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

Balbus, i used to listen to gore vidal (he has actually been 'alive and active' during my lifetime)...he is not 'Constitutional' in many respects, except regarding individual freedom. even then, he flops about, as many overly intelligent people are wont to do. i saw most of the vidal/buckley debates. vidal was likely brilliant, but i don't adhere to all of his views. i do agree with him in many ways on imperialism...but, as far as having firearms, or telling me how to live my life, he can go fuck himself, as can everyone else who intends to tell me how to live.

he was an artist and a thinker. i can respect that. i'm glad he's finally quiet about some things...i wish more busy bodies would get a job, go work at it, and leave the rest of us alone.

his biography online is ironic...but he has no relevance connecting himself to whether americans should have firearms (there is no 'should' in any case-we have them, you cannot get them, go weep)...i would suspect, given his feelings on w.f. buckley, it might be a good idea if vidal did not carry a weapon around buckley, were he still alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal

 

Just try to stay on topic. The question asked is "Should guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A.", and recognizing the fact that the U.S.A. is a Constitutional Republic, it would appear that if the poll taken along with the question shows that such an amendment would not likely find success.

 

Time would be much more well spent reading from William F. Buckley rather than Gore Vidal. I tend to find most writing by those who lean to the left to be depressing while much of that which flows from the right, like the words of Ronald Reagan have always motivated me. Had to throw in Reagan as he was a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment, long time NRA member, and understood the U.S. Constitution. He also had once told a true story where he had actually put a gun to use protecting a young lady many years ago, although he later admitted that the gun was unloaded.

How about just making a law mandating a very long sentence for having possession of a gun while committing a crime, and if discharged in the commission of a crime, prosecution to be handled in a Texas court.

 

While many hope for the best, the wise person also prepares for the worst.

 

Just because repressive governments "take" away the rights of it's people, that doesn't mean that they are no longer rights or that the people are any less deserving of those rights. Thus my comment that it is nothing new that repressive governments are repressive.

While I agree in principle to this definition, I do not agree with all its implications.

That is why I define it as; "a right that every human deserves and that can only be forfeited by its misuse."

With this definition, it is easy to see that a repressive government can and often times does "take" away a person's right but that doesn't make that person any less deserving of that right.

Also it points to the fact that a person who misuses his rights forfeits that right. Such as a person who murders forfeits his right to life.

I agree and disagree. It would be nice if we had a crystal ball that could tell us, without a doubt, who the "criminal minded and irresponsible" are but we don't. Thus I believe that rather than taking rights away from those who have not shown themselves "criminal minded and irresponsible", that we only take guns away from those who have already shown themselves "criminal minded and irresponsible".

Could you explain again?

It seems like you're trying to stand on both sides of the fence.

You say; "a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime" and I agree with that but then you say; "and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals" but how do you know who the "criminals" are? Or are you saying that you think that taking guns out of the hands of a few criminals is worth the abrogating the rights of the many law abiding citizens that did nothing wrong?

And when I said that those who commit violent crimes with guns are criminals and should be put into jail where they will not have access to guns. You called it repressive.

I can see that laws can be passed that will take guns out of the hands of all law abiding citizens but what law can be passed that can take guns out of the hands of all criminals, who by nature do not obey laws?

It's a great idea and I've never opposed the idea of finding out what is causing crime so we can try and prevent people turning to crime.

The problem is that when I mention that a good way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to put them in jail for the crimes they commit and that will take guns out of their hands. Then you say that's repressive, we should try and find out what is causing crime so we can try and prevent people turning to crime. Then you say that guns should be taken out of the hands of criminals. So are they criminals that guns should be taken away from or are they just victims of societal forces, thus not criminals and do not need to have guns taken away from them? Do you see that is circular reasoning, a catch-22.

Once again, I agree with you that it is a good idea to try and find out what is causing crime so we can try and prevent people turning to crime but when that fails, we already have laws to take care of those who turn to violent crime without adding additional gun control laws.

Actually the main thrust of the comment was to ask you if you were AFRAID of criminals who have guns.

What I was saying is; personally, I'm not afraid of anyone who owns a gun, criminal or not but if they show that have misused their right of gun ownership then they have forfeited their right to own a gun.

Many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns?

Great, perhaps you could relate a few for us uninformed ones but just tell us the ones that don't abrogate the rights of law abiding people.

I believe you may be right but I don't think they would be opposed to gun control that didn't abrogate their right to bear arms.

Sounds like the same argument but yes.

Again this is a thread about banning guns and so in this thread it would be only natural for people talking about gun control leading to banning guns.

But regardless, many pro-gunners have noticed that gun control measures passed in the past have not done that job and that leads to tougher gun control measures that don't work and then more gun control measures

Yes, there are gun control measures in place already in the US that don’t involve a total ban. The trouble is that they don't work very well and so where does it go from here?

So, many pro-gunners have noticed that gun control measures passed in the past have not done the job and that leads to tougher gun control measures that don't work and then more gun control measures and I've asked have asked you how you suggest this cycle can be ended but no reply as of yet or may be I missed it, what with all the not reading your posts that you have accused us of, if so could you point it out for me?

I can't speak for all pro-gunners, mainly because I don't consider myself a pro-gunner but I see gun control as an erosion of personal rights and freedoms. It is not only the freedom of gun ownership that I see eroding but freedom of speech and others also eroding.

There is that better?

 

Gun control? Its the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. I'm a bad guy; I'm always gonna have a gun. - Sammy The Bull Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti.

 

You just told me how stupid I sound. Spelled "U" the whole post through.

You obviously don't see many of my posts, the most important part of the constitution is the first amendment, closely followed by the 5th, closely followed by the 4th, followed by the second, followed by the third. Maybe I got the order of the most important wrong, I can never make my mind up on that. The rest of the bill of rights are of lesser importance.

The constitution can have said whatever it wants to have said, and was amended. The same can be on the second amendment, except that no one wants to amend it, just some brits and you. And because you can't speak for the whole US, no, it's not time that this was amended.

This thread has been full of intelligent debate from both sides (.....and then simply, debate, from balbus) and it all went right over your head.

You have some sort of "you against the average american dipshit" complex. I don't give a flying fuck about the average american dipshit, I care about what's right. And it is not right to trample the rights of people because some people MIGHT misuse those rights.

You talk about stingers-so I assume that being sheltered from real weapons, as average americans tend to be, you encountered those in call of duty or a similar game, in which you killed people for fun, before coming to tell us we're all sick because we want the right to guns. This is not a wargame, and it does not make ME the sick one that you can't tell the difference. However, if you'd been paying ANY attention, I already said, yes, I should have the right to own a fully functioning M1A1 abrahms tank. I wouldn't want to, because I have no reason to and it sounds like a lot of work for nothing, but I DO very much want that RIGHT.

It does say something about the type of arms: military arms. That includes guns, stingers, tanks, whatevvvvvver.

You're still arguing against the average american: so you say you see BETTER than the average american? You will take rights that a majority of people WANT to have, because YOU think it's better for them that way? You do sound rather like the classic tyrant in the making. Luckily, you can't even spell "you" or "your", so you will never have any power over anything.

You can call me an average american as though it makes me less qualified to talk, but even though I'm nowhere near average, your desire to show that you know that much more about what's right for average people than they do really shows what kind of person you are and where you're coming from.

 

An inalienable right is just that, a right which is inalienable. By acceptance of the fact that a right is inalienable creates a responsibility and a duty for the government to do its utmost to assure such rights are not infringed upon. While no government can guarantee the prevention of one individual infringing upon the rights of another individual, it none the less has the responsibility and duty to apprehend, prosecute, and punish those who do.
The Declaration of Independence expresses "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as examples of inalienable rights, not conclusively but preeminent in achieving individual freedom. It should be noted that while Happiness is included, although as a replacement for the word Property due to the existence of slavery, the word pursuit indicates the necessity of effort as the means of acquisition in achieving either Happiness or Property as one might desire.

The 2nd amendment words relating to the "right of people to keep and bear arms" uses the words "shall not be infringed" which simply means that they shall not be violated by government, but should instead be protected, and like any other right, no right should be used in ways which violate or impose upon the right of another, which dependent upon the circumstances could result in the loss of ones own rights temporarily or permanently. While it is governments duty to assure that your right to keep and bear arms is protected, by oath upon taking office, your rights can be lost as a result of misuse which harms or demonstrates intent to harm another.

 

"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
- Senator Orrin Hatch

 

"One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity."
– Paul Hagar

 

"The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem." - John Dean "Jeff" Cooper

 

It's up for interpretation really. To me it stands for my rights and freedoms that my fore fathers fought for over 2 centuries ago.

No, I'm not, but you're questioning things that have nothing to do with you, and all anyone in this thread is doing, is defending themselves and their liberties. Let me ask you this. Does our constitution protect you and your rights, at this very moment? Like are you a united states citizen?

Yes, i have questioned how I have been raised and brought up in my life and my influences. But I don't find the need to question things I already agree with. Seems to me that's one of the two reasons you "question" something. Sometimes I do like to make up my own mind about things, just sounds silly for me to ask questions about something I've already made up my mind about, that's the beauty of opinions.

You're talking apples to oranges, questioning something in a text book and questioning someones rights are two different things. Questioning what they're told? It's not like anyone is making up what the constitution says, simply their own interpretation of what the physical document is.

Again, its all up to interpretation. You assume I don't like learning new things because I don't question my constitution? At this point, all I can gather from you is that you like to use clever words and phrases to just piss people off. I will not stand by silently while you question our rights and decisions as Americans. I want a gun, plain and simple. I don't have to have a good excuse why, especially someone like yourself. People who believe in God don't question him or his authority for the most part. Just because you think that's silly doesn't make that person wrong; and again, why else would you question something other than you don't agree, or that you're just sooooooo eager to learn that you have to question?

 

This is like saying penis's should be outlawed in china...

 

What if your forefathers happened to fight for the opposite?

Why is this question only applicable to the US? Other countries have people, guns, murders by firearm.

 

Laws do not put an end to crimes, they only provide us with foreknowledge of what our societies consider unacceptable behavior which is therefore prosecutable and punishable by some means under the law. Guns are but a tool among a great number of tools which can be put to use in committing a crime, but it is not the tools but only the individual(s) in how they are put to use that makes their use criminal. It is only the humans who refuse to abide by the laws of civilization which forces us to create governments who create laws which dole out punishments to such individuals.

 

I am most curious to find out what these "laws of civilization" are that exist entirely apart from government.

 

As an american citizen, I think people in china should not have the right to keep OR bear penises.

 

They're quite common sense, think hard and they might come to you.

 

They might come to me, but they would be completely conditioned by the conditions I have grown up with. If I am a remote Pacific islander then cannibalism might make my list.

Still, would stuff like this happen without them?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14091832
I know you'll say they'll still be available, but if we stop manufacturing them then surely they won't. Then taking a knife to 17 victims might allow some scope for self-defence (which is a right too).

 

Jefferson's argument has as it's most elementary component an acceptance that for as long as the Constitution is in force it is an iron-clad limit on the powers of government.

I don't buy into Jefferson's premise that the Constitution's permanence binds the living to the dead because it isn't "the people" who are anchored to the Constitution's structure . . . It is the powers of government that are bound and that is never a bad thing.

Jefferson's warning about the tactic to defeat this structure and bypassing the amendment process. . .

"I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. "

Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas, Sept 7, 1803
​

. . . has come to fruition so his proposal to reform the structure every 20 years or so is pretty much moot; the "living constitution" advocates rewrite it every 20 minutes.