Piers Morgan is a Retard
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
He is not known as Piers Moron for nothing. The man is a twat, but that doesn't mean I agree with your assertion.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
This is not the first time that I have heard this pro/contra gun argument amongst Americans. And yes, you can say that guns do not kill people, but peolpe kill people, guns just make it easier for people to kill other people. I am sure that many a murder could have been averted if the murderer did not own a licensed weapon. The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun. Personally I think that you should be able to own a weapon if you wanted one, but only if you met the following conditions: 1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychlogiacal disorders such as anger issues, etc. 2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) what so ever. 3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safly handle his or her fire arm of choice. 4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 5. Gun licence should be revoked, and weapon confiscated if the gun owner uses his or her weapon irresponsibly. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe. 7. If a prospective gun owner was found guilty of negligence or irresponsible gun use in the past he should not be allowed to own a gun again. IMHO if a person meats meets the restrictions I mentioned above, that person would more then likely be a responsible gun owner and not pose any threat to society.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths. Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Nice interpretation. It made me consider some issues they faced at the time. The state lacked resources and logistics. Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself. Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence. The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country. You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
-
Nice rebuttal and the points I would make exactly. Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable. Therefore, the Constitution is only a solidification and proclamation of our natural rights.
richcb wrote:
Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable.
Your parents?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy".
For those who don't pay attention to American football, the issue of head injuries and the effects they have on players has become a big issue. Many players have committed suicide as a result of their head injuries. Now, I think it's safe to say that the player in this case committed suicide because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail, so at first glance this situation looks unrelated to the brain damage issue. But I think it's a fair question to ask if brain damage contributed to this player's lack of self-control. The manner in which he committed suicide may prevent us from finding out. I don't know if an autopsie has been suggested or will be attempted. I'm not suggesting football or anything else be banned, I'm saying that there are more relevant issues involved here and that Costas (and Jason Witless) did everyone a disfavor by bringing up gun control. It's become a huge distraction.
-
This is not the first time that I have heard this pro/contra gun argument amongst Americans. And yes, you can say that guns do not kill people, but peolpe kill people, guns just make it easier for people to kill other people. I am sure that many a murder could have been averted if the murderer did not own a licensed weapon. The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun. Personally I think that you should be able to own a weapon if you wanted one, but only if you met the following conditions: 1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychlogiacal disorders such as anger issues, etc. 2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) what so ever. 3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safly handle his or her fire arm of choice. 4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 5. Gun licence should be revoked, and weapon confiscated if the gun owner uses his or her weapon irresponsibly. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe. 7. If a prospective gun owner was found guilty of negligence or irresponsible gun use in the past he should not be allowed to own a gun again. IMHO if a person meats meets the restrictions I mentioned above, that person would more then likely be a responsible gun owner and not pose any threat to society.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths. Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
-
Nice interpretation. It made me consider some issues they faced at the time. The state lacked resources and logistics. Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself. Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence. The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country. You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
I'm not weighing in on the topic itself, just your response to this post. Debating this shouldn't mean that I am for, or against, any gun laws or reasons. I just wanted to respond to the armed forces/military point of view.
Dexterus wrote:
You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
I don't think that is correct. If the armed forces are deployed, then we are vulnerable to invasion. If we feel we need to protect ourselves from them, we need a way to do so. If any un-seen circumstances arise, we should be prepared. The last thing is, the government controls the military. The government does not control the population [in the same direct ways].
If it moves, compile it
-
richcb wrote:
Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable.
Your parents?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Jim Henson. Because only a Muppet would believe that guff.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
To paraphrase Chris Rock, make bullets cost $50,000 and there'll be no more innocent bystanders. I don't have a strong personal stand on this, I think gun control probably wouldn't solve the problems people want it to solve; someone interested in killing themselves or someone else will find a gun somewhere if they really want it. Or they'll find another way that is just as harmful and destructive. Having said that, the one thing that struck me as I read your post was the thought of our Government going "rogue" and/or there being a military coup. I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Quote:
I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Funny, that's what the British thought about the American settlers.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Amen, well said. I normally don't read this long of a post but your defense of the Constitution is admirable. This is a less and less popular opinion and I'm glad to see you defend it well. Thank you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
He is not known as Piers Moron for nothing. The man is a twat, but that doesn't mean I agree with your assertion.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
He might be a moron, but he's a filthy rich moron. So he's doing something right.
People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Well, I don't think that less guns means less brutality. Look at Vermont: 35% of the citizens got a gun (37% in Texas), but only 0,7 murders per 100.000 people annually (12,7% in Texas). In New York 11% have a gun and there are about 13,2 murders per 100.000 people anually.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed. By, the way I'm not citizen of the USA, but I think it's allowed to talk about it. I got no influence to your politics, but everyone has the right to his own opinion. In my opinion: Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays. Times are changing. So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time. Yes, there should be talked about, and that doesn't mean that it should be abondoned or be valid automatically for the future. If someone doesn't like that, well perhaps he (she or it) is from yesterday. Times are changing sometimes and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Bravo!:thumbsup:
-
As this will probably run afoul of the rule against discussing US politics, I don't expect it to last long. But I do want to agree with you that Piers Morgan is an idiot, for more reasons that you listed here.
The backroom is basically abandoned. I miss it.
-
The backroom is basically abandoned. I miss it.
This place has a backroom? Clearly I have not explored enough.
-
Well, I don't think that less guns means less brutality. Look at Vermont: 35% of the citizens got a gun (37% in Texas), but only 0,7 murders per 100.000 people annually (12,7% in Texas). In New York 11% have a gun and there are about 13,2 murders per 100.000 people anually.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed. By, the way I'm not citizen of the USA, but I think it's allowed to talk about it. I got no influence to your politics, but everyone has the right to his own opinion. In my opinion: Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays. Times are changing. So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time. Yes, there should be talked about, and that doesn't mean that it should be abondoned or be valid automatically for the future. If someone doesn't like that, well perhaps he (she or it) is from yesterday. Times are changing sometimes and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government (I know this can be whatever you want it to) by forming groups (think minute men). I am not as good at explaining as John but I think you can get my meaning.
-
This place has a backroom? Clearly I have not explored enough.
-
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government (I know this can be whatever you want it to) by forming groups (think minute men). I am not as good at explaining as John but I think you can get my meaning.
djj55 wrote:
Another reason for the 2nd amendment is that the people could fight back against unreasonable government
Well, I understand that, as I said, I don't want to say it should be abondened or changed, but there must be the chance to talk about every law - It's over 200 years old - so sometimes a review might be a good idea. If the majority decides that it should stay like it is. Well let it be, otherwise - as it's democracy and the US calls itself the land of the free - the majority of the free should have the right to change something - of course only in the meaning of democracy.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Quote:
I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Funny, that's what the British thought about the American settlers.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Point taken. And I'm sure what Syria was thinking about their rebels too.
-
This is not the first time that I have heard this pro/contra gun argument amongst Americans. And yes, you can say that guns do not kill people, but peolpe kill people, guns just make it easier for people to kill other people. I am sure that many a murder could have been averted if the murderer did not own a licensed weapon. The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun. Personally I think that you should be able to own a weapon if you wanted one, but only if you met the following conditions: 1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychlogiacal disorders such as anger issues, etc. 2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) what so ever. 3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safly handle his or her fire arm of choice. 4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 5. Gun licence should be revoked, and weapon confiscated if the gun owner uses his or her weapon irresponsibly. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe. 7. If a prospective gun owner was found guilty of negligence or irresponsible gun use in the past he should not be allowed to own a gun again. IMHO if a person meats meets the restrictions I mentioned above, that person would more then likely be a responsible gun owner and not pose any threat to society.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths. Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
sucram wrote:
The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun.
Define "many". 80-85 million people in the US legally obtain and carry firearms. That's more than 1/4 of the population here.
sucram wrote:
1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychological disorders such as anger issues, etc.
If you're under the care of a psychologist, you can't pass the federally mandated background check. If you own guns when you go insane, and they detect your insanity ahead of time, they take your guns. Unfortunately a fraction of a fraction of otherwise legal gun owners go insane before it's detected, or make irrational decisions based on anger or frustration, and use their guns to kill people. That cannot be avoided.
sucram wrote:
2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) whatsoever.
So, if I were to get a speeding ticket, or run a stop sign, that would make me ineligible to own a firearm? Once again, the federally mandated background check will not allow Class B felons to pass, and therefore, they must acquire their guns illegally (remember that criminal thing I mentioned earlier?)
sucram wrote:
3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safely handle his or her firearm of choice.
States that allow concealed carry require a proficiency test to make sure the perspective licensee can hit what they're aiming at. IMHO, it shouldn't be mandated any more than wearing helmet when riding a motorcycle should be. IMHO, it's just common sense to to learn how to properly handle and maintain your firearms, and anyone that doesn't do so is a retard. However, I'm certainly not going to insist (or even suggest) that they give up their right to own said firearm. I will highly recommend training to anyone that wants to own/carry, though.
sucram wrote:
4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe.
I have a large gun safe, bolted to