Dinin Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 This is ridiculous, why in the world does a civilian need an assault weapon? What are you gonna do with it? I mean, i live in Kansas, (kind of a hick state) so I know how important hunting is to some people, but um...unless a deer killed your pa, I don't think you have to mow it down with a full clip of bullets. And if it's the whole protection problem, I thinking walking around a ghetto with an AK strapped to your back will only increase the problem. Protection in your house? I think a simple handgun will do for that, if you even need that. It seems guns are causing more problems among citizens than they are solving them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 Amendment II 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. The burden of proof is on the anti-gun side to show that restricting a fundamental right stated in the Constitution is necessary. I don't have to prove that I need an "assault weapon" since I already have that right. You have to prove that my assault weapon is such a threat to society that it justifies restricting one of my fundamental rights. And this argument works in general as well. The default assumption (at least in any country with basic freedom) is that something is legal to do/own/etc unless clearly stated otherwise. It is the job of the government to prove that restrictions of that freedom are necessary for some purpose. In the case of gun ownership, that standard of proof is just a lot higher, since it is clearly stated as a right in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinin Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Can you even give me a logical reason for owning an assualt gun, Peregrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 Amendment II 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 You don't need logic, he (and everyone in the country of the United States) has the RIGHT. Don't question his (or anyone else's) rights with logic... you will get no where fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinin Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 That's........disappointing. It's kinda scary knowing that my neighbor could buy a weapon, secretly plot my death, and he wouldn't be questioned because its his right. But hey! This is Amercia! ;) One thing thats for certain, if we did question people with logic, tyjet, the American population would be a little bit larger. Who knows, maybe it'll take a death in the family from a gun to get this point accross to some people. Sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 That's........disappointing. It's kinda scary knowing that my neighbor could buy a weapon, secretly plot my death, and he wouldn't be questioned because its his right. But hey! This is Amercia! ;) That's just absolutely stupid. If someone wants to kill someone, owning an "assault weapon" or not is going to make no difference. Especially if as you say, it's a plot to kill them. That means plenty of time to arrange the death. Or do you plan to ban knives, baseball bats, heavy sticks, cleaning chemicals, gasoline, matches, bare hands, etc? One thing thats for certain, if we did question people with logic, tyjet, the American population would be a little bit larger. No, with the "logic" you're referring to, the population would be even smaller. Far more lives are saved by defensive gun use than taken by murder with guns. Especially once you take away the gun murders that would've just happened with a knife if there wasn't a gun available. ============================== Don't question his (or anyone else's) rights with logic... you will get no where fast. Actually, you can question rights with logic. Death threats, despite being a form of speech, are illegal and are punished. The right to free speech is limited because of clear harm. The problem is that, especially in the case of "assault weapons", no clear harm can be shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinin Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 That's........disappointing. It's kinda scary knowing that my neighbor could buy a weapon, secretly plot my death, and he wouldn't be questioned because its his right. I admit, that was a bad example/point, basically i was saying that i'm uncomfortable knowing that almost anyone can purchase a gun. No, with the "logic" you're referring to, the population would be even smaller. Far more lives are saved by defensive gun use than taken by murder with guns. Especially once you take away the gun murders that would've just happened with a knife if there wasn't a gun available. I don't believe this one bit. I want you to prove this to me, because it just sounds like bull. Are you even thinking about all the drive-by's, hunting accidents, house-hold gun accidents, and assassinations that have killed people, cause of death being a gun wound? Now i'm not counting war, thats different, i'm talking about civilian use of guns, exclude police officers from that as well, i'm not counting them as civilians. The death toll of using guns as an offense most definately outweighs using them as a defense, yet again, don't count the army or policeman. The situation where the policeman had to shoot a gun weilding civilian would never have come about if the civilian didn't have a gun in the first place. If civilians didn't own guns, the population would be larger. If you're saying otherwise, I want to see some statistical proof, if you come up with some, I'll concede from the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 I admit, that was a bad example/point, basically i was saying that i'm uncomfortable knowing that almost anyone can purchase a gun.Unfortunately for you, your discomfort is not enough to deny me one of my fundamental rights. ... The death toll of using guns as an offense most definately outweighs using them as a defense... If you're saying otherwise, I want to see some statistical proof, if you come up with some, I'll concede from the argument. You're wrong. I'll post statistics tomorrow, but I've got an art contest deadline tonight that says I don't spend time hunting down statistics you'll trust. Edit: why don't you post some statistics? All you have is what you think is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinin Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Edit: why don't you post some statistics? All you have is what you think is the truth. Heheh, i can say the same for you, funny isn't it? Sadly, i too have better things to do tonight (open gym at my highschool) than hunt for statistics over the internet. Anyways, can anyone use statistics to prove/disprove that our population would be higher if civilians didn't own guns ? I think the answer is no, all we have is common sense. But i will search for these statistics nontheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.