The Right to Bear Arms gun-toting maniacs ahoy
#1
Posted 04 August 2005 - 12:50 AM
And so we get guns.
The gun, as any medieval enthusiast will tell you, was designed as a battlefield equaliser, and it is the gun that set the wealthy aristocracy of Europe down the next step from becoming soldiers to inbred crazy-men with bad teeth, simply because the old-fashioned knight in shining armour was rendered pointless by the firearm. Guns have evolved from single-shot affairs of wood, iron and bronze to some really funky crap. A wide range of aforementioned funky crap is for sale to the average American citizen. As a result, everholy craploads of people are killed by those thingies that go bang every year - between accidents, 'accidents', 'hunting accidents' and incidents. Now, I'm sure there must be some people who might have the great idea that if there were less guns, there'd be less people killed by guns. Then, people will tell you, that would breach the right to arm bears or whatever it is you do.
Why is the right to bear arms so damn important?
It's an old law, and it can be changed, yet people insist that it be fixed in stone.
I'm not saying take away the precious gun altogether, simply regulate it a little - the privelege to bear arms, not the right.
For starters, I think it would be reasonable for people to have passed a markmanship test before they can purchase, own or use a gun - just like with cars, see. Anyone with any criminal convictions of any kind should not be allowed to purchase/own/use a gun. Nowhere is it said in the bill of rights that arms may be advertised - thusly, the explicit advertisement of any firearm should be illegal. Nowehere is it said that all citizens have the right to bear all arms - just arms.
So, a fully automatic assault rifle or semiautomatic shotgun should probably be on the restricted list. It should be absolutely impossible for anyone to actually walk in to a shop and actually walk away with any firearms product - guns or ammo - by this I mean there should be a waiting period for any and all firearms products.
Also - all citizens having the right to bear arms means that any individual citizen has the right to posess a weapon - the two plurals cancel each other out. Who, honestly, if they even need one gun, needs two or more. If you've got one, you should be happy with it. You don't need a second .44 Magnum to balance your belt, you don't need to keep your old Glock when you upgrade to a pearl-handled Colt.
A few more ideas that wouldn't violate the right to bear arms on that basis that the Bill of Rights doesn't say the unconditional right to bear arms.
What if everyone who legally purchases a gun, after passing marksmanship testing, personality check, criminal records investigation and getting their new gun - has to give the police all their details including fingerprints and DNA sample.
I hope private sale of guns in America is illegal.. if not it should be - anyone selling their gun privately or buying a gun privately seems pretty dodgy... lock 'em up, or at least give them a nice legal spanking.
And finally - why not make an effort to scrap the right to bear arms... privilege to bear arms - a privilege that can only occur when someone has an actual job that requires it... security guard, police officer, serviceman an that is that.
And sure, if the aliens come, you might have been able to resist them if you had twenty high-powered sporting rifles in your basement and a Magnum in your dresser, but if they have good enough tech to actually get here, chances are you were screwed anyway.
If you really feel like shooting something, go get a good computer and blast aliens til your hearts content.
#2
Posted 04 August 2005 - 01:11 AM
However, it's just not proper to have one six-shooter. You need two at all times, and maybe a stetson, end of story.
Restricting guns helps somewhat, but the people that go around shooting everyone are going to kill people, whether it's with an M4 or a Beretta, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or their bare hands. And then they just go to the black market or illegally modify their guns anyhow. But "Less people killed by guns" does not equal "Less people killed."
Why does it matter how many firearms a person owns if they aren't shooting people with them? Contrary to popular belief, we're not all shotgun-wielding "Git offa my land!" idiots who can't tell a human from a sheep in the bedroom over here. They do exist, of course...
"Guns don't kill people. You can die from organ failure, or a major hemmorage, but a small piece of metal isn't your problem!" - This message sponsored by Amu-Nation
#3
Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:51 AM
I think it would be a better plan to have everyone who wants to purchase a gun go through a gun education program. In Montana, if you are going to hunt you have to take a hunter's education class. There are still have people who shoot themselves accidentally, but I imagine that the numbers would be even greater if they didn't take the class.
What I hear a lot out here is that if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them (ony in MT would you call a criminal an outlaw). It's not necessarily an arguement that I hold to, but it makes you think... kinda like that one Simpsons episode where they get rid of all the guns, and then those cowboy ghosts come and take over...except without the ghosts. And the time traveling.
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
#4
Posted 04 August 2005 - 10:03 AM
I'd ask 3 questions above all others......
Why do you want to own a gun?
What model of gun are you intending to purchase?
How many guns are you intending to purchase?
It wouldn't be 100% fool-proof, but it wouldn't take a world class psychologist to spot the characters who shouldn't be trusted with pointy sticks, let alone firearms.
#5
Posted 04 August 2005 - 10:17 AM
People would want a gun will get a gun regardless of the restriction.
#6
Posted 04 August 2005 - 10:36 AM
#7
Posted 04 August 2005 - 06:21 PM
And of course the Tony Martin 'self-defence' shooting raised a few eyebrows.
#8
Posted 04 August 2005 - 07:11 PM
People would want a gun will get a gun regardless of the restriction.
sure. criminals can still get guns but gun related deaths stemming from robberies and the like are not the majority.
people often forget...
the angry neighbour, the domestic dispute, the kid that found the key to gun cabinet, the kid that lives in the house with a gun rack instead of a gun cabinet, the kid that takes is dads gun to school, and not to mention all the little disputes where a gun is close at hand while tempers are still flareing.
trust me...
as ALL human beings are emotionally unpredictable and often unstable...
i'd rather there be a few guns in the hands of police and the odd criminal, then in everyone's home just waiting for anyone to snap.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#10
Posted 04 August 2005 - 07:44 PM
further more... i don't like the idea of a 12 year old girl being able to ice me because of someone else invention. that's just cheap.
guns are fucked!!!
if you're not man enough to kill someone with your bare hands then your a bitch!!!
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#11
Posted 05 August 2005 - 08:30 AM
Can the state which does not trust its citizens enough to allow them weapons trust them enough to allow them freedom?
#12
Posted 05 August 2005 - 09:06 AM
They were for us. Gun deaths within domestic violence were bloody rare. I should have pointed out earlier that the dispute over Northern Ireland was still in effect at the beginning of those statistics.
Britian rarely had that problem before we banned guns. The reason I posted that information was to point out that gun laws\legislation do not always prevent gun crime. Irresponsible storage of firearms or lack of social education would seem to be your main argument.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favour of firearms, I'm just trying to point out that the countries soceity\Gun culture's as much of a problem as the availability of guns themselves.
#13
Posted 05 August 2005 - 09:25 AM
The people who do register their guns are hunters, farmers, and target-sport shooters.
In the end, tighter rules only put more weight on the legal entity which use their guns in a sporting fashion.
My father has some rifles and a hand gun. The registration for these was a pain in the ass, especially for the hand gun (ww2 heirlom).
Meanwhile, joe blow buys a hand gun for robbing banks off some guy in a Van. He does not feel the pressure of heavy gun control, since he never registered his gun to begin with.
the angry neighbour, the domestic dispute, the kid that found the key to gun cabinet, the kid that lives in the house with a gun rack instead of a gun cabinet, the kid that takes is dads gun to school, and not to mention all the little disputes where a gun is close at hand while tempers are still flareing.
Barend you're taking a small point and making it an extreme one. More people blow their own heads off from cleaning their guns or being drunk THAN shooting a neighbour out of anger. And the story about little timmy boy is few and far between.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 05 August 2005 - 09:29 AM
#14
Posted 05 August 2005 - 11:34 AM
The people who do register their guns are hunters, farmers, and target-sport shooters.
In the end, tighter rules only put more weight on the legal entity which use their guns in a sporting fashion.
My father has some rifles and a hand gun. The registration for these was a pain in the ass, especially for the hand gun (ww2 heirlom).
Meanwhile, joe blow buys a hand gun for robbing banks off some guy in a Van. He does not feel the pressure of heavy gun control, since he never registered his gun to begin with.
the angry neighbour, the domestic dispute, the kid that found the key to gun cabinet, the kid that lives in the house with a gun rack instead of a gun cabinet, the kid that takes is dads gun to school, and not to mention all the little disputes where a gun is close at hand while tempers are still flareing.
Barend you're taking a small point and making it an extreme one. More people blow their own heads off from cleaning their guns or being drunk THAN shooting a neighbour out of anger. And the story about little timmy boy is few and far between.
Agreed.. studies have shown that states with heavy gun regulation actually have increased crime rates. Simply based on the logistics, gun control merely doesn't prevent crime or decrease deaths due to gun violence.
#15
Posted 05 August 2005 - 08:08 PM
you can't make a berretta M92F or colt government 45 longslide in your backyard...
most guns found on criminals have been involved in several crimes by different people.
internal affairs, the ombudsman and the like are not doing their job to insure confiscated firearms are properly destroyed by the police.
again, i must re-inforce...
despite the claim of statiscal proof of which, in all honesty, niether of us have provided... taking guns out of the home will still cut down substantially on gun related deaths!!!
no one has the moral right to own a gun! human beings are too fucked...
and the US law/amendment that gives it's citizens the right was written in a time when war was taking place in it's backyard! it has no place in todays society.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)