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

Roo

Sorry but your post is rather confused and difficult to decipher.

One for another – one right for another right?

Or are you trying to say that there should be no ‘block’ on any ‘right’? So for example even known murderers and the violently insane should have the ‘right’ to own a gun?

So the ‘greater good style’ argument is lame, so what would you prefer a system based on no ones good, one causing the greatest amount of bad, one where you are happy for bad things to happen even if they could be stopped or lessened, what do you want?

The things I’ve suggested wouldn’t impede on a person’s ‘right’ to have a gun. But they could go a long way to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Or are you saying that you’d prefer criminals to have easy access to guns rather than suffer a bit of an inconvenience?

 

the question remains what guarantees these rights you speak of specifically? are you talking about the constitution? and are these civil rights you are speaking of?

 

Being a violently insane murderer removes certain rights from someone-but you can't remove their rights until they've proven themselves a violently insane murderer, just because some day they might be.

Acting against the good (and rights) of the people for some mythical greater good is not the only alternative to no one's good, and is a good bit closer to no one's good than respecting individuals and their rights.

Having guns is NOT in the interest of nobody's good, so your hypothetical question serves no purpose but to derail and confuse the conversation in your favor.

And who said one right for another? Not I. Rights are not to be picked and chosen, they come in a block, and they are equal for all, until someone does something that can be used as legal leverage to deprive them of a right, like kills someone.

The things you suggested WOULD impede the right to own a gun, by requiring that one must surrender other rights in order to exercise that right. That would be like saying you may speak freely, but if you do, you lose the right to be free from search and seizure, just to make sure you can be considered a "safe" person to have speaking freely.

"oh, it's a bit 'inconvenient', but it will do good" is also the argument used to steal americans right to be free from search and seizure at baseless roadside checkpoints and the like.

Everything you've suggested goes against the very basis of a free and just country. You are showing exactly why gun control does not fit with freedom: it's not that guns are vital to this, it's the freedom stealing precedents involved. Of course, guns could be outlawed one way or another without causing this kind of damage.... but even being wholly outlawed, there would be legislators and police officers who would want new searching rights to find illicit guns, for example. And the charge is being led by people who view things how you do.

It's not that guns couldn't theoretically be removed from society, it's the abhorrent manner in which you and others propose to do it.

 

Does anyone see this as more an issue of culture, not freedom? You can look upon it as a matter of freedom, but then you get the problem of 'freedom to have guns' vs 'freedom to live without being threatened by guns', both being just as valid as freedoms. Countries which have never allowed guns don't see a problem with control because it's always been like that - it's written into the culture. Just like Americans don't see a problem with control of more destructive weapons like bombs, because they've never been allowed. We'll never be able to look at the issue impartially as long as we are conditioned by the centuries of unquestioning adherence to tradition.

 

I think the problem maybe that these entities that we are calling countries are actually corporations! a nation of people is different than a country, as a country is a general term that can have a multitude of meanings. under this system, since the US is insolvent, it has no real sovereignty as its own entity outside of the international community's influences because the creditors control the decision making at the hague convention and through any treaty and any agency attached therewith...which I have no problem with at all...

 

It is a freedom issue because of the way it's written into our laws. It akin to other very important freedoms, and if it can be stomped on it makes them considerably easier to take away.

I don't keep saying this like having a gun will PROTECT you from having other rights taken away, you're not going to shoot anyone for it. It's because of the legality of it.

Also, it's not a tradition to have guns, really. Only in a few areas/cultures. Few people do have then, percent wise. I don't have a gun, and I'm not going to get a gun in the near future. But I still want the right to have one.

 

I would say that you may not be aware of what laws u are operating under. the united states is operating under treaty, and treaty is law of the land. all "laws" are privileges, that is why they can be stomped on, as civil rights are only privileges under 14th amendment. you have no land to claim as your own, and you have no equity to claim a right to. where's the law that you are claiming that gives u rights to claim as your own to lawfully claim any property as your own? including rights.

 

It's a cultural issue beacuse of the way it's written into our laws. See what I did there?

If it is a freedom issue then it is a freedom issue for all countries, not just for one small part of the world. Unfortunately, people let the past dictate the present.

Let's say the right to own slaves was written into the constitution, would you hold the same position? Surely you must, since your argument for gun freedoms is "because they're there".

 

You almost made me want to stay with all that sweet talking but you seem to have more fun making stuff up and refuting yourself. If you finish sometime soon I'll come back and maybe we can talk.

Evade you later,
OWB

 

Nothing in life, other than death can be guaranteed without use of force. The Constitution only provides the basis under which the Federal government should operate in relation to the States and the citizens, with the powers granted to the Federal government enumerated. The authority of government is by consent of the governed. The intent of the Constitution is to limit the power government can wield over the people without their express consent, which can only be obtained by amending the Constitution. Article 5 of the Constitution describes the amendment process, in which a proposed amendment can originate as a result of support by 2/3 of both houses of the U.S. Congress or the legislatures of 2/3 of the States, with ratification requiring 3/4 of the States.
The only guarantee we could or should expect is that the laws which exist are exercised without bias. The U.S. Constitution is a simple document, quite clearly and concisely written, with the intent that it be understandable to all without need for interpretation, which it remained until government began to try and reinterpret it as a means of achieving an agenda.
Although I don't recall using the word 'guarantee', to answer your question of "what guarantees these rights...?", the answer is they can only be guaranteed to continue to exist as a result of each citizens refusal to give them up. Individual effort is the prime mover of all things in life.

 

Roo

Yes you - To quote you – “Rights are YOURS, and you needent give up one for another.”

One for another

This I think is why I find a lot of what you say confusing; you don’t seem to know what you’re saying yourself?

It is this level of bluster and misdirection that makes me doubt that pro-gunners are honest (consciously or not) about wanting guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

Roo

You complain that I ask you to go back and read things – but then you make it very plain that you need to go back and re-read (or maybe read for the first time) things I’ve already written.

The thing is that people, in the US, have paid for the ‘right’ of free speech with their ‘right’ to liberty, have been hounded for their political views. For example the socialist Eugene Debs was sentenced in 1918 to ten years in prison and had his ‘right’ to vote taken away from him for life. His crime was speaking up against the administration of President Woodrow Wilson and US involvement in WWI.

How the sedition act worked and the true worth of the first amendment is explained by Howard Zinn talking of the first Sedition act of 1798 (page 100 – A Peoples History of the United States)

“This act seemed to directly violate the First Amendment. Yet, it was enforced. Ten Americans were put in prison for utterances against the government, and every member of the Supreme Court in 1798-1800, sitting as an appellate judge, held it constitutional.
There was a legal basis for this, one known to legal experts, but not to the ordinary American, who would read the First Amendment and feel confident that he or she was protected in the exercise of free speech. That basis has been explained by historian Leonard Levy. Levy points out that it was generally understood (not in the population, but in higher circles) that, despite the First Amendment, the British common law of "seditious libel" still ruled in America. This meant that while the government could not exercise "prior restraint"-that is, prevent an utterance or publication in advance-it could legally punish the speaker or writer afterward. Thus, Congress has a convenient legal basis for the laws it has enacted since that time, making certain kinds of speech a crime. And, since punishment after the fact is an excellent deterrent to the exercise of free expression, the claim of "no prior restraint" itself is destroyed.
This leaves the First Amendment much less than the stone wall of protection it seems at first glance.
*
And the thing is that the action against such people as Debs was supported by many Americans, especially those on the right who claimed to be champions of American ‘freedom’. As to the ‘free press’ "far from opposing the measure, the leading papers seemed actually to lead the movement in behalf of its speedy enactment."

Please actually read – ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

In the light of that to claim that everything I’ve suggested is somehow about ‘stealing’ American freedom seems a bit of a joke. It would have very little impact on the freedom of American citizens while very much limiting the supply of guns to criminals.

 

Roo

A 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.

That is the second amendment – point out where it says – except for the criminal or the mentally unstable?

I mean it is probable that in a ‘well regulated militia’ there would be some provision against the recruitment of criminals or those with obvious mental instability (but maybe not). But the way many pro-gunners interpret the A2 is that all Americans have the ‘right’ to bear arms.

That would mean irrespective of mental or criminal impediment.

But as a society many have decided that for the ‘greater good’ the supposed ‘right’ should be qualified.

What I’ve suggested does not effect the supposed ‘right’ but it does qualify it for the ‘greater good’ with very little impact on the part of a gun owner.

 

Under Federal law, convicted felons, as well as some convicted of certain misdemeanors are prohibited permanently from gun ownership although there are also provisions by which that right can be restored. The necessary laws already exist, so rather than the creation of new laws more stringent enforcement of existing laws upon those who violate them is a more reasonable solution than new laws limiting the rights of honest and law abiding citizens.

 

Exactly, I paraphrased what you said, as you're so fond of doing to others.

What the fuck is your problem with these font tags? It seems RATHER as though you're trying to keep from being effectively quoted.

I think that balbus is right. A well regulated militia is necessary for the protection of the state, as the second amendment says. Anyone should be able to buy a gun, and by doing so, they should automatically be signing up to use it as their service weapon in an indigenous national guard force. Problem solved.

I haven't slept in way too long to wade through your bullshit, I'll be back later.

*edit* also, the constitution is a flexible document, which is why, 200 years later, we're still using it and doing pretty nicely compared to a lot of the world. Today, it means we have the right to bear arms and speak freely. You don't have to like it, and you also don't live here. There are different understood limits, like owning specific weapons (in fact, as I said, we now own the OPPOSITE of what the constitution was meant to protect, at the time EVERYONE had simple rifles/muskets/pistols/shotguns/whatever, it was to protect MILITARY WEAPONRY, like CANNONS, now we can't own military weaponry but simple hand held weapons) and the precedent was set, as you said, 2 centuries ago that we DO have the right to speak against the government, though one still may not make baseless and harmful claims against another's reputation, may not do the whole "fire!" in a theatre thing, etc. You're still viciously twisting both your own and other's words to mean what you'd like them to mean. And a large part of that twisting is selectively quoting me out of context to try to discredit me, before running off on a few scattered tangents within documents, law, precedents, and understandings that you do not have a proper understanding of, yourself.

And now, I am going to bed.

 

Indie

Oh I so do wish that people would read the posts.

It has already been established that some criminals are not allowed to own a gun legally.

But as has been pointed out on several occasions, because there are illegal guns in circulation a criminal could own a gun illegally.

Now according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

And to repeat - here are the suggestions -

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection six months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and so being banning from owning a gun.

They’re not exactly burdensome let alone being actual limits on a person’s ‘rights’.

 

What I think is needed is a sense of perspective

Some here seem to think that to limit gun ownership in any way is tantamount to a complete ban on all guns and that any limit put on any ‘right’ equates to the demise of all ‘rights’.

This doesn’t seem like a logical or rational argument.

The myth that some seem to want to peddle is that gun owners are somehow the protector of ‘American freedom’ so their unlimited and undiluted access to guns has to protected at all costs.

But to me that doesn’t seem to wash, especially given the history of the US.

I’ve been trying to work out why so many Americans desire guns for ‘protection’ and the main reason seems to be based in fear.

Fear of ‘government’ and fear of the society they live in and of their fellow citizens.

The thing is that just recently I was reading FDR’s 1941 speech to congress and in it he talks of a world based on four freedoms, the fourth of which was ‘freedom from fear’ and it stuck a cord.

I think what is needed in the US is just that much more freedom from fear. To bring that about people need to begin to ask why they are frightened.

 

Balbus:

Then just make single posts, shorter and more to the point. I usually just read the first and last lines of long posts.

It's none of governments business if someone owns a gun or many guns as long as they are law abiding. We have too many laws on the books already, and if anything they need to be reduced and a great many eliminated entirely.

 

Indie

That must explain why you are so often such an ill informed person. I think we have been through this before and as I recall your view was something along the lines of you thinking you didn’t need to study or research because you believed you knew everything already – or some such.

Maybe it would be a good idea if you put in just a little effort and then you might be able to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate?

Meow


So your argument is that you prefer criminals to be armed with guns?

 

In your case it's due to the repetition, condescension and excessive length, that I don't bother.

I'm not aware that we are involved in a debate, and it would appear that we each are simply expressing our views.

Did I say that I prefer criminals to be armed with guns?