Guns

[Galatia]

People can oppose the government with their votes. They dont need guns. The whole idea of giving the people guns *in order to fight their government* is extremely naive and certainly coming from a country that never suffered a Dictatorship.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze

i don't think any guns should be banned.
there are a lot of people who just like to collect guns and theres nothing wrong with that... i do however think that bullets should be extremely expensive and very hard to get. somewhere along the lines of $30- $40 dollars a bullet would stop most idiots from committing crimes

bleh that would stop everyone from buying amunition....yet this would make game more plentaful. One bullet is all i need to take down a white tail buck. no need for automatic.

thats what i think should be banned..... automatic guns that fire off so many rounds a second. They should be strictly millitairy.


note: im too tired to check for poor gramar/spelling so please excuse me..... i

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Galatia

People can oppose the government with their votes. They dont need guns. The whole idea of giving the people guns *in order to fight their government* is extremely naive and certainly coming from a country that never suffered a Dictatorship.

sorry for double posting but i just saw this and again i am too tired.....



galatia.... no one in their right mind would bare arms against the goverment since they were choosen by the people....

second it is our right to bare arms granted by the constitution (2nd amendment)

and thirdly.... what are we to do if those who disobey the law just break in and hold u to gun point?

[thebastardsword]

well it seems to me like people see guns as a dagger of the middle ages(somewhere in there). i remember hearing a story about daggers that if you didnt carry one when you went outside your home, you were pretty much inviting to get mugged and possibly killed. If a mugger saw that you had a dagger, he/she would leave you alone. perhaps having a gun is much like this...but i doubt it...it seems like a security blanket to some people though.

i might get a gun soon ^_^ strictly for hunting though. id prefere a composite bow myself, work those muscles...

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by Galatia

People can oppose the government with their votes. They dont need guns. The whole idea of giving the people guns *in order to fight their government* is extremely naive and certainly coming from a country that never suffered a Dictatorship.

However, what if people were to vote in a Republican, 3/4ths majority in the House & Senate, with a republican president. Passing a constitutional amendment would be possible without the other side's consent.

What if both sides were bought into passing an amendment to the constitution?

Should citizens have the means to defend themselves against a corrupt government? I admit, these are outside possibilities. However, do you think the framers of the constitution had it in mind when planning this country? They had just undergone a break from a tyranical government, I could see it being possible.

[JeRkInS]

Originally Posted by N[u]TS

well said :loopy

agreed :rainfro

[amrtin77]

Originally Posted by minny

i would have to say you dont need guns in order to protect yourself..
in korea you cannot carry a gun even if you have a licence for hunting. so then the crimials do not have guns thus making the ordinary people safe. i mean what would they try to kill you with..a knife? that could be counterd by hundreads of possiblitys

completely wrong... if a criminal is going to kill someone with a gun theyre not going to care if they get the gun legally. you can get guns pretty easy illegally.... by banning guns all you do is take guns from the average citizen. not the criminals.

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

Here's something to ponder, not necessarily my opinion:

Should the people have weapons for which to oppose the government with? And I wouldn't use the arguement of "well the government has tanks" because we've all seen what a few guys with box cutters can do. Giving people weapons gives them power to "push the panic button" so to speak when it comes down to fighting the government, especially in large groups. Do you want the public to have this kind of power? Do you think the framers of the constitution had this in mind when they wrote the second amendment?

yes, they had this in mind when they gave us the right to bear arms. i know they had it in mind because they say it is our job as citizens to overthrow the government if it becomes oppressive.

[TrongaMonga]

Originally Posted by CelestialBeaver

The government should not regulate the way that people choose to live.

They don't try to regulate the way you live, if they want to forbid guns... They want to regulate how other people live, in case you are a murdering maniac. You never know when one shows up.

On a side note, fighting the government with guns is most likely the worse idea ever...

Because, when you do that, the most probable result will be chaos and anarchy for a while, eventually resulting in a dictactorship...

[B~E]

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

They don't try to regulate the way you live, if they want to forbid guns... They want to regulate how other people live, in case you are a murdering maniac. You never know when one shows up.

On a side note, fighting the government with guns is most likely the worse idea ever...

Because, when you do that, the most probable result will be chaos and anarchy for a while, eventually resulting in a dictactorship...

Poshy posh, my good sir. Very few Western revolutions ended up with a dictatorship. You've got the fascist in Italy, the Nazi... that pretty much sum up the western revolutions that ended up with a dictatorship. And they hapened in countries and time where the people had not tasted democracy, at least, not for very long. And this is an important factor. Nowaday, lets say a bloody revolution toke place in N.America or Europe, unless the main revolution group is very crafty, I dont think the People would allow to be ruled by them, especialy after they have spilled so much blood to overtrow an already oppresive government.

Should the people have weapons for which to oppose the government with? And I wouldn't use the arguement of "well the government has tanks" because we've all seen what a few guys with box cutters can do. Giving people weapons gives them power to "push the panic button" so to speak when it comes down to fighting the government, especially in large groups. Do you want the public to have this kind of power? Do you think the framers of the constitution had this in mind when they wrote the second amendment?

In a healty democracy, the People should always be in a position to carry a succesfull revolution. I mean, democracy stand for "power of the People", and not "power of the elected". Unless you believe that the People are plain too dumb to have such a reponsability.
If the People are to enter a revolution, will they really need the second amandment to overtrow the goverment ? No, all they need is public suport. Whoever of the two side (government or the rebel) has the favor of the mass, will win. As you said, c9h13no3, we all saw what a few guys with box cutters can do. So imaging the majority of the population of a country.
So, therefore, I'm agaisnt the right for individuals to bear weapon. In fact, the second amandment is utterly useless.

[c9h13no3]

Compelling. I'll reply at some point.

[Galatia]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Very few Western revolutions ended up with a dictatorship. You've got the fascist in Italy, the Nazi... that pretty much sum up the western revolutions that ended up with a dictatorship.

What exactly are you talking about, BE??? The French Revolution ended up in *democracy*?? The Russian revolution ended up in *democracy*??

There is a huge difference between armed revolutions against legally elected governments and peacefull revolutions against fascists.

History has proven that the people who use guns and violence in order to overthrow their legally elected government were, are and will always be fascists - either from the right or the left side of the political spectrum.

As for guns, they have no place in a civilized society. Therefore the Second Amendment is not only useless but highly dangerous for democracy - not to mention retarded, the last country that had the *every man and a gun* stupidity in its Constitution was Albania during the Hodja years....

[amrtin77]

i stand by the idea that criminals will be armed no matter what. taking guns from average citizens will do nothing.

and dont tell me an armed population would be just as bad off in a rebellion as an unarmed population. revolutions ARE needed if the government has too much power. right now our marines wouldnt go kill a bunch of civilians... thats their family rebelling against the government. id quit the marines and help fight with my family and freinds instead of sticking with the government.

but if the government has too much power or media control the soldiers may beway too brainwashed to think of disobeying..

[B~E]

Originally Posted by amrtin77

i stand by the idea that criminals will be armed no matter what. taking guns from average citizens will do nothing.

Yes, that is true. In fact, ban something in our society, and you'll have a black market born, and all the new possibilities for corruptions and violence that will follow. And its harder to control a black market than a commerce legaly controled by the government.

But then again, on the other hand, I bet a certain number of peoples and gangs, especialy young people, who wouldn't be in the shit they are now if an AK 47 wouldn't have been so easy to buy. Plus, a black market CAN be erradicated.

What exactly are you talking about, BE??? The French Revolution ended up in *democracy*?? The Russian revolution ended up in *democracy*??

Well, I'm certain a revolution in France ended up in a democracy, look at where they are today. Plus, even if the first and second revolution didn't lead to a right government, it was just a matter of time before it hapened. They where on the right track, it was just a matter of "revolutions", if you will.

As for Russia, it can be used as an exemple, because they are different people from us, and they where especialy 100 years ago. What I mean by that is that the average russian was either a simple uneducated "moujik', or a greedy, self-centered aristocrat. Hardly the kind of folk who would fight for "rights" they couldn't comprehend, and even didn't tough existed. Thats why it ended up in a dictatorship.

History has proven that the people who use guns and violence in order to overthrow their legally elected government were, are and will always be fascists

At the exception of the american revolution, the french revolutions, and the english revolution of 1209, which leaded to the Magna Carta. The latest two armed revolution didn't creat true democratic governments right away, but it was a start, they where on the right track.

[Galatia]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

At the exception of the american revolution, the french revolutions, and the english revolution of 1209, which leaded to the Magna Carta.

None of the revolutions you are talking about was against a legally elected government. There is no such thing in the History of mankind - so far. Therefore the idea of the people having guns in order to protect themselves against the government they voted for is absolutely ridiculus and it only means one thing: that some people make LOTS of money because some other people are idiots.

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by Galatia

that some people make LOTS of money because some other people are idiots.

That's a pretty big jump in logic. Mind elaborating?

[Galatia]

It is a pretty big jump in logic only for those who ignore the fact that Gun trading is the most profitable trade in the world. The Second Amendment is just an excuse. The truth is that its all about the economy (stupid)

[B~E]

Originally Posted by Galatia

Therefore the idea of the people having guns in order to protect themselves against the government they voted for is absolutely ridiculus and it only means one thing: that some people make LOTS of money because some other people are idiots.

Your whole logic is based on the fact that democracies can't arm their own people. Now, your logic is pretty good, assuming that democracies relly are armless.
But I'm certain that, and you've got to agree on me with this, if we think a litle bit, we could make up an hypotetic situation where the democratic government turn so awry that it need to be removed trough a revolution. And if such a terrible situation is even remotly possible, your logic becomes void, because gunsmay be needed.

But I just cant really think of an exemple for now, at the exeption of a democracy becoming a plutocracy, whihc is not far from really, may I had.

Originally Posted by Galatia

It is a pretty big jump in logic only for those who ignore the fact that Gun trading is the most profitable trade in the world. The Second Amendment is just an excuse. The truth is that its all about the economy (stupid)

Actualy, I'm certain that if gun weren't such a big industry in the US, it would be much, much more restricted, at the image of other civilised society.

[Galatia]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

we could make up an hypotetic situation where the democratic government turn so awry that it need to be removed trough a revolution.

This is not possible, BE. The structure of democracy doesnt allow such hyopthetical situations. What will they do with the opposition? Will they kill them all? Who will kill them? The Army? The Police? And how will they force the Army and the Police to kill everyone else???

You cant find any example of a democracy gone awry because it cant happen. You can only find the opposite: Stupid people with guns - the Army usualy, led by fascist leaders/generals - could overthrow democracies like it happened in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc. A Coup d' Etat attempt happened in Spain during the 1980's but democracy there was so strong (and their King so democratic) that it failed almost instantly.

As for guns in civilized societies, it has nothing to do with USA. Gun bearing is illegal all over Europe not because they are free in USA but because they have no place in a civilized society.

[KillThePreppies]

I have multiple shotguns, including a Spaz Forelli, seventeen rifles, four assault rifles, twenty handguns, and, just for the hell of it, a throwing axe. Do I use them? No. Are they going to be taken from me? Hell no! It's your constitutional right to bear arms.

[thebastardsword]

and if you wanted to kill mass ammounts of people, you could find better ways