Do you think that the US should change the constitution to ban firearms?

[Warbie]

But the fact that there are so many weapons in the US must make it easier for criminals to get hold of them (be they stolen, or just happened to slip through the cracks in gun licensing)

You want a situation where noone, including the criminals, have firearms (which, while never entirely the case, is almost true in many countries)

There are places in the world where it is safer to not carry weapons.

 

[The Monkey]

You know, I just relized. This is my 100th thread! :cheers:

 

[RZAL]

You've already given them away and nobody started shooting congressmen or The Prez, so I think it's safe to say that argument is fruitless.

First of all:

Kangy, please tell me which rights I have given away?

I actually have more rights today than I did 20- 30 years ago.

Secondly:

"The Declaration of the thirteen united* States of America", is definitely not my argument. As I recall, a group of Natural Law philosophers (our founding fathers) wrote it not only to the King of England, but also as an explanation to the world for why the Colonies wanted their independents. These men were well educated and heavily influenced by John Locke and John Calvin to name a few.

To make this statement to the king of the strongest country in the world was nothing less than tantamount to signing their own death warrant. The founding fathers/ colonist were well aware this, and were willing to lay down their lives for the fundamental beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Bill of Rights.

Might I remind the world, that after the thirteen united* States of America won its independence the Revolution Era swept across Europe. King, Louis XVI of France was beheaded and to prevent the same thing from happening in England, King George decided to give Parliament more power. No longer did the whims of a king dictate policy to the people, a new era was born.

Further more, American sensationalism was first introduced to Europe as a means of promoting commerce. This was the first time in history that common people could own land and opportunities were said to unlimited. Stories of the Wild West ran rampant, as Europe was eager to hear news of New World.

Of course, matters weren’t helped when the colonial colonies stood up to the awe-powerful king, and did so for the whole world to see. Yes America is definitely based on self-reliance, an ideal that was never fully accepted in Europe. America has and will always be sensationalized, just like this gun issue has or any other issue concerning America. You think Europe would eventually realize that we are independent and self reliant, it’s not in our nature to ask for permission from the old world or seek its approval.

This isn’t just about guns; it’s about protecting God given rights.

One last note:
Why in the world would I want to shoot a Congressman or the Prez. Especially since it’s been decades since we have had a strong Administration who supports Traditional American Values? Besides, Democracy works and the Federal Government is but a necessary evil.

The Patriot

 

[Kangy]

Ha harr.

How about The Patriot Act? That's pretty much infringing on the most basic of rights.

 

[RZAL]

Ha harr.

How about The Patriot Act? That's pretty much infringing on the most basic of rights.

Has it? I mean have you been picked up for questioning, arrested, has the government conducted sneak peep searches into your private effects?

Before you answer that let me say I know where you are coming from...and I somewhat agree.

Now having said that, let me first point out that this Bill was rushed into law under extreme circumstances. It was meant as a make you feel better law. However, I agree.. it can, and will be abused.

Point (1)

In a true state of liberty, we would have no laws what so ever. "The nature of man is evil", we would have Anarchy.

For man to form Societies we must give up some of our liberties for the safety of the community. All people benifit...

Liberties/safety is a balancing act. It sways back and fourth depending on the circumstances (real or unreal as they may be).

Point (2)

"Freedom isn't free"

A state patrolman stops a speeding motorist. The patrolman walks over to the driver and for no good reason hits the driver on the head with his nightstick. The driver replies, "you cant do that!" The patrolman smiles and hits him again. A few days later the driver goes to court with two big knots on his head. He walks up to the judge, points to the state patrolman and says; "your honor he can't hit me on the head". The judge takes one look at him and replies, "by the looks of your head he not only could but did".

The point is, just because something illegal or legal doesn't stop people (including the government) from doing what they want.

Laws don't stop crime or prevent it, they are just a legal tools used for administering justice.

Point (3)

The US Supreme Court's main function is interpreting the US Constitution. This court has the power to rule on all legislative acts along with lower court rulings (case law) unconstitutional (Judicial Review).They are the last court of reprieve ie; the supreme law of the land.

In my opinion, certain parts of the Patriot Act are clearly unconstitutional. There is a lot of case law dealing with 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights. I just can't see the court overruling 30 years of discussions to accommodate this one law.

Just to let you know, it’s not uncommon for legislative bodies to pass unconstitutional laws. Look at the State of Texas; several years back they passed several laws making it illegal to burn the American flag. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, the state ok, we will pass another law, The court said its unconstitutional, The State said ok we will pass yet a 3rd law.. The court said pass all the laws you want, but we have already told you its unconstitutional. The law books are full of these kinds of cases.

Trust me, the US Supreme Court rule on these issues the same as they always have.

I know I’m long winded and I’m only giving you a nutshell approach, but trust me. Do some research and I’m sure you’ll agree, I have to go for now-work and all.
I didn’t have time to proof read, hope its ok.

The Patriot

 

[CptStern]

well said RZAL (I dont agree with everything but it's nice to see someone of the opposite political fence who doesnt think unilaterally when it comes to politics), and welcome to the boards

 

[Tr0n]

Yes America is definitely based on self-reliance, an ideal that was never fully accepted in Europe. America has and will always be sensationalized, just like this gun issue has or any other issue concerning America. You think Europe would eventually realize that we are independent and self reliant, it’s not in our nature to ask for permission from the old world or seek its approval.

Well...you took the words right out of my mouth. :thumbs:

 

[RZAL]

well said RZAL (I dont agree with everything but it's nice to see someone of the opposite political fence who doesnt think unilaterally when it comes to politics), and welcome to the boards

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Isn't it great that we can disagree about our beliefs-thats part of what makes the United States of America so special. We can be individuals and openly express our ideals, no cookie cutter clones here.

Who says where on the oppisite side of the fence? I bet you take me for a die hard Republican...Wrong!!! I'm an American, I love my country unconditionaly, infact I have to agree with George Washington and say that I don't believe in political parties, but thats another thread.

The Patriot

 

[Raziaar]

Isn't it great that we can disagree about our beliefs-thats part of what makes the United States of America so special. We can be individuals and openly express our ideals, no cookie cutter clones here.

Well, except Stern isn't from the states, and I don't think he finds the states special in any way. I've never heard him praising it in any way, shape or form, but I could be wrong. He may think we do indeed have true freedom, or he may just think that we're just slaves to our government who think we have freedom(Which is what I think he believes). But, I guess he could prove me wrong!

 

[CptStern]

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Isn't it great that we can disagree about our beliefs-thats part of what makes the United States of America so special. We can be individuals and openly express our ideals, no cookie cutter clones here.

Who says where on the oppisite side of the fence? I bet you take me for a die hard Republican...Wrong!!! I'm an American, I love my country unconditionaly, infact I have to agree with George Washington and say that I don't believe in political parties, but thats another thread.

The Patriot

heh sorry ...it's just that the phrase "The Patriot" has a bit of a bad reputation here parts ..mostly due to some thickheadness on both sides but what they hey! welcome aboard

 

[el Chi]

It is, think about it, all the civilians will be charged over possession over a gun, and all the gangsters and criminals will not.

then the people who are charged COULD be robbed that night and get shot, and have no gun of thier own to protect themselves.

No, what you're talking about is nonsense. Yes, law-abiding people will probably not have guns and yes it's possible that some criminals may have guns. But if you think about it, that's just the same as the UK and, whilst gun crime is on the rise, it's not as if lots and lots of people are being shot randomly every day.
Just think about how it is in this country. The main threat from a ban on fire arms in the US is the fact that it would start a huge uprising and massive civil unrest.

Well, except Stern isn't from the states, and I don't think he finds the states special in any way. I've never heard him praising it in any way, shape or form, but I could be wrong. He may think we do indeed have true freedom, or he may just think that we're just slaves to our government who think we have freedom(Which is what I think he believes). But, I guess he could prove me wrong!

Did it ever occur to you - and to many others actually - that Stern might have very similar views to the ones that he currently has on such things as the US's gun laws/foreign policy/medical system/etc. if he was an American citizen?

 

[Raziaar]

Did it ever occur to you - and to many others actually - that Stern might have very similar views to the ones that he currently has on such things as the US's gun laws/foreign policy/medical system/etc. if he was an American citizen?

I never questioned that. Me and Stern share alot of views, but we differ on many more too. That's how it is here in the states. No two people are for all the same things and are against all the same things too, from what i've seen.

 

[el Chi]

I never questioned that. Me and Stern share alot of views, but we differ on many more too. That's how it is here in the states. No two people are for all the same things and are against all the same things too, from what i've seen.

Fair do's. It's just something that's crossed my mind from time to time but I've never really voiced it (well, once). In fairness it applies far less to you than it does to, let's say, seinfeldrules or gh0st.

 

[Raziaar]

Fair do's. It's just something that's crossed my mind from time to time but I've never really voiced it (well, once). In fairness it applies far less to you than it does to, let's say, seinfeldrules or gh0st.

What do you mean by that? Yeah, I should probably normally get it easily, but its 7:35 AM here and I haven't gotten any sleep. Little low on the mental capacity right now.

 

[el Chi]

What do you mean by that? Yeah, I should probably normally get it easily, but its 7:35 AM here and I haven't gotten any sleep. Little low on the mental capacity right now.

Oh no no no - I didn't mean that insultingly, so sorry if it seemed that way. What I meant was thatmy statement applied to that one post of yours whereas it applies to loads of seinfeldrules's and gh0st's responses to Stern.
Get some sleep mate

 

[KoreBolteR]

There is very little gun crime in europe. The ban on firearms is working right now.

If anything we should make the penalty for having a weapon so harsh that only the most die hard crim will even consider carrying one. Start putting ppl away for many years at a time for simply having a gun in their possession and you'll soon see gun crime drop. Make them available to everyone and it's far more likely the opposite will be the case.

If someone feels they need a firearm to be safe they're either deluded, or living in a very sorry place :/

but then the prisons will ge too overcrowded.

 

[el Chi]

So your solution is what exactly?

 

[KoreBolteR]

keep banning guns in Europe,
Keep having guns in USA,
itll be too hard retreaving a gun off all the people in USA, then people will secretly own one illegaly, which then sounds like smoking pot illegaly. "if things are made illegal, people want them more"

 

[CptStern]

took the words out of my mouth el chi, thanks

I dont think my viewpoint would change all that much if I was american

 

[KoreBolteR]

i see no reply for mine hehe
does that mean im right?

 

[el Chi]

took the words out of my mouth el chi, thanks

I dont think my viewpoint would change all that much if I was american

Any time, Cap'n

 

[The Monkey]

It was good that I made the poll so that you could see the difference between americans and non-americans. I understand that there's no right or wrong in this issue, and that europeans actaully have nothing to do with this at all, but no one can deny that if firearms would be banned, then the number of murders would be lower. But of course, your right to own a gun is probably as obvious to you as your right to say what you want etc.

 

[RZAL]

The main threat from a ban on fire arms in the US is the fact that it would start a huge uprising and massive civil unrest.

El Chi, you brought up a very interesting point concerning gun bans and civil unrest in the US.

For those who don’t understand take a look at a few examples:

During the early 1990 ATF and FBI start cracking down on weapon violations, partly do to the "War on Drug". Talk of a weapons ban spread through the US. Militias started re-forming, some people went in to isolation, and others went on the offensive.

1992, Ruby Ridge
1993, The siege at Waco Texas
1994, Assault Weapons Ban
1995, The Oklahoma City Bombing
1996, Bombing at the Olympics,
1997, Abortion clinic bombings
1997, Bombing of an Atlanta gay and lesbian nightclub
1998, Abortion clinic bombings
2004, Assault Weapon Ban Ended

I'm sure I missed a few.


The Patriot

 

[jverne]

The answer is quite simple!

Make guns and ammo very, very expensive (that suits the government) and force the owner to have a very difficult test about guns and safety before getting the licence to posses one AND the owner must constantly report about shootings, ammo suplies, weapon condition,... (makes the people happy)!

sportsman, hunters and alike have less demands and more privileges, but they must follow their "profession duties" (???...i mean, train, hunt,...)

policeman and soldiers out of duty pretty much the same as hunters, sportsman,...

severe punisments if breaking these rules!

-------------------------------------

basicaly that would prevent every nutjob to own a gun!


P.S. its sort of like in our country, so you have to be very determinated if you want own a gun!

P.S. #2 a gun is like a car, if you drive carefuly theres a smaller chanse you'll kill someone, if you are careless theres a big chanse, if you intentionaly run over someone, than you'll get caught and trialed sooner or later! but nobody is banning cars they just make them verry expensive to own!! simple

 

[el Chi]

Well, that certainly made for a very funny Chris Rock skit, but of course in reality it wouldn't properly work and in any case it'd probably lead to anti-government violence.

 

[jverne]

Well, that certainly made for a very funny Chris Rock skit, but of course in reality it wouldn't properly work and in any case it'd probably lead to anti-government violence.

we just got a new traffic punisment system where like just pissing on the road cost you 50 euros, but do you see anti-government violence??? NNNOOO!

 

[RZAL]

we just got a new traffic punisment system where like just pissing on the road cost you 50 euros, but do you see anti-government violence??? NNNOOO!

You guys just don't get it....Oh brother why do I even try.

Next thread : Do you think the US should change the Constitution to allow pissing on the road?

One last thought, deterrence is inefficient.

 

[el Chi]

we just got a new traffic punisment system where like just pissing on the road cost you 50 euros, but do you see anti-government violence??? NNNOOO!

Erm you realise how that isn't even approaching on the same thing whatsoever. At all.
Is there a part of your constitution that, whilst completely out-dated, excuses people to piss on the roads should they so choose?

 

[firemachine69]

Not anymore! North Carolina is a bit above Louisiana, though, so you're free to call me a Yank

I think they should be banned, and I'm from the South... which means my opinion is not too popular where I live.

Honestly, I think that if a criminal has a gun and breaks into the house, you shouldn't draw a gun on him, because that will just make him want to shoot you before you shoot him. If someone pointed a gun at me and asked for all my money, I'd give him my wallet and put my hands up.

One to the chest and two to the head for good measure is my welcome to those un-welcome.

Greetings from Canada!

 

[jverne]

Erm you realise how that isn't even approaching on the same thing whatsoever. At all.
Is there a part of your constitution that, whilst completely out-dated, excuses people to piss on the roads should they so choose?

well the pissing part isn't true, but the tickets are just as severe and stupid like 50 euros for driving 10km/h (6 mph) faster than the limit!!

why would there be protests if arms would be difficulter to get?? if you really care fo your family and want to protect them, then you'll go trough all this trouble!! and besides, for protection you don't need anything bigger than an ordinary 9mm handgun, not like most of americans who get an M-16!!!! that is a weapon for the battelfield!! the problem is that most of you just use the excuse "defend family" to get a gun for your own pleasure!!! that should not be allowed so easily!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Scoobnfl]

Not anymore! North Carolina is a bit above Louisiana, though, so you're free to call me a Yank

I think they should be banned, and I'm from the South... which means my opinion is not too popular where I live.

Honestly, I think that if a criminal has a gun and breaks into the house, you shouldn't draw a gun on him, because that will just make him want to shoot you before you shoot him. If someone pointed a gun at me and asked for all my money, I'd give him my wallet and put my hands up.

i'm shocked!!!!!!



















not really. what a wimpassed way to live.

 

[Wraith]

lets ban all firearms, and also make it illegal to criticize the government in any way. also who cares about "search warrants", lets just get rid of those.

 

[Scoobnfl]

lets ban all firearms, and also make it illegal to criticize the government in any way. also who cares about "search warrants", lets just get rid of those.

ban firearms and that is what will happen.

we will go from being citizens to subjects.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

not like most of americans who get an M-16!!!!

Your stereotypes are hillarious, because of how outrageous they are.

We cannot even purchase that. Just (and only recently because the ban reached the sunset date) the AR-15.

 

[el Chi]

why would there be protests if arms would be difficulter to get?? if you really care fo your family and want to protect them, then you'll go trough all this trouble!! and besides, for protection you don't need anything bigger than an ordinary 9mm handgun, not like most of americans who get an M-16!!!! that is a weapon for the battelfield!! the problem is that most of you just use the excuse "defend family" to get a gun for your own pleasure!!! that should not be allowed so easily!!!!!!!!!!!

For starters, it'd be much worse than protests, it would be organised violence and sedition.
In the opinions of many in this case it wouldn't be about weapons as such. It's more about the government going too far and stripping people of their basic liberties; the liberty to arm themselves to the teeth.
People are, surprisingly, a bit more relaxed about the government trying slowly to strip the people of other basic rights and freedoms, but hey - that's a whole other discussion

 

[GiaOmerta]

I prefer the AK-47 over the M-16. Let's face it the Soviet's made a great rifle.

On a more serious note. (I'm serious about the AK-47 being more effective than the M-16.)

When you take away the citizens right to arm themselves all rights fall shortly after. We become slaves to the system.

When you take all the guns away from the citizens who uphold the law, who is left with the guns? The criminals.

The problem isnt guns, it's the damn television.

 

[el Chi]

When you take away the citizens right to arm themselves all rights fall shortly after. We become slaves to the system.
When you take all the guns away from the citizens who uphold the law, who is left with the guns? The criminals.

I find it interesting that a lot of Americans seem to equate gun ownership with stability in society and freedom.
I see no reason why other rights - rights to practise free speech, whatever religion/sexuality/political ideology you deem fit, etc. - should be the next logical step after either very strict gun control or a total banning of home ownership of firearms.
Is it the idea that if the people have no firearms then they cannot opose the government should they overstep the line? That certainly seems to be a factor. As does the "criminals will have lots of guns but decent folk won't" theory.
I'll say this though: In the UK, we aren't allowed firearms (except some shotguns for farming/hunting purposes - not entirely sure on the nitty gritty of it all). In the UK we are not "slaves to the system" - the one does not follow through to the other. It's true that, sadly, gun crime is on the rise. However it's still not as if the city streets are constantly being laid to waste by heavily-armed gangs of criminals.

 

[RZAL]

I find it interesting that a lot of Americans seem to equate gun ownership with stability in society and freedom.
I see no reason why other rights - rights to practise free speech, whatever religion/sexuality/political ideology you deem fit, etc. - should be the next logical step after either very strict gun control or a total banning of home ownership of firearms.
Is it the idea that if the people have no firearms then they cannot opose the government should they overstep the line? That certainly seems to be a factor. As does the "criminals will have lots of guns but decent folk won't" theory.
I'll say this though: In the UK, we aren't allowed firearms (except some shotguns for farming/hunting purposes - not entirely sure on the nitty gritty of it all). In the UK we are not "slaves to the system" - the one does not follow through to the other. It's true that, sadly, gun crime is on the rise. However it's still not as if the city streets are constantly being laid to waste by heavily-armed gangs of criminals.

el Chi

Short and simple answer is Yes. I might also point out that not all Americans feel this way. Then again, many Americans have no concept of how or why the states came about. Those who do have an understanding argue over the intentions and practicality of the constitution.

America was, and still is an experiment in freedom. In the scheme of human history 228 years is not even a drop in the bucket or a spec of sand. The founding fathers reflected on thousands of years of human history when they were drafting this country. They realized the Constitution/ Bill of Rights could never cover every issue, and its clear they intended it to grow with the times. However, to say man is not evil would contradict thousands of years of history. To say man has overcome his weakness in the past 10 years or even 228 years is just naïve. This is why the founders added so many checks and balances including the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

True the US Supreme Court has never recognized it as a personal right. Even so there is overwhelming historical evidence supporting the founder’s intentions and its purpose. In my opinion, (based on a number of documents) it is clear what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. A much stronger argument would be: This right is outdated or it’s a public safety issue.

To many people, including the founding fathers, this right is the last means to protect all of the other rights granted to man.

The Patriot

 

[jverne]

well then wiseguys, tell me how to prevent ereryone to own a gun?

i'm seing this (my) way the best, because both extremes are bad (ban/total liberty) and the middle option would be my way liberal but with high requirements!

 

[RZAL]

well then wiseguys, tell me how to prevent ereryone to own a gun?

i'm seing this (my) way the best, because both extremes are bad (ban/total liberty) and the middle option would be my way liberal but with high requirements!

jverne

I understand what you saying and I believe it’s for a noble cause.

In a perfect world I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately there are people in this world (including governments) which only reason for living is to hunt you down and cause you pain. Don’t believe me.. turn on the news.. if they are not killing each other with guns, its chemicals, knives, clubs, hands or starvation. Its been this way since the beginning of time and will continue until man no longer walks the earth.

Yes, it’s a balance of freedom and safety, and yes regulations can and do help, but if you impose strict regulations on citizens, who’s to say those very regulations could not some day be used against you.

Many governments have already done this (I hate to pick on Germany) but look what Hitler did to the Jews. He regulated arms to the point where only Germans could own them. He then decided to take on Europe and almost succeeded. There are just too many examples through out history.

The bottom line is you can take all the guns away, but crime will still happen.

The question we need to be asking is “what causes crime?”

I’m on your side jverne

The Patriot