Citizens with guns

Remember though the thread is not so much about the US situation, but gun's themselves.

I reckon criminals will always seek an advantage in firepower to enable the conduct of crime - so arguing to equal that seems to me to be arguing for what is in no uncertain terms quite literally an arms race. And increasing the lethality of available systems in this case also seems to mean increased availability more broadly of the legacy systems being replaced.

I cannot help but feel in an ideal situation you would avoid that as a priority, and instead find whatever measures possible to reduce the availability of highly lethal systems in the public domain and increase the capacity of authorities to detect, react and remove them better.

Perhaps the counter-argument to gun self defence is if the crook knows you don't have a gun, then they themselves don't feel the need to bring a gun to get the job done. A crook with a baseball bat or knife has to get a lot closer, spend more time and get a lot more 'involved' to do the same damage a dozen 9mm rounds will do. All these little things add up and are relevant to the conduct of the majority of crime.... and yes there are counter arguments to that as well, like if a gun is needed to commit crime then crime will reduce to people who have a gun!!! And of course the mass murdering psychopaths will always find a way, but then they will always find a way no matter what they are up against as well.

But I'd have a couple if they were allowed here. It's just a discussion, and each nation has to makes its own decision and its citizens enjoy the benefits and accept the detriments. If you stop accepting the detriments, or imagine a likely future where this will occur, that is when the hard work has to be done as change is the opportunity where growth, improvement and advances can be found.... and a whole new bunch of other risks LOL.

Anway, I think it would be good to know how to use a gun properly to survive, but more important to work out how to avoid having to use it. Ideally that would make the gun became redundant, but that really depends on 'where' one finds themselves.

MadHatter wrote: Most often BOTH the state and federal constitutions have laws that say you CANNOT infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. So no they do not have the right to enact those laws.

But states CAN decide what arms you can keep, when you and where you can bear them, and what you have to do to qualify for these rights. If this was not the case, I promise you I would have a bazooka right now and I would walk down the street with it just to see what looks I would get.

MadHatter wrote: To close what you are saying is that you are ok with slavery or genocide if voted upon. Because some how that is ok if enough people voted on it.

Or if tomorrow Congress passed the law that Jediism is illegal would you obey?[/quote]
Yes, I would obey laws legalizing genocide and slavery or the prohibition of Jediism if they were passed into law according to the democratic procedures currently in place. I am also fairly confident that my fellow citizens would never allow any of these things to happen. Should we make such an egregious error, thankfully or system of government allows us to correct those mistakes. That's what makes this a government OF THE PEOPLE. People make bad decisions all the time, but we can rely on other people to point out the errors and correct them.

MadHatter wrote: Hey by the logic presented we should not even be outside of British rule because they voted on all the things that caused us to break from them. If rights are voted on then we have NO rights they are just privileges at the whim of those with the most guns.

The Constitution created a new government that won it's right to be separate of Britain on the battlefield. The Confederacy tried the same thing and failed. What we've learned from this is that we are at the whim of those with the most guns. For me, this could include those with more guns than me who would barge into my house at 5am to rob me. This is ironically just another argument for gun control. Perhaps we can try to prevent those with more guns from imposing their will on others if we can somehow limit how many guns they can get their hands on?

MadHatter wrote: To close what you are saying is that you are ok with slavery or genocide if voted upon.

do you really believe thats what he believes?

EDIT

Senan wrote: Yes, I would obey laws legalizing genocide and slavery or the prohibition of Jediism if they were passed into law according to the democratic procedures currently in place.

damn Senan lol

:fades awaaaaayyy

OB1Shinobi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: To close what you are saying is that you are ok with slavery or genocide if voted upon.

do you really believe thats what he believes?

EDIT

Senan wrote: Yes, I would obey laws legalizing genocide and slavery or the prohibition of Jediism if they were passed into law according to the democratic procedures currently in place.

damn Senan lol

:fades awaaaaayyy

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Obviously I don't believe this, but I have defended the Constitution and democracy to a point that I kind of trapped myself into that line of reasoning. I hope that we are NEVER in a place that a conversation like that would ever be put to a vote, but then again, the current election rhetoric teeters on this edge sometimes.

MadHatter wrote: The people of the US were fine with putting the Japanese in camps here. That is not something that should have ever happened. (but it is what happens when you let people vote on liberty)

(emphasis mine)

This didn't happen as a result of a vote. The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was effected by Executive Order 9066 . Doesn't make it any less horrible, but if you're looking for horrible things that came from a democratic vote, look elsewhere.

I'm a firm believer that an armed society is a polite society. Granted I'm from a nation where the right to own and carry firearms is written into the founding document, so I probably have a cultural bias. I am convinced that if most people about their everyday lives are armed, the majority of those people are content to be left in peace, and the minority that is looking to start trouble will be less inclined to do so.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I think guns can be used as a "defensive weapon" as well as a lightsaber could be. They can be used responsibly and with defense in mind. That being said I do not feel that everyone should own one. Some people cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with a gun. There will always be those who use guns for things other than defending oneself, one's loved ones, and one's property.

In the US it is a constitutional right to own a weapon. Most people would acknowledge this fact. The problem is that the Second Amendment specifically states that this is for the purposes of a "well-regulated militia." The second amendment never says anything about the general right to own a firearm. This presents a problem of interpretation. Strict interpreters of the constitution would say that only militia should own firearms. More loose interpretations would have it that the right to bear arms is universal in the US. What is the correct interpretation? I am not the person to answer that question nor do I have the inclination to do so. It is, however, a question I think we should address in this country and one that isn't brought up enough in my opinion.

Personally, I think that those seeking to own a firearm should, at the very least, be subjected to a criminal background check. This isn't too much to ask. Those with a violent criminal history should, in my opinion, be unable to purchase a firearm anywhere in the US. There is no reason that someone proven to be violent should be allowed to own a gun. To allow such people to own guns is to invite more violence.

There are a lot of problems facing our country and gun violence is one of them. We need to address these issues openly instead of fearing the potential response to talk of gun control (or lack thereof). It is my hope that most people will not need to own a firearm for any reason, but there are always places where this is impossible. Fortunately for many of us the need to defend ourselves against other human beings is negligible. There are, however, places where defending against wild animals is necessary and owning a firearm for that purpose is perfectly acceptable. I question the wisdom of attempting to defend oneself against humans with a gun. To me it only encourages more people to purchase firearms. If one knows that one's neighbor has a gun one might feel it is necessary to own a gun and the influence will spread. It is a slippery slope.

Lykeios wrote: In the US it is a constitutional right to own a weapon. Most people would acknowledge this fact. The problem is that the Second Amendment specifically states that this is for the purposes of a "well-regulated militia." The second amendment never says anything about the general right to own a firearm. This presents a problem of interpretation. Strict interpreters of the constitution would say that only militia should own firearms. More loose interpretations would have it that the right to bear arms is universal in the US. What is the correct interpretation? I am not the person to answer that question nor do I have the inclination to do so. It is, however, a question I think we should address in this country and one that isn't brought up enough in my opinion.

I personally find it hard to disentangle the issue of a well-regulated militia from the issue that the constitution doesn't allow for the existence of a permanent U.S. Army. That was to be conscripted from the fifty (fewer at the time) state militias in a time of declared war. If we were to move to a system where only police and militia members could carry, purchase, or own firearms then we would need to disband the army and the national guard and reorganize them into the state militias. See section 8 paragraph 46, the conscription of an army is limited to two years. http://context.montpelier.org/document/175#passage-47 (There shouldn't even be an air force without a constitutional amendment.)

I am actually highly in favor of this very thing. Separately, while the second amendment does specifically reference well regulated militias, it also states that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." It's a pretty broad statement, and doesn't specify that it only applies to militia members.

The second amendment states that BECAUSE we need well regulated militias the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That clearly states that it protects individuals right to keep and bear arms. Further well regulated in context means well trained and disciplined. Further the milita is the written to be the whole of the male population of military age. Knowing what it means in the context of its time frame is important.
The cases of Columbia V Heller backs this. The various militia acts back this. The case of United States V Miller backs this. Finally this link explains the meaning of well regulated: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

MadHatter wrote: Further the milita is the written to be the whole of the male population of military age.

Where is this information coming from?