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

herman

LOL – as I’ve pointed out above, it is obvious people haven’t read my post and so don’t understand or misconstrue my position.

Do you?

If you have an argument or some specific criticism please produce it, I mean someone would have to have a special type of egocentric arrogance to believe they know everything about another person’s position after just a skim read of what they have written, wouldn’t they?

 

What is there to understand tho? If you cant understand why people feel that they need guns for the most part, I guess I cant understand why you or anyone else for that matter just cant leave well enough alone, when it has worked for us thus far in our young history. Your talking about a hot button subject that questions peoples rights, period. Are you telling me that you dont have a problem with people questioning your rights?IMO I just dont see the point on questioning something that has nothing to do with you, or something that you cant even do anything about to begin with. Many things in life warrant questions, but we're talking about something that has worked for 230+ years now.

Our fore fathers would be rolling in their graves right now. Theres nothing outdated about the principal of the matter, I mean, just because you have an outdated cell phone doesn't mean it doesn't still work, right? People don't just get to bend the rules to fit what they think their prerogative is. Why change something that has done well for us for 2 centuries?

I simply mean, its seems logical(to me) that if youre questioning my rights, you question where my rights come from. I don't care what anyone says, I'm still proud of my country and what it stands for. I just take it personally to question my country. Do you not take it personal when someone questions the Queen? I would take it personal if someone questioned my Queen if I had one. That feeling of taking it personal comes from the life I was raised into, and what I was taught. Your opinion is probably based on what your parents taught you or what you learned in school. I'm not trying to offend you with that previous comment, its just been my experience that people opinions are loosely based on their own real life experiences.

 

Maybe we should take away all our rights and just call it a day

 

Make jokes, it's closer than you think. Especially with all these democrats trying to rob peter to pay paul.

 

I did already, check my posts. the constitution itself is a privilege that was granted, which makes it a trust. if you did not sign it you are not a grantor. if you claim to use it to ur benefit you are a consitutor which means u have no rights only privileges as a surety. the national debt prevents anyone claiming to be a citizen to have any rights to be guaranteed to them because the US has indentures, encumberances on it and is subject to international law and regulation from a centralized point, simple. if the grantors/creditors want to stop those under implied contract and accepting benefits to follow the rules, then they should follow them!

 

apparently reading comprehension isnt one of ur stong points, It says right to bear arms, its doesnt say anything about types, so why not Stingers,?? they are " arms" right???
calling me names cause u dont like what just shows ur inherent "issues",
preach about the constitution all u want, in its original state it says "negroes are 3/5 ths of a person, Indians dont even count as people, women had no rights at all, u talk Constitution and liberty but its a lie and always has been, ask the average dipshit american about the constitution and HELL YEA they know the Second thats for damn sure. they dont know any of the others,
Now Mr wannabe lets talk rights, Since the SC has moved to the right beginning with Regan we have seen many of our rights diminished/eradicated. Search and seizure, probable cause. due process all but gone. But BY GOD we want our guns. U talk post failure, UR NOT EVEN SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW STUPID U SOUND.

 

Good point. Let's scrap all those amendments right now, they're befouling the original text.

 

for those of you who have not read the Constitution, here it is, with links to the amendments:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

for those of you who do not live in the united states, it don't matter to me whether you read the Constitution or not....you have an agenda that is anti-Constitution to begin with, and i'm rarely going to be interested enough to listen to it.

the 'negroes are 3/5ths' issue was a compromise in settling how residents of the states were counted for representation in the house of representatives. the American Indian was never considered a citizen...they had a country until other humans stole it from them...but it was not organized enough to keep out the invaders. as a matter of fact, they are not part of our 'country' now in many ways. reservations are governed by the tribes...which is why they don't pay tax on cigarettes, and have casinos in states that do not have legal gambling.

quite frankly, sometimes, people gain a greater knowledge of their world. the human genome work and dna scientific inquiry has revealed to us that there are NO races but the human race. the laws are quite slow to catch up to what 'we know, but don't consciously incorporate into our thinking' sometimes. the fact that 'skin color' separates many people in their thoughts simply says to me that we are in a place where some are going to opt to be governed by others, rather than govern themselves. in other words, the human race is not enlightened enough to make use of rights they were born with at this time, nor are we intelligent enough to defend our belongings from those who would steal and delude us, such as those who try to claim 'your rights come from the king'. sad, but apparently true....some individuals have never grown beyond their need for a royal pageant, a dictator, a facade designer like qaddafi....or hugo chavez....or our own last several presidents..

those 'rights' enumerated in the Constitution are not 'granted'; they are considered one's natural rights as a human being....the 'rights' are not the paper. don't get confused over a philosophical issue...no one 'gives' us rights...we are born with them as living creatures...whether we manage to retain them with the other predators around us is another question.

this is a bit difficult, but is crucial to the u.s. citizen's understanding of 'where we came from':

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

if that's too much 'thus and thou', this has been recommended to me as a substitute, but i have not read it yet:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Original-Argument-Federalists-Constitution-Adapted/dp/1451650612#reader_1451650612

again, if you live in europe, china, russia, south america...any place outside the u.s. borders, don't bother to read these. you don't have the background to care about them.

 

Just scrapping a couple of amendments would be enough to get us back on track.

 

Reb:

Most of those who argue with total disregard for the U.S. Constitution have little or no understanding of it at all, or have been educated by those who have an agenda to 'remake the Nation' more in line with the views of Marx.

Yes, the rights enumerated in the Constitution, are not being granted but recognized, and for the purpose of illustration of a duty and responsibility of the Federal government. There was never an intent that the Federal government would or should attain great enough power to rule over the people, but only should accumulate powers through the consent of the governed and enumerated by amending the Constitution. As such increasing the powers of the Federal government should result only by the consent of a super majority of the governed, or 3/4 of the States. The U.S. Federal government is not empowered by the Constitution to redistribute wealth from one citizen to another, nor from one State to another, however the 16th amendment along with the 17th amendment provides the Federal government with the funding and manipulation of the Senate to accomplish an agenda that would otherwise be extremely difficult and unconstitutional. The acquisition of taxes directly related to income regardless of the residence of the taxpayer allows the accumulation of revenue beyond that which was enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, and provides the Federal government with the means by which it redistributes not only wealth, but debt to the inhabitants of all the States. As such, States that would otherwise tend to budget rationally without accumulation of debt would do so at a loss to their taxpayers who are held accountable for Federal government spending which benefits States which receive Federal funding.

If the 16th amendment did not exist, in the current year each State would be liable to provide the Federal government approximately $12,000 per resident based on the 2010 census. Just imagine the effect that would have on Congress as the Representatives of both houses would have to face their constituents as their State would have to increase taxes on them each time the Federal government voted to increase spending at the Federal level.

What does this have to do with guns? Nothing at all, but it's nice to see that at least one other person here seems to look at the Constitution purposely.

In the end, we should never allow government to remove or diminish any of our rights, and should demand that government put forth great effort only in protecting them, in accordance with the oath they take upon assuming the office to which we the people have allowed them.


Anyone remember Obama saying "I'm King of the world." while boarding Air Force One?

 

Must one be familiar with the fine technicalities of an antiquated document to be able to discuss the broad principles it dictates? And why shouldn't those people outside the US have an interest in such a document, when it essentially divides the world into "subjects" and "non-subjects", delineates a huge geographical territory of the Earth those people can only go or use under strict conditions, and a whole bunch of other effects simply by reason of the USA and every single person in it being a part of and related to the rest of the world?

 

It comes down to this.. And i believe this and have familiarity with such weapons.

I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one.
And if others dont like that..
Well thats a witch hunt no?

Jo

 

Reb

Try reading – Gore Vidal’s Inventing a Nation
[ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Nation-Washington-Adams-Jefferson/dp/0300105924/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310117092&sr=8-1

 

Indie

But that’s why I’m here to try and understand. But I’m not just going to accept what anyone says without question and if I see flaws in an argument I will point them out, and if I question a views soundness I will speak up.

A difficulty than can arise when some rather than enter into honest debate just don’t like their views being questioned and take umbrage even when they have no counter argument.

So they try to brush aside views they don’t like without putting up any counter argument by claiming that the critic or questioner has little or no understanding of the subject and so their criticism is just wrong. But that doesn’t make a criticism go away it just highlights that the person doing the dismissing hasn’t an answer.

 

Thundakat

So you didn’t actually read the post then? I mean it is mainly about the views of a rather famous ‘fore father’.
I’ll copy it for you –
Someone said that –

"Balbus thinks the U.S. Constitution is outdated and should be abolished. Well, I guess he has more in common with George W. Bush than he probably thought"

It is clear that this person doesn’t know very much about US history for actually it means I have more in common with Thomas Jefferson who wanted to have a new constitution re-written every 20 years or so.

"Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

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

In fact many people have believed that the US constitution should have been re-written or dramatically altered.

Here is some historical background

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html

 

Thundakat

What do you think it stands for?

Are you saying it is wrong to question in any way shape or form the US? It seems to me that not to question is very unhealthy politically.

Fuck the Queen (although not literally), I’m a republican, I’d kick her and the rest of her sorry parasitic family out on their pimply arses.

Why?

And you don’t question your ‘training’? I mean we are all products of ‘training’ to one point or another some such training can be beneficial but other parts can not be. Only by questioning can you discover which is which, if you never question, how do you know?

Actually my family is a mixed bunch of left wingers and right wingers, atheists and the religious etc. For example I am very much an unbeliever in any supernatural fantasy but my sister attends church every week.

And I don’t think learning stops when you leave school, and no-one should stop questioning what they are told. For example knowledge is always expanding and so many of the things I was taught back in school have changed.

In what way would it offend me?

From what you have said, we have differing ways of thinking, I believe in questioning, in learning, in thinking for myself and in trying to understand the world and the things in it. While you seem to be saying you don’t question and see little point in learning anything new.

 

Try reading Iain M Banks. Use of weapons.

 

Endless BS

It comes down to. Who has the guns. NO?!!

If It comes down to the '1' 'Authorities having them all. And '2' the population and authorities having them.. i go with 2
better safe then sorry for No government can be trusted

are you people simple or do you like endless diatribe on same subject

 

I'm definitely for having guns for protection. My county just announced that they are doing away with 100 beds in the jail and they're stopping fulltime police patrols.

 

Honest? On my part yes.
Debate? Is that why you keep trying to score points instead of engaging in honest discussion?

This isn't a call for "honest debate". This is you beating on your chest and calling for others to play king of the hill with you.

Honest debate? Like this for instance attaching the person not addressing what was said.

Oh if you want, we can look at your slander.

Your charge of lying is based on what? Your assumption that you know what I'm thinking, something you do quite often and I have pointed out to you over and over again.

If you had read my posts in this thread you have been that I often talk about rights and not in the context of the Constitution.

And talking other peoples posts and discussing it with them does not mean that the main interest I have in this thread is other than what I stated.

But since you seem to like to talk about lies and lying, let's look at it.
You just said:

Interesting but if you had read the book would know that the book is not talking about "how guns are supposed to be a protection against crime".

But yet you said:

Which seems to indicate that you have read it and yet you don't know what the book is about, so is it poor reading comprehension or were you lying?

You can draw any conclusions you want to, you usually do but I was merely pointing out that guns have been used to overthrown suppressive governments. Something that you seemed to be denying.

And yes, I believe that guns can be used to try and protect personal freedoms and liberty and that could mean both from incursion by criminal or state.

But that doesn't make it any more or less a right.

This post was posted before you wrote the above. Does that mean you don't read others posts?

And speaking of lying, what you just said seems to be a, well let's just call it typing error.