'We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.' (Read 567 times)

     

    That's a nice analogy to the first amendment, but it neglects an essential clause in the second amendment: "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," the equivalent of which doesn't appear in the first amendment. Somewhere in the "larger concept" of the second amendment appear notions like security and regulation.

     

    I agree with your argument, but disagree with the end belief. I really hadn't intended to jump in, (and maybe shouldn't anyway), but here goes...

     

    The second amendment does have the statement mentioning "a well regulated militia". I remember asking my high school history teacher about this and here is what I took away from his lecture. I believe that the founding fathers wanted to stay with the militia system for national defense, to 'prevent' any abuse of power by any single leader. This allowed each state's soldiers to be led by their own. So, the actual reference to a "well regulated militia" was to protect the citizens from abuse by the goverment, not from each other. The faults of this system became evident years later preceeding the civil war. I also believe that the civil war started because of that clause... But that is a different argument.

     

    So, in bringing this back to gun control. I feel as if the founding fathers gave everyone the right to bear arms, for their own protection and for the defense of the nation as a whole. This includes self protection from others and protection from any over-reaching of the goverment. One of the biggest issues I see is that many gun owners have a double standard. I grew up learning gun safety from a drunk who spent a week in jail for shooting holes in a police car. His excuse was that he didn't know the gun was loaded. I of course, in my ignorance, never realized that I learned from an idiot. The information he taught was legitimate and sound.

     

    I have since learned the proper way to handle a gun and I have also shown my older daughter how to RESPECT and properly use a gun. I have complete confidence in her and how she handles weapons. So, the root cause of the problem is not the gun, or the type of gun, or the clip size, rounds per minute, range, color, (in the case of Hello Kitty assault rifles), or any other mechanical factor. The issue is the person who chooses to pick up that weapon. PERIOD.

     

    Now, if the goverment required mandatory safety classes, and placed restrictions on people who have been found guilty of violent crimes, drugs, alcohol, or the desire to own Hello Kitty asault rifles, then I would be willing to consider it. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many people don't respect guns.

     

      "... In the meantime, let's deal with mental illness,  poverty, alcoholism, gangs, drug addiction, gun responsibility, and inequities in available education.."

       

      yeah, working effectively on these will take decades....can we disarm them in the meantime, to cut down on the slaughter of innocents?

       

      Unfortunately, I don't think we can.

      What we can do is protect ourselves by living in a location where gun violence is less prevalent.

      2014 Goals:

      #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

      #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

       

      JimR


        The point that the gun v. car folks are making is that both are tools that can have dangerous consequences if used incorrectly--yet, one tool is emotionally debated and vilified while the other is not.

         

        I think we can all agree, that the purpose of a gun, as a tool, is to shot things (targets, animals, people).  That is its main purpose.  The purpose of a car is transportation (humans, goods, etc.).  So the guns vs. cars argument is somewhat flawed to begin with.  I really do not have a strong opinion either way in terms of gun control, I just think the guns vs. cars argument is rather silly.  Guns vs swords would be better . . . . maybe guns vs guillotines....

         

        The bold point, though, isn't specific to cars at all, it is applicable to virtually anything that people have, use or have access to.  Which is why I'm trying to get specific reasoning for bring cars in [particular into discussions regarding guns.

         

        And I agree that it's silly to do it.

          Rev. Jesse Jackson tweeted the following...

           

          Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail.

          — Rev Jesse Jackson Sr (@RevJJackson) August 21, 2013

           

           

          I'm glad he did.  He really couldn't have said anything else, but it's good to know he did speak out against this senseless crime.

          2014 Goals:

          #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

          #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

           


          just a simple cat

             

            That's the question. Can you disarm them? If so, tell us how. Answer your own question. How far are you willing to go to rid the country of guns? Are you willing to go through a war for it? Imprison all of those who refuse to give them up? To see government troops fighting American citizens to take their guns? How long do think it will take to get an amendment passed? Is it doable in a faster time than "decades"?

             

            Go deeper. A brief one sentence reply to the wordy book that I just posted is bit shallow. Lay out your plan for us. Tell us how we can avoid the actual gun battles that will ensue if guns are outlawed.

            My plan is to convince the gun zealots to lay down their arms, and convince them that starting actual gun battles hurts everyone.  I have more faith in folks' basic intelligence than to think a war will erupt.

             

            I  guess as you get more bodacious, you begin to lose more brain cells, because there is a limit to how much magnificence your body can house

              Rev. Jesse Jackson tweeted the following...

               

               

              I'm glad he did.  He really couldn't have said anything else, but it's good to know he did speak out against this senseless crime.

               

              Why are you glad that he did?

                 

                Why are you glad that he did?

                 

                Because I don't want this to become a race issue.

                I'm glad he spoke out against their actions as individuals rather than defending it or having the 1st words spoken by him be a deflection to the issues within the 'poor poverty community' and 'hopeless environment those children grew up in'.

                Although those might be true, I'm glad JJackson said that justice would prevail as his 1st words.

                I'm sure the other points will be brought up soon, though.

                 

                (These boys parents are defending them, and saying they didn't do it).

                2014 Goals:

                #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                 


                Feeling the growl again

                   

                   

                  yeah, working effectively on these will take decades....can we disarm them in the meantime, to cut down on the slaughter of innocents?

                   

                  No.

                   

                  If you make them illegal, you will instantly make felons out of millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans.  Some of them may turn them over, but a very large percentage would not.  Does it serve the public good to imprison large numbers of such people, who otherwise would not have committed any crime and whose weapons would not have been involved in any crimes?

                   

                  Criminals don't obey laws.  They are not going to turn their guns in. Largely, all you will be doing is further disarming the law-abiding populace.  There are millions of illegally owned weapons on the street already, that are hard to get back.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                  ShuffleFaster


                     

                    Inanimate objects don't have intent.  Both are just tools.  What matters is only how they ARE used.  Saying that guns are only intended to shoot things and cars are not is only a backdoor way to try and tie a negative emotional label to firearms.  There is nothing evil about driving home from work....unless you are drunk and hit people...there is nothing evil about shooting...unless you are shooting at people.

                     

                    FWB:

                    "Shouldn't we be working for sensible ways to prevent murder and car crashes?"

                     

                    Absolutely.

                     

                    Don't you mean "...unless you are shooting at GOOD people" Wink

                    jimmyb


                      My plan is to convince the gun zealots to lay down their arms, and convince them that starting actual gun battles hurts everyone.  I have more faith in folks' basic intelligence than to think a war will erupt.

                       

                      Well, you must not live in Georgia. Cool

                      Back in Rhode Island in that Boston metro where I used to live, much easier to convince.

                       

                      You have to consider the probable outcomes of a ban on guns. Civil war is one. States succeeding again is another. An even worse police state than we already have is another. Or maybe everyone just gives them up peacefully, that's possible. But what reality is most probable? If you pay attention to discussions and to what people are saying, I believe it won't be a peaceful transition, and a lot more Americans will end up dead or in prison. I'm not willing to go there, since most of the people who own guns aren't criminals at heart. The underlying problems that I stated in my earlier post have to be the main focus. There will be opposition to social changes in those areas, but the outcomes I stated earlier in this paragraph wouldn't be highly probable.

                      Log    PRs

                         

                        Don't you mean "...unless you are shooting at GOOD people" Wink

                         

                        Nope, there's a difference between anti-gun control people and warmongers

                         

                        MTA: Joking

                        Know thyself.

                         

                          My opinion/feeling may shock others but I have sympathy to those killers. If we think deeply, it is not really a problem within them but the environment and influence they grow up. They are just the products of the social problems which we can not solve. Nobody chooses to grow up with a mental distortion and illness. Any kid becoming a troublemaker is due to either his/her parents' parenting problems, the education problems, or the growing environment problems such as being bullied in school, too much violence presented in TV/movies, false assured prides. They are raised with no self-esteem, no respect to others, no sympathy, no purpose, feeling shut down.

                           

                          The majority of the public agree to lock them up when they make troubles but it will never end. Prisons don't solve the social problems. We can lock 1 million, but we are keeping producing another million.

                          5k - 20:56 (09/12), 7k - 28:40 (11/12), 10k trial - 43:08  (03/13), 42:05 (05/13), FM - 3:09:28 (05/13), HM - 1:28:20 (05/14)

                            ...

                             

                            The point that the gun v. car folks are making is that both are tools that can have dangerous consequences if used incorrectly--yet, one tool is emotionally debated and vilified while the other is not.

                             

                            ...

                             

                            This is a fine debate, but I don't like the gun vs car analogy.  It makes no sense to me.  Yes, guns are cars can both be dangerous, but nearly all Americans would agree that cars are necessary in modern American society. The same unanimity does not exist with guns. Sure, plenty of Americans believe that the unrestricted right to bear arms is a big part of what makes us Americans, but others believe that guns should be severely restricted and should primarily be entrusted to law enforcement and the military.  Most probably have a position somewhere in the middle that allows for some level of background checks and restrictions on military-type weapons.  

                             

                            The gun vs car analogy is not useful because cars are needed to make our economy function.  It makes no sense to even consider a ban  - or severe restriction - on cars.   We are forced to live with the dangerous consequences that cars bring with them.. The same cannot be said for guns.  There are plenty of modern countries in the world that operate fine without widespread gun ownership, but I can't think of any that don't need cars.

                            2013 goals: 800m: 2:20 | mile: 4:59 | 5k: 18:59 | 10k: 39:59 | HM: 1:32 | Marathon: 3:20

                            ShuffleFaster


                              FWIW, I'm not a gun v. car guy...I was just adding some current stats to round out the discussion (and I was teasing about the shooting good people comment--no offense intended to anyone)

                               

                              What I think gets lost sometimes in the debate is the historical context of the writing of the 2nd amendment.

                               

                              Namely, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, we were only about 6 years removed from a bloody war against a tyrannical government.  Consequently, anti-Federalism was running high, and one key reason the Bill of Rights were added was to address those concerns.  It's purpose is not only to guarantee personal liberty, but just as important, to put limits on the role of central government in the affairs of the states and their populations.

                               

                              We don't like to talk about it, but the fact is, a citizenry that can arm itself is much more difficult to be subdued by a government out of control.  The second amendment stands as a key safeguard against that possibility.

                               

                              Furthermore, SCOTUS has opined previously that the right to be arms is a preexisting right, not one that is given by the Constitution.  It has further argued that the main thrust of the 2nd amendment is one of limiting government in this area.  In contrast, the High Court has also held that regulating firearms is well within the Constitution, just as there are limits to this ability.

                               

                              I am not arguing for guns to be owned by criminals or the insane, and an assault rifle in every pot.    I reject anti-authority paranoia and bizarre conspiracy theories.   I love our country, support our government, and respect it's laws.  Frankly, it would make my day job a whole lot easier if there were no guns in America.

                               

                              However, in this day and age of increasing government intrusion into the lives of citizens,  personal liberty becomes even more relevant and should not be unnecessarily abridged, IMHO

                              nolamama


                              CQTM

                                My opinion/feeling may shock others but I have sympathy to those killers. If we think deeply, it is not really a problem within them but the environment and influence they grow up. They are just the products of the social problems which we can not solve. Nobody chooses to grow up with a mental distortion and illness. Any kid becoming a troublemaker is due to either his/her parents' parenting problems, the education problems, or the growing environment problems such as being bullied in school, too much violence presented in TV/movies, false assured prides. They are raised with no self-esteem, no respect to others, no sympathy, no purpose, feeling shut down.

                                 

                                The majority of the public agree to lock them up when they make troubles but it will never end. Prisons don't solve the social problems. We can lock 1 million, but we are keeping producing another million.

                                 

                                I have zero sympathy for those kids, sorry. You can't say that all kids that commit crimes like this are simply a product of bad parenting, bullying or their environment. Some kids have serious mental instabilities/issues and problems that stem from chemical imbalances. There is also the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture. What kinds of traits are you born with versus the way you were raised and how they do they affect each other?  Issues like this are way more complicated than gun control laws and bad parenting.