Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by curunir's bane, Jun 3, 2004.
Out of all that , this is the only line that I agree with. Agree to disagree I guess.
That's totally fine. I actually agree with some of the stuff that you say. Now, my views on gun control and wether or not guns should be a privilege or a right is only my opinion. It's just the way I feel about guns. I think they should be a privilege and not a right. You may feel differently and that's fine. My argument for that is merely a matter of opinion. However, my view on the second amendment is not my opinion. It's an objective view of the constitution regardless of my opinion on gun control. The constitution does not guarentee the right to own guns. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to own guns. Again, my opinion is that it shouldn't be a right.
You could say the same about Free speech,Freedom of press, Freedom to assemble ect.ect. All of these things were written in very general terms that could be amended as needed, but in my veiw, what one person calls a right others will always call a prevelige.Thats why its a slippery slope when restricting things, and thats what scares most people. I understand what your saying, just on the other side. Good debate though.
I agree with that. I just want you to know that i'm not just making my argument on the 2nd amendment based on my opinion on guns. Let me give you an example: The constitution says nothing about seperation of church and state (that's an objective fact). However I believe we should have seperation of church and state. What i'm trying to do is keep my obejective view of the constitution and personal beliefs seperate. But I understand where you are coming from. So I guess I will try to stay away from that topic as best as possible for now. Anyway that's probably neither here nor there.
Back to the debate: From your previous posts I've concluded that you believe guns should be controlled in some sort of way. I believe the same thing to. So it seems you and I have common ground on that regardless of our beliefs on guns being a privilege or a right. What really makes me angry are the gun activists today who say that it's a right to own guns AND that they shouldn't be regulated. What angers me about that is the fact that they think guns shouldn't be regulated at all. Honestly, I wouldn't care if the supreme court ruled that the second amendment guarentees the right to own guns or not. What I really care about is the supreme court ruling that guns shouldn't be regulated. Although the 2nd amendment does come into debate because of that. It's a tough situation. I believe that guns should be regulated heavily regardless of them being a right or a privilege. What do you think?
I agree with regulations and I believe they should be fairly tough. Like I said previously, if you have nothing to hide, than you should have nothing to fear from regulations. I dont belong to the NRA or anything like that for the simple reason that they are the types of extremist your talking about. To them, any regulation is a breach of the constitution. But I agree that its open to interpretion just like we have the right to free speech, but that doesnt mean you can stand up in the mall and scream obsenities and claim free speech. Actually alot of the hunters I know hate the NRA and similar organizations. They claim to be standing up for our rights, but alot of us feel like they are giving all gun owners a bad name by being so unyeilding. Its too bad thats the face of the gun owners that get all the press, alot of us just want to hunt.
i agree with real time strategy, on account of his sensible and valid point, and cos his sig is totally bitchin.
"Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty."
It would take forever to read point by point every post, but I have read a lot, and here's a summary of what i think.
I think our nations founding fathers were not just brilliant to come up with a system that if fully implemented provides the best foundation for a free nation, but also gave the populous the means to defend themselves from tyrannical rule.
When it was stated prior the 2nd Amendment applies only to militia, I whole heartily disagree. The point of Militia is not to be our armed forces, that's why the US had the Continental army at the time. The Militia was provided by the populous who could themselves provide their firearms they could use to protect themselves and fend off invaders. If guns were restricted and only handed out to militia in times of war, why not just have a regular army and disband militia? The United States has essentially done that for the most part by the introduction of the National Guard, a shaky alliance between citizen and soldier. Modern times call for modern measures, but that should not infringe upon the rights of the individual for self defense and protection.
It is easy to make a emotional argument out of insane people committing mass killings. In fact I consider it an argumentative fallacy in that it makes an emotional appeal without laying down proper facts. Who in their right mind would stand up for the right of an individual to commit a mass killing?
I also resent the idea presented that Americans "Love their guns and won't give them up." Mub, I can make a direct comparison between you and your love for swords, one that I share as well. I take it you don't like swords for their ability to slice flesh, sever bones, and raze and decapitate innocent women and children of conquered villages. Irregardless of what you would use one for, historically, this is what has been done with swords. I am certain you enjoy them for the ideals that this weapon holds, a weapon of honor, one you could use to defend yourself and your ideals. What difference is there between that and guns? And as for the fact a gun has bullets and can kill more people, well, who says an insane person with a car can't run over dozens of people if he tried? I would much rather have to face down a nutbag with a gun knowing I could either outrun him, hide behind somewhere safe, go into a stairwell, or many other scenarios than be on the street with a maniac driving up on the sidewalk intentionally.
Mass killings grab headlines. Mass killings happen all over the world, in fact Europe has had quite a few recently, including a few school shootings. But since most media outlets take a "Those wacky Americans" type outlook, even our own media, then of course every time there is one, it gets front page headlines. More people are killed in car crashes driven by teens high on pot than will be killed in mass shootings like these. In fact, several of the last few mass shootings have been committed by immigrants, one a Vietnamese man who spoke virtually no English (having been in the US since the late 80's, a clear sign of an idiot) and in his frustration took out a large group of people in an immigration center.
Where I draw the line is the NRA thinking it is perfectly fine to own assault rifles fully capable of shooting down a police helicopter. When our founding fathers drafted the constitution, a musket took half a minute to load if you were extremely good at it. I have no fear of a law biding citizen, with no criminal past, and with a sound mind and with the clear judgment enough to certify he is competent to own a gun having one. I would feel safer having someone like that as a neighbor.
Deep inside I know that someday all the gun haters are going to be sorry when the robot armageddon happens and they arent prepared.
Student shoots 3 in Greek college, kills himself. http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_12113190?nclick_check=1 (may require password)
"A teenage gunman who wounded three people at a college in Greece and killed himself had warned of the attack hours earlier on an Internet posting that included photographs of him posing with weapons, police said."
Not just in America, eh?
Finland, Germany.... it happens elsewhere, Tamzen.
It must be noted, though, that everyone who desperately WANTS to own a gun will always be able to get one - one way or another.
The real question is, I suppose, what influence gun contol has on society. Both the pros and cons seem to think it is of huge impact; but I doubt that it is. Somehow I can't see how a gun in a safe will change how people communicate and interact. So, however hard the debate is, I think the influence is marginal.
What I do think is dangerous is that certain groups and sub-cultures derive their identity from guns. Hunters are one; though I think we can skip that particular group for obvious reasons (unless you're a PETA member). One of these groups is the urban gangs. They seem to identify with the the power of the gun. Their gun, preferrably. Quite a few will, in due course of time, find out that that power is more or less matched by the guns of other gang members. Live by the gun; die by the gun.
But there is another group I want to mention; the libertarians. I think for some of the libertarians the second amendment is something of a birth certificate. That power to gouvern yourself is symbolised and embodied by the second amendment (and correct me if I'm wrong) - so the Gun is the ultimate proof and symbol of that freedom. Now, the average libertarian (militant libertarians aside) is of much less danger and impact then the Urban Gangster. But still; it seems a bit worrying to me that people symbolise their identity with something (potentially) so lethal. Now, I am not one of these people (I'm not allowed to own a gun if I wanted to) - but one line of thought that worries me particularly is that, potentially, after every meditation, internal debate one could ask himself; "Who am I?" - answered by "well, at least I still own my gun". As opposed to - say - "well, at least I know all people are equal" (which is what I usually end mine with)....
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." George Washington
That sums up my opinion. I do support some regulation though. i don't really see any reason a civilian would need a rocket launcher, 120mm HE, AP, or FDS shells, etc.
One of the factors that have been tying together a number of the mass killings recently is the mental condition of the people involved. Immediately when i hear about someone being in intense psychiatric care, and is a clear danger to himself and others, yet out of political correctness these people are left alone until they do something horrendous like this, it boggles my mind.
Jiverly Wong, who managed to kill 13 people earlier this month at an immigration center, had no American cultural ties. If not for the tragic events surrounding it, his letter he sent before committing the massacre would seem hysterical. http://news.aol.com/article/transcript-of-binghamton-shooters-letter/416675
There have been several more cases of mass murder, many of them brought on by the economic situation. An Indian man in California killed his whole family after losing his job. An elderly gentleman named John Chong shot up a Korean Catholic center also in California. Although this is happening in America, it's not happening because of the American way, that gun toting, wild and crazy redneck society that won't give up their guns. It's happening because people with mental diseases are latching on to the fear and panic being spread right now.
The Indian man who killed his family did so for cultural reasons, in India it is very shameful if a man cannot provide for his family. But, like honor killings in Islam, and genital mutilation in some African nations, to kill your family because YOU failed is incredibly stupid, no matter the culture or beliefs. Some things are wrong in every culture, even if one specific culture encourages it.
But the problem is we no longer warehouse people who are mentally dangerous to themselves and others, at least not like we used to. Back in the 80's, warehousing got a bad reputation because of systematic abuse of patients. So, their solution was just to let everyone out, no more forcible internment of people with severe mental problems. Now we have skyrocketing homeless problems, shootings left and right by mentally unstable people, and more of it to come because of the false compassion of just letting them wander about.
There are many reasons gun violence exists. Simply blaming the gun is like mopping up blood from a dripping wound. You might be trying to clean the problem, but there is an underlying reason the problem exists, and it's not being taken care of.
Thank you Dreamscaper for mentioning this; I think it ties in pretty nicely with my previous post.
Unlike the NRA wants us (well, at least the US) to believe the gun is just another (harmless?) tool; it has become so much more than that through it's place in American history and status in the constitution. It's a symbol, emotionally undetachable from the American soul (or parts of it at least).
And, as far as symbols go, a tool designed for killing wouldn't be my first choice...
Choose your heroes wisely
You are welcome. You could look at it as a symbol of self-defense. *shrugs*
They don't see it as a tool for killing, but one of self defense. Ultimately the greatest freedom that can be taken from you is your right to live. Once that has been taken from you, other rights are moot. Then the argument goes into who is more capable of protecting yourself, you, or the government? I don't own a gun because I live in a statistically safe area. If I felt I needed one, I would get one. I like having that freedom of choice.
Actually, I believe the greatest freedom that can be taken from me is the right to die. But it has very little to do with gun control.
So... following your reasoning, the symbol of death becomes the symbol of life. I do suppose it's a matter of perspective.
But the image you create is one I don't quite like. Judge, jury and executor at the spur of the moment. That's quite a definitive breach with the Trias Politica. But maybe that's the entire difference. I have been brought up in a tradition of firm and accepting trust in our system of gouvernment. The United States of America has been founded on a schitzophrenic paranoia towards theirs.
But, somehow, it's a comforting thought to know that, when in conflict, I can keep in the back of my head that this is a country of negotiation and tolerance in stead of having to remind myself of this firmly rooted right of self-defense. Or worse; reminding myself that my potential adversary will think alon the same lines (after all; there's always two sides to a barrel). I do believe it influences the national spirit. But whether for better or worse, I don't know.
Separate names with a comma.