"A Brief History of America"

[chuyler1]

My idea of relaxation doesn't include stocking a cabinet full guns...just in case.

I think our idea of a criminal, and who poses a great threat to society needs to be redefined, or perhaps enforced more stricty. There must be away to reduce the number of guns that make it into the hands of criminals.

For example, people who sell guns. Many of them do background checks and follow the rules...but some of them are out for the quick buck. All licensed gun sellers should be audited on a regular basis to make sure the guns they are selling are going to licensed people and not being sold to people on the street. This can't be done with every gun, but a closer look at specific guns that are popular among criminals will weed out the bad gun sellers...who are criminals for doing this.

 

[laracroft]

"Peace through superior firepower".

does anyone else think this is an oxymoron

I thought so too...but who am I to judge. Men..why does it always have to be about who has the bigger "gun". lol (jk)

 

[nmaino]

Quoted by cbcbd:

In case you don't know, the entire (most of it at least, eg Canada) world watches the same "how-to" movies you're talking about. In other countries people are even exposed to more violence and brutal details in the news than we are in this country.

What is your point?

 

[TexP5]

Most of you are basing your ideas on high school level knowledge without even giving thought to other factors that contributed to the creation of the Constitution in 1776. Before you make such comments, you have to know what you are talking about, which is wanting badly when people on this board try to pretend that they know American History.

People who live in glass houses...The United States Constitution was written in 1787 and too keffect after it was ratified by a sufficient number of states on June 21, 1788.

 

[loj68]

There must be away to reduce the number of guns that make it into the hands of criminals.

Agreed.....but it shouldn't involve disarming law abiding citizens.

For example, people who sell guns. Many of them do background checks and follow the rules...but some of them are out for the quick buck. All licensed gun sellers should be audited on a regular basis to make sure the guns they are selling are going to licensed people and not being sold to people on the street. This can't be done with every gun, but a closer look at specific guns that are popular among criminals will weed out the bad gun sellers...who are criminals for doing this.

This is already done.......and these guys are not the problem.....statistics show that over 60% of violent gun crimes are committed with stolen guns. Again, we need to look at criminals....not legal gun owners....not legal and licensed gun shops.....but criminals who steal and kill people. Those who want to restrict gun ownership with more laws are directing their efforts towards legal gun owners who are not part of this problem.

 

[cbcbd]

What is your point?

Who ever said that creating more gun laws is not going to do anything to lower crime rates is correct. Gun owners who maintain guns legally are following the law. It is all the P-Diddy, crack head jackasses out there who are using illegal guns to perform illegal acts. If anyone is to blame in the rise of violence and gun violence it is the producers/actors/directors in Hollywood who do nothing but make "how-to" movies about different ways to commit crimes, disrespect the law (and its officers) and tear down the greatness that is the United States of America.

That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the "sensability" of legal gun owners.

I was just responding to what you said above, where you say "if anyone is to blame... ... it is the producers/actors/directors in Hollywood".

I'm just saying that people in other countries watch the same things we watch here and are exposed to much more violence on TV. You can't say that the reason violence rose in the US is because of Hollywood because then almost every country in the world would see a rise in violence because of TV or movies (Hollywood) - probably even a higher one.
US TV/movies are tame, it's not the blame for our rise in violence, that's the point of my opinion.

 

[chuyler1]

Why don't we use armored cars to transport weapons? Why don't we require gun shops to have vaults like banks do.

 

[TexP5]

loj...i'm not busting your chops here but damn, can't you see the logic here??? You say most guns used in crimes are stolen. If we could decrease the number of guns available to "legal owners" there would be fewer guns around for criminals to steal! It's that simple.

I know that means people who want to hunt and target shoot etc. will be inconvenienced but there's an upside to inconveniencing those folks.

 

[loj68]

loj...i'm not busting your chops here but damn, can't you see the logic here??? You say most guns used in crimes are stolen. If we could decrease the number of guns available to "legal owners" there would be fewer guns around for criminals to steal! It's that simple.

I know that means people who want to hunt and target shoot etc. will be inconvenienced but there's an upside to inconveniencing those folks.

that logic makes no sense.....I mean getting rid of cars would stop car theft too......and a good number of people die during those high speed chases with car thieves.

 

[cbcbd]

that logic makes no sense.....I mean getting rid of cars would stop car theft too......and a good number of people die during those high speed chases with car thieves.

I think comparing guns to cars makes no sense.

The primary purpose of cars is not to kill, and even though it can accomplish that, people do try very hard to prevent that from happening.

Thieves don't steal cars so they can kill someone with it (they'll steal a gun for that) and go on high speed chases that endanger people's lives (if they want to endanger people's lives they'll steal/buy a gun).

Thieves that steal a gun are probably stealing it in order to use that as a physical threat in a crime or to just plainly kill someone. Criminals don't steal guns because they need a gun to hunt deer or shoot at the range.

guns != cars

use something else

 

[TexP5]

It makes perfect sense to anyone who does not equate cars and guns...Cars provide a service that modern society needs to function correctly. We can't live in our cities or transport our goods without motor vehicles.

Guns are not necessary to the basic functioning of modern civilization. Thos few people who live in the boonies and might be attacked by bears can keep their guns. But in Houston for instance, the only reason to own a gun is for entertainment or crime.

 

[nmaino]

My bad, 1787. Get too fired up sometimes.

So by the logic that is being argued here, ALL gun owners own their respective guns for only two purposes: to kill and to shoot at targets. And these gun owners are robbed every so often when a criminal feels the need to "off" someone. This makes no sense at all.

I'm a gun owner. I have never shot the gun that I own because it has historical and sedimental value. I have never been robbed. So using your logic, where does this place me in the scheme of things? Should my gun (and my families) be taken from me by the state and destroyed because they "might" fall into the hands of some crazy crook who is going to use my gun to kill a person? No way. I have the right, given to me in the Bill of Rights to own, maintain and use a gun.

My gun provides a service as well: to protect my family from thieves and the government.

 

[cbcbd]

So by the logic that is being argued here, ALL gun owners own their respective guns for only two purposes: to kill and to shoot at targets. And these gun owners are robbed every so often when a criminal feels the need to "off" someone. This makes no sense at all.

I'm a gun owner. I have never shot the gun that I own because it has historical and sedimental value. I have never been robbed. So using your logic, where does this place me in the scheme of things? Should my gun (and my families) be taken from me by the state and destroyed because they "might" fall into the hands of some crazy crook who is going to use my gun to kill a person? No way.

I'm not really responding to this since I don't think taking away all guns is really the answer but...

I have the right, given to me in the Bill of Rights to own, maintain and use a gun.

My gun provides a service as well: to protect my family from thieves and the government.

...for some reason those last two statements you made are very funny (well, not that funny) because they show two different things. First you're backing your owning a gun by saying with pride that you have a right, given to you by the Bill of Rights (aka. the government). And then you proceed to say that you need guns in order to protect your family from the government? Are you part of one of those militia groups that believe that the government is after total control? - I'm not trying to flame, just trying to understand if you were completely serious with that "protect myself from the government" statement.

And no one is saying that a gun doesn't provide a service. Just that it's intended use/service is to kill. You could say that hunting an animal with a gun is a service. That's not the point, the point is that the primary function of a gun is to shoot things, be it a person or a target.
In your case it's being used in case some thief of Dubya breaks into your house. Yes, that is a service, but it doesn't matter since the goal of having the weapon is in case you have to use it, and by using it means shooting someone and usually you'd shoot to kill.

 

[nmaino]

No problem. I do not want to flame either. I'm very serious. That was one of the ideas that went into the forming of the Second Amendment. If the government takes too much control from the citizens of the United States, those citizens have a right to over throw that government and replace it with another one.

I think that you should answer my other question. If not getting rid of all guns, what is the answer? Better question, is there even an answer?

 

[TexP5]

I have the right, given to me in the Bill of Rights to own, maintain and use a gun.

Again, for the historically and linguistically impaired...The Second Amendment was written in a very specific time period by men with experiences and world views very different from modern America. The Constitution of the United States is a document made for the development of a democratic society and it can be changed when that democratic society evolves.

It is not the word of God, it is not immutable, and it was not intended to be taken literally and applied to all things forever. A big part of the American revolutionary argument was that governmental rules applicable in one place and time, were not necessarily valid in another place and time. The Constitution is a framework upon which to build a democratic society, not a container to forever constrict the development of that society or freeze it in a 1787 interpretation of how the world works.

Added to those historical constructs is the actual language of the amendment which is the most misquoted and misapplied piece of language ever. Gun lobbyists always overlook the opening phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." this means that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution within the framework of a well regulated militia.

In 1787 this militia required a high percentage of participation in a country with a very small popultion. In 2003 this is not true. We have a militia, the National Guard, which is a group of citizen soldiers exactly like what the Second Amendment intended. We are no longer dependent on individual gun ownership to maintain that militia and I, for one, am happy to trust the National Guard with my safety.

If need arose for mass participation alongside the National Guard I would gladly join them. I would also depend on our vast and modern military industrial complex to be able to provide me with a weapon in a very brief period of time. I do not need to keep a gun under my bed in order to join the militia in the defense of our country.

The Second Amendment is an anachronism. A literal interpretation of that amendment has no place in a modern society.

That's all for me on this one...those of you who fear an attack from the government or feel the need to shoot turkeys for fun, knock yourselves out. But don't act as if god gave you the right to own a gun and that anyone who disagrees with gun ownership is anti-American. Chances are that god wouldn't want us shooting either each other or his animals. God, the Founding Fathers and Michael Moore would probably all agree that we need to think for ourselves much more and follow blindly much less.

Amen

 

[cbcbd]

No problem. I do not want to flame either. I'm very serious. That was one of the ideas that went into the forming of the Second Amendment. If the government takes too much control from the citizens of the United States, those citizens have a right to over throw that government and replace it with another one.

Now that I know what you're saying, here's my opinion:

Ok, I just don't think that the way things work today. The Bill of Rights was written with the revolution in mind - keeping the King of England out of our faces, right. Our government was not set up so if a politician starts abusing his power we all get our guns and go force him out of office.
That's why we have a system of check and balances and the reason why we can actually impeach a leader! Senators don't carry guns just in case they need to stop the president from abusing his power.

If you say that you need your gun in case the entire army happens to turn against civilians, negating any of their rights as an American, than I think that is a very long stretch. Many American's are ignorant, but I don't think it'll get to that extent.

I think that you should answer my other question. If not getting rid of all guns, what is the answer? Better question, is there even an answer?

I would like to answer it, but I don't have the answer. I would like to say that I'm anti guns (in general I am), but I don't think banning guns will really solve the problem. Like Moore, I do think it has more to do with the American mentality than with laws and regulations.

 

[cbcbd]

Added to those historical constructs is the actual language of the amendment which is the most misquoted and misapplied piece of language ever.

Not to leave the subject, but I think the bible would probably be more misquoted and misapplied. Anyway, carry on


nice post, btw