I've changed my mind : I'm for carrying guns...

[Santilli]

Oh Great. Was it Hobbes that has such a similar low view of the human basic being?

s

 

[Mercutio]

That is correct.

 

[sechs]

And they have not commited a criminal act yet because the risk/reward ratio was not enough in their favor. The criminal tendency remains.

Right.

have gun -> lower risk -> criminal

no gun -> higher risk -> noncriminal

 

[Santilli]

Right.

have gun -> lower risk -> criminal

no gun -> higher risk -> noncriminal

Thank you for distilling the anti-Constitution group into a nut shell.
It's easy. Just reject everything the founding father's believed in, and tried to combat, and believe man is inherently evil, and you can justify your position.

Just such people were why people came to the Americas to escape such
beliefs.
s

 

[sechs]

My people didn't come to America, let alone to escape anything. Actually, it's more likely that *your* people took *my* people's land and then slaughtered them needlessly -- with guns no less. If that's combating what "our founding father's believed in," then I want no part of it.

Take your blinders off and look at the world. You might see something.

 

[Santilli]

Yes. I see some one that appears to want to discuss a topic, but doesn't really want to look at evidence, or another point of view.
Nor do they want to look at the 2nd amendment.
It's ok.
That's the nature of the country. If I believe in the First Amendment I have to put up with people who call themselves liberals, but whose actions and discussions resemble a more totalitarian group.

Thank God for this country, and the principles it was founded on.

s

 

[Santilli]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

Industry standard is to conquer others, and take what they have. It's been going on from the start of time. It started with rocks and spears, now it's guns, bombs, rockets, etc. Soon it will be lasers, etc. and no one will care about guns.

Yes, the atrocities of prior peoples, and centuries, are truly horrible when viewed with today's eyes.

Keep in mind that the only reason you can have these feelings and disscussions in this country is one, and only one reason: We have superior fire power, which enables us to protect our way of life, against all others, this last two centuries, at least. If not for that, we would still be an English, or french Colony, or speaking German, Japanese, or Italian.

Those guns you so despise are the reason you have the freedom you have in this country.

It must be difficult facing the fact that the freedom you have is created by something that you view as having taken away your ancestors freedom.

gs

 

[Howell]

Oh Great. Was it Hobbes that has such a similar low view of the human basic being?

s

Never heard of him. What's he all about?

 

[Howell]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

In this century more people have been killed by there own governments.

 

[mubs]

Question: Is something that was relevant 200 years ago still relevant today?

I ask because while the founding fathers were amazingly far sighted and brilliant beyond comprehension, they lived in a different time. I'm just raising the possibility that while guns were needed back then, they're not today, they're wanted.

 

[time]

I'm just raising the possibility that while guns were needed back then, they're not today, they're wanted.

This is a demonstrably true statement. There haven't been many of these, just mindless wordplays. Although one could argue that in the cities, the need was never there.

The frontier's long gone, folks. When will the NRA accept this? (Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question. )

 

[flagreen]

Well that raises an interesting point. Does the second amendment give us the right to bare arms? Or does it merely recognize our God given right to defend ourselves and attempt to protect us from government infringement upon that right?

As with of all of the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) the second amendment was drafted and ratified to protect us from the government. These ten amendments do not grant us any rights per se but rather protect us from government interference in the exercising of our rights as endowed us by our Creator.

Therefore how can government take a right away from us which does not emanate from government to begin with?

Rights which emanate from our Creator (or are basic "human rights" for you atheists out there) are timeless are they not?

 

[sechs]

The second amendment is about the ability of citizen-soldiers to have the tools that they need to do their jobs. It was specifically aimed stopping the federal government from disarming these people, as the British had done.

In a narrow construction, the second amendment does not say that everyone has the right to have a gun. It also does not stop the government from limiting what kinds of arms can be had or introducing a procurement process.

In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

 

[time]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

Industry standard is to conquer others, and take what they have. It's been going on from the start of time. It started with rocks and spears, now it's guns, bombs, rockets, etc. Soon it will be lasers, etc. and no one will care about guns.

Well, we all needed that history lesson, didn't we boys and girls?

Yes, the atrocities of prior peoples, and centuries, are truly horrible when viewed with today's eyes.

I dunno. I think modern atrocities like dropping bombs that kill 100,000 innocent people are also truly horrible.

Keep in mind that the only reason you can have these feelings and disscussions in this country is one, and only one reason: We have superior fire power, which enables us to protect our way of life, against all others, this last two centuries, at least.

I could be picky and point out several things here - okay, let's do it! Firstly, there are plenty of countries with very little firepower who have managed to retain their way of life.

Secondly, the US did not have superior firepower for most of those two centuries. Japan and Germany did (except for the rise of the US Airforce in the latter stages of WWII), but they were fighting battles on several fronts and had been doing so for years before the US joined in. The British have practically never had superior firepower, but it didn't seem to discourage them much.

Thirdly, all that firepower counted for nought on 9/11/2001, and it's not achieving much in post-Saddam Iraq.

Those guns you so despise are the reason you have the freedom you have in this country.

It's not guns I despise ... Seriously, are your arguments so barren that you need to confuse military defense with neighbours shooting each other after one too many beers?

Some points: Criminals are not a different species. Anyone can become a criminal, but it sure doesn't mean they have a cache of guns. Apparently, one in six US citizens has a criminal record.

Gun control in the US is probably a lost cause, but that's not the case everywhere else. The very fact that converting replicas has become such a popular illegal cottage industry in the UK shows that the laws have had a very real impact on the availability of guns. In such countries, a principle source of guns for criminals is theft from law-abiding citizens. That's one reason people want to keep the numbers low.

As for guns creating crime, I can't see how they would increase the overall crime rate. What they can do is increase the severity of an attack to the point where someone loses their life.

If I was a mugger and there was a good chance my victim was carrying, I would be more likely to belt them over the head first and demand money later. And make sure I was tooled up as well, ready to shoot at the slightest provocation. I certainly wouldn't saunter up and politely wait for them to pull out a gun. :roll: Same deal with home invasions. You guys just watch too many movies.

The fact is, the problem with guns is a cultural one. They're considered acceptable to carry around and even to worship. A bit like cigarettes. There's an organized and noisy bunch of people who insist that there's nothing wrong with them, that it's their right to kill themselves and others.

This will hurt collectors and aficionados, but guns need to be considered socially unacceptable. Laws that make them illegal for most people help achieve that. Society hangs together because almost everyone fears the disapproval of others, whether it be their mom or a peer group of fellow drug dealers.

 

[flagreen]

sechs,

Well a reasonable argument can be made that militias are no longer needed. However I would point out that the Second Amendment ( A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed ) does indeed recognize that the right of the people to keep and bare arms does not emanate from this amendment but rather exists apart from it.

Further the Nineth Amendment ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ) clearly acknowedges that the rights of the people do not emanate from the Constitution but rather are inherent.

 

[Howell]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

In this century more people have been killed by there own governments.

I left off part of my thought.

Far more people have been killed by their own government in the last century than in the rest of recorded history combined.

Certainly this speaks to the need of a populace to defend itself and is certainy relevant today.

 

[Howell]

In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

So you disagree with the founders?

 

[mubs]

Therefore how can government take a right away from us which does not emanate from government to begin with?

sechs wrote:
In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

So you disagree with the founders?

Jeeze! Are you guys saying "somebody", whether it's the Govt. or the founding fathers "gave" you your rights???

I'm totally with sechs on this one; "All rights are agreed upon by a society." Where did the founding fathers come from? Who does the Govt. represent?

 

[flagreen]

Jeeze! Are you guys saying "somebody", whether it's the Govt. or the founding fathers "gave" you your rights???

I'm totally with sechs on this one; "All rights are agreed upon by a society." Where did the founding fathers come from? Who does the Govt. represent?

No we are not saying that "somebody" gave us our rights. What we are saying is that we are born with them. And this is recognized by the Constiution.

 

[flagreen]

I'm totally with sechs on this one; "All rights are agreed upon by a society." Where did the founding fathers come from? Who does the Govt. represent?

The Government is a creation of the Constitution. The government represents the people.

While I respect your right and that of sechs to disagree with the idea of there being any inalienable rights which we are all born with, the Constiution is founded upon this principle. Therefore that is the way it is until we hold another constitutional convention when ever that may be.

 

[Howell]

inalienable

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

TJ holds that the rights existed before the creation of the government. Is not government in other words society organized and codified?

Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government

 

[Santilli]

quote][/sechs wrote:
In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.


So you disagree with the founders?

Hobbes, again.

The argument about the validity of an 'old' document, like the founding fathers etc. pivots on one point, as does the belief in rights.

BELIEF IN GOD. Some of us believe the founders incapable of, at that time, coming up with such a document without Divine help. Hence it's
unlikely survival, over such a period.

Likewise, if you believe in God, as Thomas Jefferson did, but a very different God then most, one that gives us certain rights, prior to social contract, ala Rousseau.

If you don't believe in God, that man is a heathen animal, and is governed by instincts, with little free will, then the documents become 'old', useless, and the nature of man bad, therefore the views of
no rights, and protect us from ourselves.

Now, the God that you believe in, can affect your perception of the above, as well...

s

I'm kind of curious: what government killed more people then the Axis powers, combining world war I & II?

Well a reasonable argument can be made that militias are no longer needed. However I would point out that the Second Amendment ( A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed ) does indeed recognize that the right of the people to keep and bare arms does not emanate from this amendment but rather exists apart from it.

Further the Nineth Amendment ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ) clearly acknowedges that the rights of the people do not emanate from the Constitution but rather are inherent.

It's difficult to swallow this if you don't believe in God.

No one has addressed the very real fact of our lack of control over our own borders, the results of prior prohibitions of alcohol, and, how much control do you guys want to give to the Mexican Mafia over our ability to control our own country?

This by the way, is a very big deal in law enforcement.

s

 

[mubs]

Thanks Howell. You said very well what I was trying to convey.

 

[sechs]

In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

So you disagree with the founders?

In what sense? These were just a bunch of guys who agreed that people ought to have certain rights and called them inherent.

One should also remember that some of these men held other humans in involutary servitude. Not exactly that kind of people that anyone, these days, would choose to make their government for them.

 

[flagreen]

The ultimate intent of all rights whether inherent or otherwise is survival of the species. Hence it would seem to me that the right of self-defense would be on the same level as that of the right to pursue food, clothing, and shelter. Therefore any group of people attempting to establish the rights of the people must recognize such a fundamental right as that of the right to defend oneself.

 

[Mercutio]

So you disagree with the founders?

Is there anything wrong with disagreeing with them?

 

[Santilli]

In what sense? These were just a bunch of guys who agreed that people ought to have certain rights and called them inherent.

One should also remember that some of these men held other humans in involutary servitude. Not exactly that kind of people that anyone, these days, would choose to make their government for them.

Some of us believe people are more then just people, and, in certain situations can mirror their Creator.

I see why you have such a hard time with the concepts discussed by the founders.

s

 

[Santilli]

Try this as a baby step.

Can you believe that the group of the founders, putting their heads together, in disscussion, could come up with ideas better then anyone of them on their own, through the dialectic process?

I realize that's a difficult concept, because that requires LISTENING TO what someone else has to say. Obviously a difficult concept, and that their maybe other ideas then your own on the subject.

s

 

[Mercutio]

This might sound silly, but can we divorce the idea of guns from the notion of self-defence? I don't think I can defend myself with a gun, especially given all thing things that might, in theory, kill me. Things I couldn't shoot.

I certainly don't see guns as essential to protecting myself.

 

[Mercutio]

Try this as a baby step.

Can you believe that the group of the founders, putting their heads together, in disscussion, could come up with ideas better then anyone of them on their own, through the dialectic process?

Obviously there was "better" to be had. Slavery lasted another 100 years. African slaves were 3/5ths of a person. Women had no rights. And they weren't clear enough about the whole "well regulated militia" thing. There wasn't strong enough language WRT state's rights, so every time there's been a major socio-political change in this country, a bunch of backwards southern politicians stand up and start bitching about the 9th Amendment.

 

[sechs]

Some of us believe people are more then just people, and, in certain situations can mirror their Creator.

Maybe you could go on to explain how our "founding fathers" are somehow better than everyone else's? Perhaps you could also tell us how their "creator" is superior to anybody else's.

 

[mubs]

I'm itching to say many things, but won't. This argument is completely pointless. I should have followed the advice of the wise ones in a similar earlier thread and kept my trap shut.

 

[Santilli]

NO?
You mean you aren't going to convince us there is, or is not a God??

S

 

[timwhit]

WTF does god have to do with guns? I wish the US could do something like Canada and have low crime rates and lots of guns. I have nothing bad to say about hunting with guns.

It seems to me that gangs are far more to blame than guns are. Why are there over 600 murders a year in Chicago? Gangs. Gary? Gangs. Anywhere else in the US? Most likely gangs.

Don't think that gangs can't kill without guns? You must be stupid. People have been killing each other for thousands of years before gun powder was ever invented.

 

[time]

Yeah, but a battleaxe just isn't the "in" accessory these days.

 

[CityK]

Q. What is the likelihood of a face to face confrontation where the gentlemenly attacker allows you to take ten paces and then draw your sidearm?

Q. How is the right to bear arms going to save you as your shot by an attacker who fires through your front door, or through your front window from a car on the street while you sit in your living room watching TV, or while your shot from behind while standing in line at fastfood resturant, or while your crossing a parking lot on your way to an ATM etc etc.

Last time I checked, callous and reckless behaviour has never given law abiding citizens a chance. These people do not follow rules of engagement.
Arguing that allowing law abiding citizens to pack concealed firearms will bring the game to a level playing field is naive.

 

[Santilli]

Well, let's see.
I'm in a bowling alley bathroom, and three guys, drunk and high, decide to beat me up for fun, or kill me, because they think I'm a friend of the guy at the desk, that just kicked them out, who I hate.
Also being white had a lot to do with it.

I've trained for a very long time and I'm not real worried, until this guy pulls a Walther PPK/S and hits me over the head with it.

I survived, but, at that point in time, my old Detonics would have been a welcomed friend.

Recently, walking down the street at night, for a walk in one of our local parks. No one around, but, good neighborhood, safest around, pretty much, unless you go gated community. Beat up Mercedes drives by(bad guys drive, and have cars), sees me, my girlfriend, and my cat. They go through a stop sign, pull an illegal u turn, pull up next to us, and I see 4 skin heads with hoods on. I make a certain gesture, and the guy runs by, keeping his distance, we keep walking quickly, and he jumps back in the Mercedes, and they drive off. If not , I'm pretty sure, I would be beat up, robbed, or dead right now.

As you get older, and your sense of immortality starts to dwindle, perhaps you'll understand this comment,

"God made us all. Sam Colt made us equal."

It seems to me that gangs are far more to blame than guns are. Why are there over 600 murders a year in Chicago? Gangs. Gary? Gangs. Anywhere else in the US? Most likely gangs.

Timwhit: This is the problem. People think don't identify what the real problem is, and point at a straw man. They attack the strawman, pass legislation banning 50 caliber rifles, or some such bullshit, and think they are protecting themselves.

In that same area, two gangs run rampant, based in West Pittsburg, CA, the 13's, and 14's. They do just enough to stay under the radar of the Federal guys, one of whom I know, who prosecute guns and drugs in the area, who have much bigger gangs to go after.

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/0/98850e100cd5f43788256d660075e895/$FILE/Sapp%20MD.pdf

The above was an enforcer for a REAL big, bad, gang.

I've had about 8 months of hands on experience of trying to put the bad guys in jail, who have done violent crime. They NEVER had a problem getting a gun.

http://www.camemorial.org/k9/sendy.htm

I argued for the SFDA's office to keep Mr. Wolf in prison, in front of Judge Louie. He had a medical record about 40 pages long, in and out of institutions, a rap sheet that was
incredible, and he killed this beautiful dog, and shot an officer.

By law, it was illegal for him to have a gun. The number of cases where
guns are present, despite the law saying the person shouldn't have one is about 100%. I never saw a case where the shooter was legally entitled to have the gun.

Where did they get them? On the street, brought in and sold, along with everything else, from Mexico, by gangs.

Young kids, 17 -18 brought in, caught, selling drugs provided by the Mexican gangs.
Want to cry? Watch two young kids, illegals, dreaming of the US, who can't get a job, brought in, sent out to sell drugs, caught, and any future, legal hopes of entry into the US dashed. Course this doesn't stop them.
They go south, and come right back.

Arguing that allowing law abiding citizens to pack concealed firearms will bring the game to a level playing field is naive.

It's not naive. Many crimes are stopped by the presence of firearms.
Criminals, in my experience, are opportunists that strike when presented with the chance, or, innocent people just end up in the wrong place and the wrong time, because the criminal is there. They do have cars, and they do travel. Short of living in a gated community, with armed dogs, and police patrolling, in other words giving up your freedom, you are not going to be perfectly safe, ever.

In San Francisco, you have a 1 of 17 chance, per year, of being the victim of a violent crime in San Francisco. Being aware of this, and being armed, simply reduces your chance of being the wounded fish the shark eats.

s

 

[Santilli]

How about having this happen to your girlfriend?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/06/state0148EDT0244.DTL

 

[mubs]

NO?
You mean you aren't going to convince us there is, or is not a God??

S

No. Unlike some people here, neither am I a bigot, nor do I have a desperate need to prove I'm right and others are wrong.

 

[CougTek]

Keep in mind that the only reason you can have these feelings and disscussions in this country is one, and only one reason: We have superior fire power, which enables us to protect our way of life, against all others, this last two centuries, at least. If not for that, we would still be an English, or french Colony, or speaking German, Japanese, or Italian.

Those guns you so despise are the reason you have the freedom you have in this country.

It must be difficult facing the fact that the freedom you have is created by something that you view as having taken away your ancestors freedom.

This is so, SO retarded, full of shit and stereotyped on the popular image of the arrogant and lout American bloke that I'm not even sure it deserves an answer.

Weapons for the civilians are forbidden or restricted a lot more than in the U.S. in most european countries as well as in Québec and our amount of violent crimes is an order of magnitude lower than in the States. Wake up. It's not the gun that makes the man.

I was only venting in the post that started this thread. Just looking at how irresponsible most people are with their cars, I wouldn't give them guns for sure. I've never needed one here and I consider myself to be a very quarrelsome man. The only reason you American fellows feel you need guns is because your country has allowed to put too many firearms in the hands of people who should never have had the right to own one to begin with. Firearms are the internal cancer of United States. Well, that and the bunch of morons who defend their spreading as well as many other now-obsolete principles that your damn funding Fathers stated for the world they lived in more than two centuries ago.

The world evolves, but apparently a good half of the Americans don't realize it.


The last comment was only to those for whom the hat fits. I don't hate all Americans, only the constipated types.