Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Thank ye:2thumbsup:

Oz, I'm not going to respond to you, because it's STILL all just personal attacks and twisting words. Go back and read your own shit, and stop trying to play off your incoherence as some sort of victory over me. If studying one thing leads to studying another, it can be assumed you're not SO incoherent you're talking about studying something to lead to itself.

Waish, I see what you mean about police being shot at, but the fact is that police in the US are violently resisted because they are in essence an occupying force. They don't serve or protect anyone (of course, there are good cops, but they're few and far between, and even if they weren't, one bad egg ruins ten good cops claim to legitimacy) Police are involved in multiple CIVIL WARS. We have millions upon millions of people in the US who like drugs and choose to responsibly use drugs, if you declare a war on drugs and shoot people in their own homes and make laws that cause them to kill each other, it's a civil war. The government is waging a war on citizens and their rights. Then there's lots of racist cops, power hungry cops (obvious why the power hungry would choose that profession) and lots more bullshit. You can't disarm the people until you disarm the institution that they have arms to protect themselves from (even if it usually doesn't work out so well for them).

Further, there's just no reason to abdicate rights. It's NOT hard to end the policies that are designed to create class war, they're very intentional. Having arms does NOT make you an aggressor, even if aggressors also might keep arms, for obvious reasons. If you end the war, it doesn't matter who has a gun, because the war's over. Simple. Wars to end would be the war on drugs, the attack on mexican americans, the attack on black americans, the attack on those who don't like throwing the world and it's economy/environment down the shitter so that the richest can get richer, etc.

 

You are absolutely correct, the English bill of rights was a great influence on our framers and this right of the subject in particular had certain aspects that helped mold the USA right to arms provision.

• "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law."

​

This of course was enacted to "correct" the wrongs of King James II . . .

For Madison in particular the English bill of rights guided his endeavor of crafting the original proposed amendments. He disdained the English bill of rights in general for it being a mere act of Parliament. The English "right" to arms provision was held in special disfavor because it first conditioned the "right" upon the religion of the subject and then title and landholding. In the eyes of the framers of the US Constitution the English bill of rights was ridiculed; it was not held as a template, it was what the US framers endeavored to avoid in our Bill of Rights.

Such ridicule has been demonstrated to be warranted as the English "bill of rights" has never been an immunity claimable by a British subject and of course, it never described a universal, or even a general, right to gun ownership.

It is really nothing but a Public General Act like any other by Parliament, to be ignored, repealed or amended as Parliament saw fit. It certainly was no barrier to the government's subsequent gun restrictions and bans (putting Parliamentary sovereignty aside for a moment LOL).

The evolving that went on was caused by the USA discarding the oppressive, illimitable government of England and establishing a limited government exercising only the limited powers conferred to it by the people.

 

Under the US Constitution the right to keep and bear arms does not flow from the Amendment securing it, so removing or altering the words (upon which the right does not in any manner depend) is of no impact.

In other words, repealing the Amendment wouldn't do anything to the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. (Other than be a reason to exercise the real purpose of the Amendment; to remind government that the citizens retained the right to rescind their conscent to be governed, with violence if required).

 

Removing the right to bear arms is obviously what was meant, and is what this thread is about.

 

Yes.

And by the very design of the united states constitution, this is not possible.

As I already mentioned, it's worded so that there is NO doubt that people have a right to bear arms, and this government would respect that, but it does not say that that right is GRANTED by the government, it treats it as inherent. You can not simply remove an amendment from the constitution of the united states, you would have to amend with one saying that amendment II will be disregarded.

In other words, you would still have the right to bear arms, even if it would be infringed. Which is exactly how it was meant when it was written.

If you can see NO reason for anyone to EVER have guns, fine, don't have any. But saying you don't have a reason NOW, so we should get rid of our guns, isn't really thinking very far ahead.

 

Absolutely not, the only people who want to ban guns are just scared liberal idiots who don't understand anything about politics, let alone gun politics. The facts are that whenever guns are banned the murder rate goes up and whenever they aren't banned the murder rate goes down: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

I am quite aware of that.
I have been following this thread.
My position is that premise is nonsense but nobody wants to actually discuss that legal reality here.

My first post in this thread, #72 (no replies).

My second post in this thread #214 (to you interestingly with a less than stellar reply)

My third post in this thread #216 (again to you, with an even less than less than stellar reply)

My fourth post in this thread #218, was a throwaway mocking one to you because it was obvious that I was wasting my time relying to you.

My fifth post in this thread #222, was my fourth to you and again, only served to convey my disgust at wasting time posting to you, "That it appears you put more thought into my ridiculous throwaway answer than my serious one is what amuses me." LOL!

So a month later I gave you another chance to engage in a discussion of what you so obviously understand is the subject of the thread. Question is, are you capable of having that discussion of the legal realities of this subject? If you aren't capable can you recommend anyone here (or elsewhere) who is?

Anyone can feel free to rebut anything in my first post, my second post or third post in this thread if you are interested in discussing why the premise of the thread is impossible . . .

 

Does that include your life?

 

Which amendment repealed it?

 

I like these.

It's not possible, plain and simple. And there are damn good reasons for it, and the fact that we currently don't need the right to have guns does NOT nullify those reasons, just as not currently having money troubles is no reason to go on a shopping spree and drain your bank accounts.

All the issues that would be solved by outlawing guns (and let's ignore the huge problems it would cause) could be more easily accomplished by changing the unjust laws and policies that have created those issues in the first place.

 

Perhaps all should read and understand the Declaration of Independence before trying to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Although initially it was the British government that was the focus of the document, it makes clear that it also could/should apply to any future form of government as well. Look around the world today, sometimes violence becomes the only means of overthrowing an oppressive form of government.

 

Sorry but history is absolutely no use to me. Anyone who takes this topic seriously will throw away the history entirely, and consider the real issue that is whether it SHOULD happen, not whether it can happen. If we are discussing whether it can happen it is a waste of time.

 

Assuming both the Left and the Right are pro-Democracy, I think the poll results have answered the question with a resounding NO answered by more than 2/3 of the respondents.

 

that's ok roor.. my posts did their intended job... stopped you ranting about things (namely the brits place in history) that you obviously know nothing about :afro: you didn't respond to any of the actual points in my posts anyway and, once again, stopping your "brits have no right/no opinion/should be shouted down" attitude that appears in every thread where british members try to join any kind of discussion that involves any kind international politics... we've seen your anti-brit rants time and again and i figured time it was time to reveal your ugly bullying ignorant rhetoric for what it is

i was never trying to change your pov ... or looking for a "victory"... merely pointing out that the "facts" you were trying to use to convince others of your views were being built on your own lies

 

you missed the point of my post o'shea ..... it's that both documents, or rather portions of them (second amendment and bill of rights) both codified existing rights and did not create new ones.

so everytime, and it happens a lot, that the UK is held up as this anti-rights, gun controlling, anti civil liberty stealing monster..... the people who claim they were, are easily proved wrong.. and hopefully this will lead people into a more civilised debate that may include more political, social and legal accuracy.

in this thread you have people openly hating brits.. and demanding the right to own a gun.. for no other reason than they don't understand (or in the case of roorshack, by his own admission, don't want to read or understand) the very history they have built their opinons on ... i wanna change my vote.. if that alone don't make a nation think seriously about outlawing guns, i dunno what will

 

OWB

But does gun ownership necessarily mean that ‘freedom’ is defended?

Here is a short version –

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

 

OWB

But I’m just pointing out that many pro-gunners seem to display fear and some even seem to be promoting fear as a means of selling guns.

They talk of wives and children being hurt or killed. They draw images of mass murder - of children being raped - of loved ones being tortured. They suggest that ‘psychos’ and drug addicted killers are at any time ready to pounce and will at any moment break down your door and commence the killing.

And the only the alternative to having to watch you wife and child being raped and murdered before your very eyes - is to get a gun, no get two many three….

I’m asking why are so many frightened and wouldn’t it be better to try and work toward having a society that they were not afraid to live in?

*

Is it?

You come here to promote guns but you don’t seem to talk much about how to bring about a better society.

I mean wouldn’t it be better to have a society were you didn’t fear that your wife and child are going to be raped and tortured before your very eyes?

*

But what are the causes and what is the best way of tackling them? I’ve talked with a lot of pro-gunners and many don’t want to explore those issues they only seem to want to promote the fear that theirs is a society where it is likely that your wife and child are going to be raped and tortured before your very eyes? And that there is no alternative but to get a gun…or six.

*

But the kind of fear displayed by many pro-gunners doesn’t seem to be present in others. I’ve talked to people that truly have been in war zones and lived under brutal regimes and they have told me of their fear but the US is supposedly at peace and supposedly has a democratic and tolerant form of government (well compared with say Burma or Syria).

So why do they fear for example that their wives and children are going to be raped and tortured before their very eyes?

And if they truly think that their society is in such bad shape wouldn’t it be a good idea to try and make it a better place?

*

So why do so many pro-gunners display or promote fear?

*

So that is it? You just give up? This again is the ‘there is no alternative’ argument have mentioned before.

*

Again the fear

*

Again the fear

I’ve not got anything against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun. I just question why they would want one. And one of the major reasons seems to be fear.

But wouldn’t it be better to try and lessen or stop the ‘evil’ taking place?

 

Dark Sugar

Which is what I’ve been saying – many Americans seem to fear they need protection and I’m asking why.

But wouldn’t it be better to try and have a society were you were not so afraid of your fellow citizens that you felt the need to have a deadly weapon to defend yourself from them?

As to wild animals, most Americans live in urban areas well away from the kind of wild animal that you would need a gun to protect yourself from.

its just in my opinion a good idea,

Oh for many I think the fear is real to them - but I question why they have that fear.

So the only way to deal with ‘man’ is to threaten them to intimidate them, make them fear by having a gun that could kill them.

*

Gun theory

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

 

What do those who would make guns illegal fear? Those who would commit criminal acts with guns would unlikely abide a law making gun ownership illegal, and knowing that the society at large was mostly law abiding would make the law abiding members easier prey. Those of us who have benefited from having a gun available previously are unlikely to give them up even if would mean breaking the law. If you don't like guns, the solution is simple, don't own one.

 

Balbus:

Your whole argument seems to be "well you're afraid of things".

Well yes, I am afraid of things. And different fears can be conqured different ways.

You can have all the idelogical arguments you want about how everyone should just love everyone, and I would agree. But there's a lot of people who don't love me, and no matter how much I ask them to, they won't start loving me.

Fears of unjust treatment directly at the hands of others could be conqured with a gun and proper training in it's use, though I've personally done that by educating myself legally and in hand to hand combat, and combat with edged or improvised weapons. I have no problem with those who choose guns instead. I really should get one myself.

Violence is a symptom of a problem, not a problem, and you keep saying that pro gun people can't find any solutions other than guns. And I keep finding those solutions, while you take no notice. However, taking guns will NOT solve the problem in the least, my answers beat the shit out of yours, which is to have illegal gun CRIME stay illegal, but for legal gun ownership to also be illegal.

Also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html

The chicago handgun ban repeatedly put (other than gun ownership) law abiding citizens in legal trouble for defending themselves with a handgun, and according to that article and a host of others I saw with a quick google, it corresponded to rises in other crime. (duh)

But I expect you to answer one or two carefully annexed sentences (if any) from this post, and pretend that just settles the matter and does away with all my logic and fact.