|
The Debates: Issue #3 - Gun Control (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Gotta love Americans and their love of guns!
How's that quote by Robin Williams?..."We have the right to bear arms AND the right to arm bears..." :toothless |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Gotta love Americans and their love of guns!
How's that quote by Robin Williams?..."We have the right to bear arms AND the right arm bears..." :toothless |
:toothless
It's in our blood dude. Thats how we won our country, freedom, and power :) You don't become one of the most powerful countries in the world by yelling or slapping! ;) :toothless
-ABT- |
|
|
| DJ RozzeR |
ok. theres 30 kids in the UK under the age of 14 with a shotgun licence i saw it in the paper . If i could walk into a shop now and buy a PSG Sniper Rifle , what the am i gonna use it for , picking off cops from 2 miles away, you know what i mean. á gun is a gun and its the bullets that kill you.
Guns should be banned all together , and there should be a 20 year sentence for a person who is caught without a licence. If they made it legal to carry a firearm and someone shot your child in a drive by buy accident how would you feel. i know in the UK we had an incident where a MAN 'Thomas Hamilton' walked into a primary school of 40 kids aged 4-6 and killed them all. what else can i say. Theres no way UK will ever allow guns to be legal.
If you wanna look hard and have a gun , go into the ing Marine Corps. |
|
|
| DJ Dingel |
I think that tiesto 14 covered it pretty well, and I'm too lazy to get deeply involved, but I'd like to make one comment.
Name the politicians who have been most successful in implementing strict gun control. They were:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein |
|
|
| SmellsExcellent |
| quote: | Originally posted by ABTsportsline
I'll post pics of our "arsenal" later.... muahahaha.
|
i cant wait to see this!
anwyas, about G-Control... I dont really believe in guns. I dont think there is any need for anyone to own one, but thats just my opinion. As far as sport goes, hell, I hunt, I love it, and thats where my opinion gets divided.. if people can buy guns for sport, they can still commit crimes with those guns. Honestly, I'd rather go gunless and have the people who are trained to use em (Military, etc) have the right to use them in wars and such. But its not really gonna matter since people can always get them or use other weapons for crimes so its just nto worth changin laws. as long as they dont make it easier to get a gun, im happy.
-Marc
PS, did that make ANY sense??? |
|
|
| Devbert |
Sorry to post a thread that's been done before, but it's always good to get a fresh opinion on stuff.
I'll start a thread for debate topics that haven't been done, so that this doesn't happen again. |
|
|
| biznology |
well I, for one:
a)dont have a gun, and dont see myself getting a gun in thhe near future (alt this IS america and things change), and...
b)find it impossible to 'outlaw' guns in the US, as well as keep them away from crimnals. both of these ideas are nice and good, but as ABT said - this country was built on firepower, you cant take them all away - there are too many guns. and you cant 'keep them away from criminals' cause their guns arent legal already! late/ |
|
|
| Kia Kaha |
| 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' :rolleyes:
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 '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. |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
people keep saying "outlaw ALL Guns and that will solve the problem".... but what you guys fail to realize is that most crimes are committed with illegal guns! outlawing all guns isn't going to prevent guns from being in this country! a couple of things:
1) the public won't stand for it. Remember what happened during prohibition in the 30's? The public will cause a huge uproar b/c of the unjustness of the new law. Rioting and illegal racketeering everywhere...
2) Guns are just like drugs. The illegal ones are not hard to come by. Say you do outlaw "all guns" like our all-knowling friend DJ Rozzer suggested..... the criminals will still get them. Perfect example is drugs. Crack and heroin are illegal, and those are easier to find than a gallon of milk on the street. What makes you think if you outlaw "all guns", that all the guns will magically disappear? And what are you going to do for all those gun collectors, who have owned and never fired any of their guns for years? will you confiscate their guns and pay them for them? You'd need a very big budget for that.
I just think everyone needs to stop being so naive and "tree-huggerish".... sure it would be IDEAL for everyone to not have guns, but it wouldn't be fair nor right. They may outlaw guns in the UK, but i guarantee you a large population of the undesireables has guns! In any country. If any of your suggestions would have been rational, i assure you the governments would have implemented them by now. Remember the real guys running our countries are smarter than most of us put together... it doesn't just come down to "thinking of a new law", it also comes down to thinking of the consequences, what will be the outcome?
Too many factors, too much disagreements. Let's be realistic people.
-ABT- |
|
|
| Devbert |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kia Kaha
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' :rolleyes:
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 '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. |
Well I do feel that gun laws need to be strengthened, I don't think you can outlaw guns.
As stated before, the public will not stand for it.
People need the right to bear arms to feel as if they have some sort of control. If people couldn't own guns, people would fear the government could just be in total control.
Oddly enough, the ability to form militia is still relevent. It's about power of the people. What's to keep large groups from walking all over you when you have no sense of power, and they know it? |
|
|
| SmellsExcellent |
| quote: | Originally posted by Devbert
If people couldn't own guns, people would fear the government could just be in total control. |
what's odd is that our government was designed solely to avoid such a situation. 3 different branched - monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy - each with their own powers. Powers distributed to aid in keeping peoples' voices heard and "the man" not-at-large. Too bad that people feel that our government is so opressive. Its not quite as most think if you actually look at what it does do for its people....
Anyways, thats also a part of our government, conservatives want guns available and liberals do not, its the nature of a bipartisan, bicameral system, not to mention having our series of checks and balances that basically make it impossible to make HUGE change because a bill must pass trough 3 branches before it actually can become a law...
-M |
|
|
| DJ Dingel |
Okay, your interp of the American gov't is kinda wanky. The president isn't a monarchy, he's democratically elected. The Supreme Court isn't an oligarchy, it's a politically insulated institution that is based upon the results of a democratic (okay, technically the Electoral College is a democratic republican method) election procress.
the government is oppressive if 51% of people vote to strip the entire population of their guns, which are their personal property. That's a violation of rights. Rights should only be violated as a penalty for violating others' rights (you can't live in society if you're a murderer, you give up that right and get to sit in jail.) |
|
|
|
|
