|
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
The Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:
- well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are being ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really think the shooters cared they were breaking those anti-gun laws? By definition, does any criminal care that he is breaking the law? Any law? What possible good can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights?
Freedom has a price. For free speech the price is political dissent like flag burning, for freedom of religion you have to tolerate beliefs that differ from the masses. the right to assemble means that the nazis and clan can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. the price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like when a crime is committed with a gun. Reasonable laws can help limit these occurrences. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom.
We must stop trying to take hand guns away from law abiding citizens and concentrate on taking them away from the criminals. Hand guns are here to stay and no legislation can rid the world of them. Think about it, there is a law making it illegal to own and use many drugs. Has that law stopped the drug problem we have in this country.
Its obvious that someone who's willing to do a major crime like murder, isn't likely to worry about a gun control law. The object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people. |
Hey Tiesto14 - nice, grown up post! I think that you ought to know sir that your little son has been using your computer and your user id, he's been acting like an immature tosser over on the music forum ... he's gonna get you a bad name ... I would spank his ass if I was you 
Now for my 2 cents worth :
I reckon all guns in the hands of private citizens should be abolished. What are they good for anyway? There are three types of people that want to have guns in my opinion ...
1. Criminals
2. People that want to protect themselves from criminals
3. Gun nuts, red necks, and all that collective group of jerk offs that want to go wander round in the forest and assert their manhood by blowing away wildlife for 'sport' 
It's generally agreed that if you take the guns off the crims, they'll go and steal them from the hunters and the gun nuts. If any politician had the balls to seriously outlaw ALL guns from EVERYBODY then in the long run the access would be cut off for the crims as well. Sure the right wingers would rant and rave about their freedoms being trampled on but fuck 'em. I don't think that the people that wrote the second amendment had seen the Columbine massacre on their TVs somehow.
Sure it might take a few years and some pretty harsh justice from the courts in order to get the majority of the guns out of the hands of the criminal population, but some politician has got to at least try it. This debate has been going on ever since the Al Capone days, meanwhile the death-by-gun statistics have been getting worse every year.
___________________
Kia's Sig-o-matic
-------------
Insert your favourite jap car here
Insert partially dressed bimbo here
Select auto placement of your little Gatecrasher lion left/right/top/bottom
----------
List your 100 top DJs / producers / clubs here
Add URL for your latest dodgy fruity loops production here
|