Second Amendment Reinstated in Washington

[LRH]

So, today I was listening to Fox news radio...for some reason, sometimes I do it just to piss myself off
Anyways, the story about the American Right to Bear Arms being reinstated where it was previously illegal for civilians for 30-something (correct me if I'm wrong) years. Just out of curiousity, what is your opinions on this? I personally think guns are like drugs in the sense that, even if made illegal, people using them for illegal purposes aren't going to buy them legally...so, what the hell's the point? Let em' have their guns. I'm all for background checks, but if someone has a criminal record and they want a gun badly enough, well, they'll probably get one somehow, horrible as it is I realize, coming from a somewhat liberal, that opinion may sound weird, but hey, I'm allowed to swing it to the right every now and again


So what do you think?

[Raggit]

Like most things in our Constitution, the right to bear arms requires responsibility, and the founding fathers may have somewhat counted on us having the intelligence and decency not to totally abuse those rights to the point of actually necessatating their prohibition.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I'm not sure I understand your post.  We've had the right to bear arms and own guns this entire time.  Are you saying they've made it easier to obtain gun licenses than before?  I am also for the right to protect yourself and your family (with lethal force if necessary), and I find anti-gun arguments obtuse at best.  There will always be people who buy guns as a status symbol or to commit crimes, but there are also many people who buy them only for protection or for sports (legal hunting, target shooting).  As a society we have to be a bit more mature than if we were a teacher who caught a kid misusing a toy so we took it away from everyone.  This works in small, localized conditions but hardly applies to millions of people.  It's all about exercising common sense with your rights.

[Vince Twelve]

What he's referring to, ProgZ, is the Supreme Court's recent decision that the ban of handguns that has been in place in Washington DC for some time is to be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hI_391ceS32bZUKVLu39ejwty3Ew

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Ah, good show.  I'd rather they focused their efforts on getting rid of the Fed, though.

[Evil]

I've had this talk many times before with friends that collect guns. I think everyone should have the right, but under very strict background checks. In the state of Iowa (where I live) there are some CRAZY rules.

You must be 21 to purchase a handgun. There is a waiting period and a complete background check. Sounds good right?

If you are given a handgun as a gift, as long as you are 18, you can own and operate it, as long as it is registered to you.

However, at 18, you can walk into a store, buy an assault rifle, and walk out the door without a waiting period.

Also, all guns are registered to your name and address. But not the exact gun. Some states require you register the serial number to your name and in some cases, they take fired rounds to keep on record. But in the state of Iowa, you just have to prove you own a weapon of a certain caliber and are not required to provide a serial number.

There are some other silly rules too. It's just crazy how they say they are trying to be more strict on gun control, but there are so many loopholes.

[Makeout Patrol]

However, at 18, you can walk into a store, buy an assault rifle, and walk out the door without a waiting period.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Sure, you can do a lot more damage with an assault rifle, but who's going to use an assault rifle during a crime? You're going to need to get to and from the scene inconspicuously, and an assault rifle is anything but inconspicuous; a handgun, on the other hand, isn't suited to anything other than law enforcement, crime, and carrying around just in case you happen to get into a situation in which WHOOPS, you need to kill somebody!


My views on guns are that there's no reason for the average citizen to be allowed to own a functional firearm. If you want to collect guns, take out their firing pins. If you want to shoot guns, go to a shooting range. Unfortunately the culture in the States is that all of the criminals already have them and all of the average folk feel like they need them for their own safety. There should be a complete registry, and if you're found with a gun that isn't registered, there should be an extremely stiff penalty. Furthermore, you should have to complete an accredited safety course to own or operate firearms.

I don't think that the second amendment prevents these sorts of things since it's pretty clear in my view that the right to bear arms is not granted to everybody - just "well-regulated militias." Everybody seems to forget the first half of that particular amendment.

[Andail]

and I find anti-gun arguments obtuse at best.  There will always be people who buy guns as a status symbol or to commit crimes, but there are also many people who buy them only for protection or for sports (legal hunting, target shooting).  As a society we have to be a bit more mature than if we were a teacher who caught a kid misusing a toy so we took it away from everyone.  This works in small, localized conditions but hardly applies to millions of people.  It's all about exercising common sense with your rights.

What are you doing here, Progzy, flamebaiting?
Sweden has strict gun laws and it works well for us. Do you sincerely believe that all arguments that are anti-gun are "obtuse at best"?

I noticed from your other thread about nationalised health care (which by the way works for us as well; 20 bucks for a surgical operation regardless of complexity, and in return we have slightly longer waiting times) that you're out on a right-wing soap-boxing spree, but don't overdo it.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I'm not saying that countries who choose not to have guns are wrong, but saying it's not right for people to own them is, particularly in America where it is one of the foundations of Constitutional Law.  As for socialist-brand health care, I could point you to books on the subject but what would be the point?  It wouldn't influence your opinion because nobody on the internet can convince anyone of anything (except that your opinion in their eyes is invalid).

[Andail]

This isn't so much about if you're right or wrong, Progzmax, it's more about the way you present your case.
Try to understand that not all of your opinions are facts.

[Pumaman]

What he's referring to, ProgZ, is the Supreme Court's recent decision that the ban of handguns that has been in place in Washington DC for some time is to be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

I'm not convinced about whether strict gun control laws actually work -- here in the UK they are very strict but there are still people being shot dead on a daily basis, so they don't seem to be very effective. I would tend to agree that criminals will get hold of guns whatever the law says, and the only thing you change by changing the law is whether ordinary law-abiding citizens can own a gun.

As for socialist-brand health care, I could point you to books on the subject but what would be the point?  It wouldn't influence your opinion because nobody on the internet can convince anyone of anything (except that your opinion in their eyes is invalid).

This is true, and generally the health care, gun crime and religion arguments can never be won. One thing I would say about nationalised health care is that once you go there, you can never go back -- no government would dare to try and take away an existing healthcare system from its electorate.

But if you haven't lived with such a system, you're bound to be skeptical --it was the same in the UK before they introduced the NHS. I would however challenge you to watch Sicko and defend the practices of the health insurance companies depicted there.

[Vince Twelve]

Strict gun control apparently works here in Japan.  All guns are banned with very few exceptions.  Even if you manage to get through the lengthy certification required to own a hunting rifle (the only type of firearm possible to legally obtain in Japan) you cannot hand it to someone else, even to hold.  Holding a gun is illegal.

Every year, there are just a tiny number of violent gun crimes in the whole country, and these are almost always organized crime gangs committing violence against other organized crime gangs.

Heck, even swords are illegal here.

Just a few weeks ago, a young adult decided to run his truck through a crowd of people, and then hop out and begin stabbing everyone he could reach with a very long (pushing the legal limit) knife before he was subdued.  He managed to kill seven people.  (The media of course blamed this on video games.)  Afterwords, politicians were talking about making these knifes illegal across the country.

Strict, yes, but it certainly seems to be working.  (Of course it begs the question if the strict laws are to blame for the low violence rate or if it's some other cultural factor, or both.)  These kinds of regulation would certainly not work in America, since you'd have to get all the guns out first, which would never happen.  Japan is, however, able to stop the trafficking of weapons for the most part.  One of the advantages of being a relatively small island nation, I reckon.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

This is true, and generally the health care, gun crime and religion arguments can never be won. One thing I would say about nationalised health care is that once you go there, you can never go back -- no government would dare to try and take away an existing healthcare system from its electorate.

And I agree 100% with this.

I'm not condemning the UK for a system that's been in place for so long that they don't really remember an alternative, but the more you read on the subject the more you see that competition in the medical industry would result in faster, better quality healthcare than a standardized system (or the current US system of special interests, for that matter).  Note that I'm not saying we actually have this sort of system in America .  Not yet, anyway.

Try to understand that not all of your opinions are facts.

As long as you try to understand that some opinions are based on sound research and reading a variety of views on a subject.

Japan is, however, able to stop the trafficking of weapons for the most part.

I'd cite this as the paramount reason for the lack of gun violence, really.  As long as America has open borders they could never succeed with this sort of approach, and our laws make it unconstitutional to do so, anyway .

[Nacho]

The problem here is that it might not be a "correct" answer... not a 100% correct "position" for restrictive laws toward guns, not one for health care...

Do criminal get guns in countries with restrictions? Sure...
Is the level of accidents with guns in countries without restrictive laws HUGE compared with the countries that do have restrictive laws? Sure, again...

Same with national care system. Here the level of foreign people is 6%. Percentage of foreig people in the Doctor' s clinic? 80%. Are foreign citizens 14 times weaker than the Spanish ones? I think not... I think they come here, they think "Hey, I have a cough! Here they will treat it to me for free!!! Let' s go!!!" (Please, don' t acuse me of "racism"... A high percentage of this "foreign people" abbusing of the health system are tourists from countries who have never been suspected to suffer racism, like England, Germany, etc... not just "Pakis", "Albanians", and "South Americans")

It' s not a problem of inmigration, or nationalities... we also like to abbuse quite a lot:

Almost every SPANISH citizen here picks grandpa' s papers to go to the pharmacy and get free products: "This condoms are for my grandpa... they must be free, lady!" In addiction, telling that the people who went to Urgencies Clinics during the "Russia-Spain" match was (in the whole country) NINE!!! Does that means that their situation, when there is no football and they fill those clinics, was not that serious? Of course.

Let' s go back to weapons: I firmly believe than freedom is better than being told by the government what can and what you can' t do... It shouldn' t be necessary that the government comes here like if you were a kid, and tell to you: "Come on, kid... gimme that gun, you can get hurt... Great! Now I will blow your nose to remove those filthy snots. Blew!"

But...

If there are more kids killed playing with dad' s guns than killed by ciminal bullets something is going wrong. Also, if people leaves guns irresponsibly unnatended at their homes, a simple theft in your house can turn into having a new dangerous and armed criminal in the streets. Unnatended weapons=More weapons into the traffic.

So, the sollution, better than restrictions, better than FORCING people what to do and what not, should be TELLING people what to do. Education. Sensiblization campaings: "National health is for this, and this, and has to be used in this case, and in this". "Weapons are for this and this, and must have been stored in this way"

To summarize... Switzerland is a country where there is a militar weapon in every house and the levels of violence by gunfire are ridiculous. So... are the guns a problem? No, per se. Is the education of the people a problem? Yes.

Prog, I understand that you deffend your right to bear guns, to have them at your home and to shoot some criminal trying to enter to your home and rape your family, because I meet you so long for knowing that you won't abbuse of that right... but you must understant that some people, less responsable than you, will, unless they are educated.

[Radiant]

The right to arm bears, on the other hand...

Seriously though, while as Nacho states the situation really isn't a binary yes/no, I do believe that guns are too easily available in the US and that this causes numerous problems. Michael Moore may be an extremist in the other direction, but some of his points are good.

[Matti]

Seriously though, while as Nacho states the situation really isn't a binary yes/no, I do believe that guns are too easily available in the US and that this causes numerous problems. Michael Moore may be an extremist in the other direction, but some of his points are good.

Forget Moore and his elevated "documentaries", bus his message is still right.

I think allowing every citizen to have a gun is much more dangerous than having no gun against few criminals that are getting their guns illegally. And who would shoot a thief that wants to rob you? Do you really need a gun in your house, just for the possible event that one time a guy might want to harm you? I'd be much more afraid that a lunatic runs berserc or a child accidently shoots me with his parent's gun (just because everyone can get one) than to be "defenseless" in case of being robbed or threatened by someone.

Plus the f***ing weapon corporations should not be supported..

[Andail]

As long as you try to understand that some opinions are based on sound research and reading a variety of views on a subject.

Yes, and you will find such research supporting both sides. It's not like there is only one scientific book covering the subject, and you happened to come across it.

Remember that you're representing a country with an absurd amount of gun related violence, and a health care system so messed up that even insured people can't afford it, and rather go to Indonesia or wherever for their heart surgeries. Maybe you could be just a tiny bit more openminded about other models.

[Raggit]

Ah, but what you fail to realize, Matti, is that if nobody owns guns, and the criminals DO own guns, they will have run of the place, so to speak.

The common people don't buy guns with the intention to murder, they buy them with the intention to defend themselves from those who DO plan to hurt.  Taking that right away just disarms people who want protection, and doesn't stop criminals from getting ahold of guns.  They WILL obtain firearms no matter what, and when the common man is defenseless, the lawbreakers would be able to rape and pillage, as long as they're quick enough to avoid the arrival of the police.  

When there is underlying uncertainty as to whether or not the owner of a house is armed, I think the crooks out there might think twice.  The potential for the owner having a gun is similar to the potential of there being security cameras there:  You never know.  

I've even seen stickers on doors to houses that say "owner is armed."  This will either scare the bad guys off, or let them know how to prepare better.

In the end, the gun in the the common man's closet isn't even there to shoot an intruder, it's there to control him. (or her.)  In most cases you would just have to point it at the criminal to get them under control.

[Matti]

Ah, but what you fail to realize, Matti, is that if nobody owns guns, and the criminals DO own guns, they will have run of the place, so to speak.

The common people don't buy guns with the intention to murder, they buy them with the intention to defend themselves from those who DO plan to hurt.  Taking that right away just disarms people who want protection, and doesn't stop criminals from getting ahold of guns.  They WILL obtain firearms no matter what, and when the common man is defenseless, the lawbreakers would be able to rape and pillage, as long as they're quick enough to avoid the arrival of the police.

Nah, I don't fail to realize that, but that's how it is. In Germany the very minority owns a gun, in fact I never came across someone who does or even wants to. Does this make Germany less safe? Not at all. I dare to state that this circumstance makes it safer. More guns = less safety.

Like I said before: I'm more afraid of an armed population than of some guys somewhere who get their guns illegally. And where do murderers and thieves come from? Not from hell but straight outta society. If everyone was given a gun, more people would consider robbery or murder I'm afraid.

[Radiant]

Ah, but what you fail to realize, Matti, is that if nobody owns guns, and the criminals DO own guns, they will have run of the place, so to speak.

Except that the police still has guns. Of all of the countries worldwide where guns are not as widely available as in the US, most are not in fact run by the criminals.

I'm not condemning the UK for a system that's been in place for so long that they don't really remember an alternative, but the more you read on the subject the more you see that competition in the medical industry would result in faster, better quality healthcare than a standardized system

Not really, because this shifts the focus of healthcare institutions from aiding people, to making money. It means that for hospitals, it will be more profitable to do popular things like plastic surgery or breast enlargement, rather than taking care of the sick.