point in which the majority will say enough is enough and a ban will happen
The first is your