The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[marharth]

Assault rifles should be easy to get as long as they are kept stored... It should be a felony to carry around a assault rifle.

 

People are stuck on the idea of self protection and hunting... The 2nd amendment is mainly to ensure that the people have a fairly equal force to the military. The least we can do is have assault rifles.

[RZ1029]

Assault rifles should be easy to get as long as they are kept stored... It should be a felony to carry around a assault rifle.

 

People are stuck on the idea of self protection and hunting... The 2nd amendment is mainly to ensure that the people have a fairly equal force to the military. The least we can do is have assault rifles.

 

I don't know, it seems to work pretty well for the Israeli.

 

Also http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/halofanon/images/thumb/5/5d/Gun-ownership-demotivational-poster.jpg/500px-Gun-ownership-demotivational-poster.jpg

 

EDIT: Smile. If you think that poster is serious, you shouldn't be on the interwebs.

Edited December 24, 2010 by RZ1029

[Aurielius]

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/zombies-1.jpg In the vein of above :whistling: .

[SandsOfTime404]

I'm all for "guns". Regulation doesn't need to get any stricter. There's already limits on who can purchase them. You've got to be a certain age in the States and get a permit. Limiting what firearms a person can own seems a little pointless to me. Believe it or not there are private collectors. Not everyone that buys automatic weaponry is out shooting up neighborhoods. Hell, more often than not if a firearm is used to commit a crime it was obtained illegally. Still, honest people ought to be punished so that the government can maintain the illusion that they're doing something good for people. In the end it's just a bunch of jumping through hoops.

 

Of course, I do agree that convicted criminals shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms, and the reason is pretty obvious.

[RZ1029]

I'm all for "guns". Regulation doesn't need to get any stricter. There's already limits on who can purchase them. You've got to be a certain age in the States and get a permit. Limiting what firearms a person can own seems a little pointless to me. Believe it or not there are private collectors. Not everyone that buys automatic weaponry is out shooting up neighborhoods. Hell, more often than not if a firearm is used to commit a crime it was obtained illegally. Still, honest people ought to be punished so that the government can maintain the illusion that they're doing something good for people. In the end it's just a bunch of jumping through hoops.

 

Of course, I do agree that convicted criminals shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms, and the reason is pretty obvious.

 

Yep. And the big problem is right up there in bold. Gun control rarely stops criminals... because they do everything illegal.

 

But, on that happy note, Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah/Have a nice Kwanzaa!

[neoxyooj]

i got five words for you: from my cold dead hands!

 

Haha. What guns are those? Looks like a a M4 and a 47 or a 74 and a SKS? Then there's a pistol and some sort of carbine.

 

 

yep. sks, wasr-10 (ak clone), m4, glock 27, and most importantly, my ninja blade :)

 

btw, i think that guns shouldnt be regulated based on what "kind" of gun it is, for example, "assault" rifle. Instead, there should be regulations against people who are mentally unstable to own a firearm, and people who have violent criminal backgrounds---and regarding people with criminal backgrounds, only those with violent one shouldnt be able to own a gun (i, for one, know that there are some good people victim to the system... wrongful accused). that being said, guns are tools and people will need that tool when the time is right to use it.

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Edited December 25, 2010 by neoxyooj

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Good Yule, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Felicitous Kwanza (and all the rest that don't come to mind right now, please feel included yourselves!)

 

My main preoccupation, in the sense of my most immediate worry, is this.

 

I am a teacher of the warrior arts. I teach what were in the past and what are now in the modern age, military martial arts. This is done in a way that gives the student the possibility of awakening within themselves the Warrior Archetype (not the soldier, but the warrior, as the former lacks the independence that the latter uses to define its higher nature). It is even strange that I have to say "military" martial arts, as the very definition of martial arts should mean, like it always did in the past, just that: "martial"="war". It goes to show the pacifying effect that modern civilization has on our warrior heritage. Sport arts such as Ultimate Fighting, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Karate and even boxing are labelled as "combat" arts when the truth of the matter is that they aren't even in the same league as true combat arts were and are. Our perspectives on these matters have been shifted, and falsified, to the point where the vast majority of people don't even know what they are discussing as the terms they are using to discuss things are, themselves, false.

 

So what does all this have to do with guns and the 2nd Ammendment?

 

I practice a variety of arts that have had their foundation in battlefield application for over the last thousand years (two major branches of my practice are Stephen K. Hayes' and Bujinkan ninjutsu, as well as modern Systema, the art used by the Russian Spetsnaz; they are very interesting parallels). Personal self-defense is an extrapolation of this battlefield technology. Over a thousand years, the battlefield has changed, greatly. From the use of swords and horses and spears we have introduced, and now largely rely upon, the Black Arms, guns. Some of my arts adopted these methods in their past, and have overriding theories of martial useage, let's say, that can include any weapon effectively into the mix. Others, like Systema, have had some of their aspects sharpened around gun useage. You don't have to have the guns, of course, but if you make the connection, you can see why rolls and manoeuvres are done in a certain way, for example.

 

The point is, true warrior arts are not anachronistic past-times for wannabe weekend warriors. Warriors are. Always. People can pretend to be kung-fu masters or samurai or ninja or whatever they want, but unless their arts are up to date and fulfill today what requirements these arts fulfilled in the past, then they are not true warrior arts.

 

They might be fantastic and beautiful arts for the development of personal power, understanding, and enlightenment. And that is a wondrous thing, very useful in our modern world.

 

However, true warrior arts where an independent, self-deciding, rational man or woman can use the gamut of personal tools often found in violent confrontations today (from fists to sticks to knives to axes to pistols and rifles) can provide these same sources of enlightenment, and can provide others that those arts who are not up to date cannot themselves give.

 

Training with is the necessary parallel of training against. I have to learn how to use my fist, or a knife, or a pistol, if I want to understand that weapon in the event it is used against me. Each has its own characteristics, and each gives me the possibility of advancing myself and my understanding of myself.

 

An art that gives me the possibility of, let's say, practising the same principles I use in unarmed fighting (rolls, strikes, joint locks) while carrying/using/firing-or-not a Kalashnikov, for example, is artificially limited when I don't have that Kalashnikov to practice with. Therefore, my skill set is artificially limited, and so is my understanding of myself for what concerns that aspect of my training. My growth as a warrior is limited, in that respect. Of course, there are millions of other parallel ways to train, and that's another subject, but you can't be literally proficient with the tool unless you have the tool to practice with. Proficiency means safety, for me and for those around me. A warrior is the bringer of peace.

 

This has all been a discussion of the preparation, of course, for personal fulfilment for those who feel the call of the warrior archetype. We trained ourselves in wrestling, and knife and spear and sword fighting. Now, guns have come along, for a good time now. The ancient masters who truly understood the warrior ways would be disgusted with us, or laughing at our ignorance, if we didn't include their use in our training. They used the most advanced personal weapons of their day...so what are we if we don't use the same advanced personal arms? Some kind of devolved caveman compared to what we should be?

 

I completely agree with the literal application of the written-in-stone (in my opinion) words of the 2nd Amendment. My family fought in the Revolutionary War. I've read some of the words used by our Founding Fathers on the matter.

 

Let me include some here.

 

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, will respect the less important arbitrary ones....and which, if strictly obeyed would put a end to personal liberty?....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than a armed man."

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

 

The arrogance of the Present over the (ever-repeating) lessons of the Past is the purest of follies. There is no present without the past, and as the present is the creator of the future, there is no future without the past. Not a good one like there should be, and that is Our responsibility.

 

(and sorry for the long-winded post) :biggrin:

[roquefort]

"Such laws [that forbid the carrying of arms] make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides..." (Thomas Jefferson)

 

Remind me again what the per capita homicide figures are for the US, compared with the rest of the developed world.

 

The 'prevent homicides' bit doesn't appear to have worked too well, but I guess we have to live in hope.

Edited December 26, 2010 by roquefort

[Balagor]

Balagor´s rule:

Every gun produced = 1 minor chance it will get fired = 1 minor change somebody will get hurt or killed :thumbsup:

I am happy I do not own a gun, thus I can not hurt/kill anybody. Only those with guns can hurt/ kill me. May their gods forgive their souls :confused:

[ginnyfizz]

Well roquefort, the ludicrously strict gun control laws in the UK haven't prevented any homicides either, so we are in no position to be sarcastic nor take the moral high ground.

 

Balagor, surely you are not suggesting that every sporting shooter is a potential murderer? I can assure you that, should you be walking across an English moor and meet me or any of the people I shoot with, you would find us walking around with the guns broken and unloaded, only to be loaded and cocked when we are actually taking aim at something tasty and feathery or furry. Should we stop to speak to you, we would follow the rule that all responsible shooters do and make certain that no loaded guns were pointing anywhere near you. You might well get frisked by our spaniels, labradors and setters for any food in your rucksack, but the said dogs would still be friendly even if you hadn't got any. Seriously, I am not sure why the souls of responsible gun owners should be in peril.