joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: came4U
I think people have forgotten the reasoning and concept behind creating the Second Ammendment by the founders to begin with. Gun control has but shouldn't have to do with home invasion, little to do with crime rate nor acts of random psychotic incidents (even massacres).
The second amendment was created with the concept of a well regulated militia being at the centerpiece of defending liberty from all threats foreign and domestic. It has nothing to do with an individual person's desire to use a firearm to kill squirrels, rampaging dragons, or fellow citizens. Whether for laughs, self defense, whims, or some other reason. The second amendment was created not in the modern era, but in a time and place all together different from our own. The understanding of the world and reality itself in those days was very limited to the world of today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: came4U
These events do not have just cause to precipitate further governmental (notice the term mental if we are to assume that not all politicians are sane :P) 'control' since these events are caused by societal ills--not by the guns themselves.
Actually, the firearms used were indeed equally the fault of the events that took place. This event does show quite the contrary, that further goverment control of a tool, whose primary purpose is to kill humans, will be further used in the near future. While a firearm could have a number of secondary purposes (i.e. hunting, target practice, rennactments, etc), its primary is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move 1) Passangers, 2) Cargo, or 3) Passangers and Cargo, from point 'A' to point 'B'. A car has many secondary purposes (i.e. killing humans, racing, traveling, living in, etc). What if we were to request Congress to regulated that all firearms purchased must be insured? And that if the insurance is not paid, the person loses the firearm to their local police station/sheriff, until such time as the bill is paid in full plus other expenses. This would not be any different from many states requiring its citizens to carry insurance for their cars. "...the right to bear arms..." has nothing to do with one's unlimited right, free of legal requirements to have a gun. That part of the amendment actually was related to individual militia members holding their arms at their dwelling (assuming they were in good standing with the well regulated militia to which they were a part of), instead of a centralize armoury that could be destroyed by an invading group. Most people get that one wrong on account of being just plain ignorant to US History.
quote:
ORIGINAL: came4U
Chinese citizenry aren't allowed guns but events such as this still occur http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910. A nut is a nut, where a will there is a way and they WILL find a way to cause as much collateral mortality as possible. Gun control is yet just another way of 'us' removing blame and shame for having too many psychopaths being born and cultivated on home soil. Even further, one can say that these acts are a reflection of the society in/of whole.
Last I checked, China is NOT a: 1) Us State, 2) Us Territory, or 3) A district within a current US State. No, its its own nation, with its own laws and culture. So stating what happens in another nation is rather irrelevent. With a nation holding the largest population of people in one place, should anyone be surprised there are a few nutcases that would go on killing sprees? Just imagine if the USA had the population of China, with the proportionally same amount of firearms. Whole schools full of dead children wouldnt even make it on the news, cus it was so common place. The funeral industry would be added to the list of those jobs that easily weather bad recessions (like bars and hospitals).
Gun control, is a understanding that the tool in question, can easily be used for great harm, in a very quick amount of time. Given our understanding so far of the human condition, the mind, and how macro-economics can affect the micro-economics of the individual; it would be foolishly for us to ignore the awesome potential firearms have to create the amount of destruction and death they were created for in the first place. Only those living in a fantasy land, would believe firearms are not dangerous even in able hands (there's many youtube videos to demostrate it). And if your living in one of those fantasy worlds, your gun SHOULD BE REMOVED immediately!
BTW, that guy in China didnt kill anyone. The guy in our country killed twenty-seven kids. That should show the difference between melee and ranged combat.
quote:
ORIGINAL: came4U
The Second Ammendment cannot be changed (without disruption of every other Ammendment or of the entire Bill itself) nor can the Bill of Rights. It was created for a reason and that reason is not so that Suzie housewife can shoot someone for breaking into her house to steal her ipod nor is it to be used to arm a maniac with issues that have caused him to have a self-loathing grandeur. It is to bear arms to PROTECT. Protect yourself/family/others from another (who causes a direct and immediate threat) as well as to protect one from threat of/from their own government (in dire world-changing event) situations. These situations are something I don't ever want to occur but when it comes down to being put onto a train that ain't heading to anywhere nice--I'd sleep better knowing that millions upon millions of fellow citizens were armed.
Actually, the second amendment can be changed. It can even be nullified (i.e. the 18th amendment). From this paragraph alone, I would have to say, you really have no clue what the second amendment covers and doesnt cover. The second amendment talked about "A well regulated militia...", not you or me as individuals. Firearms, are not directly covered in this amemdent, but are assumed as being part of other arms as well, for use in said militia. Owning a shotgun for hunting purposes, is not covered under the second amendment, because the shotgun is not being used in a capacity of the militia. Could the shotgun be used within a militia? Of course it could be. But most Americans just have never bothered to crack open an actual US History book, to find the actual thoughts and fears of those first citizens. Their culture, thoughts, religious views, national views, and even philosophy on a wide range of subjects were worlds different from US citizens in 2012. How many of them would reconisder their thoughts on firearms, if they knew two hundred years later, that a musket was capabile of firing 30-300 muskets, 300-800 yards, in fewer seconds than it took to breath once, and kill dozens of enemy troops? Willing to place a bet they would still have given the amendment such loose and little attention?
quote:
ORIGINAL: came4U
Do not forget that it (the 2nd Amm, under the Contitution) is for one purpose and one purpose only. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
Yes a purpose that you can not seem to grasp at current.
quote:
ORIGINAL: came4U
*also, the OP mentioned Mexico and drug cartel gun violence. Have you forgotten that these weapons were supplied by, sanctioned and distributed by operation Fast and Furior in which Holder and the CIA were caught in doing so?
The grand majority of those arms came from those US states with loose gun laws. Why was 'Fast and Furious' created? It was to help track firearms from point of sale to the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. To understand how the guns were purchases and from....WHOM....the guns were purchased. That's right, US Citizens that looked the other way (legally and morally), all in the name of capitalism! Those people are not doing your cause any favors; if anything, giving the gun control folks plenty of ammunition. And before you go blaming it all out President Obama, that program was created and was in active use during the previous administration. Curious your not blaming Republicans....
quote:
ORIGINAL: came4U
In that case they wanted weapons crossing over, likely so they would just kill eachother off to a manageable number in order to have better control and logistic intel and survellience over. In the end they got caught with their hands in that cookie jar because those very weapons killed their own agents. Who says we elect smart officials? uhhg
Wait a second! "Guns dont kill People, People kill People"! Isn't that the mantra of the pro-gun-nuters? You cant have it both ways. Either the people killed the border agents, or the guns did it. If Guns dont kill people, but people kill people; then why do we give guns to people in the first place? Oh that's right....the 'Free Enterprise" system....
|
RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread