SilverDNA Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Freedom archived through weapons in the 21st century is always invalid and no freedom at all . Welcome to the 21st century! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Freedom archived through weapons in the 21st century is always invalid and no freedom at all . Welcome to the 21st century!Even Ghandi's revolution had to use some violence, welcome to the actual way the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 "guns for everyone" is so ridiculous even america doesnt allow for it. well actually, America does allow it. everyone in the country can have a gun. its just how/where/when/what they can carry (it) whichcertain states have set restrictions....but every american can own a gun, and i think states need to just lay off their restrictions and allow everyone to have a gun at any time..loaded including criminals and the hysterically insane? thats what i mean by "everyone" and "restrictions" :]there should be _good measures_ down to ensure gun-owners have a crystal clear police record, and no mental problems whatsoever etc wouldnt do a damn thing. people who wouldnt pass that would find another way to get a gun. all that would do is make the process longer harder and more frustrating for anyone else who wants a gun. there shouldnt be any restrictions on who can own a gun....amendment numero dos says we have the right to own a gun. however, if the state wants to put restrictions on it, it is their right. however i disagree with their decision to do so. you clearly asked for opinions, so refering to currently existing laws regarding exactly what you ask is sortof... guiding the responses to your desired result :D i still think it should at least be _in writing_, if your a complete nutter, and you try to buy a gun the legal way, then you should be barred from it.wouldnt that be better? if you have a twitchy serial killer type, worst case scenario, to let him struggle at least a LITTLE? in another country, such as norway, our famous mass murderer anders breivik struggled a lot aquiring a weapon. he had HK-416 in mind, yeah, dream on dude, he ended up with a hunting rifle. im just stating my own opinion. its also hard to speak for the world when i live in the US....my opinions appeal to how i want them in the US. other countries dont have a 2nd Amendment. other countries have different laws and different ways of changing or upholding those laws. maybe other countries are natively less criminally active, and they dont feel the need for everyone to have guns. again, my opinions point to the US, but i do like to hear others opinions in other parts of the world, cause idk what its like elsewhere. who determines who is a complete nutter? how do you determine it? who sets the guidelines? its not very cut and dry. also as ive said, if everyone is armed, a serial killer is either A) going to be detered from killing people cause everyone can fight back or B) not last very long because everyone can fight back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 would save me a loot of hassle in explaining, why the right of a free opinion is much more vital to a democracy than the right to own any weapons.Much has been written, but little has been said. I concur with whoever it was that said it. The pen is only mightier than the sword, because it has power over the sword. This is why you will hear many people say that the first protects the second and the second ensures the first. Neither can stand on their own and all rights rely on each other for greatest protection of liberty. It depends on what you call violent crimes. Michael Moore said the same thing in Bowling for Columbine when he compared the number of guns in the US with Canada -but it doesn't mean that the opposite is necessarily true and that not having guns will increase the number of violent crimes (if anything making the access to lethal weapons easier is one of the first objections that comes to mind -not that I expect to convince any gun enthusiast here). Anyway to answer your question, I've lived most of my life in France and it's true that we have our share of problems but it's not as sensational as what Fox News or CNN may have reported -I have in mind the so called "riots" in France, going by what American medias broadcast anyone would have assumed the country was in flames... Comparing violent crime rates between the US and France is really off when discussing gun ownership. It's not because a few kids in the impoverished suburbs burn some cars on December the 31st that the country is turning into a war zone. There is absolutely no contest if you look at the number of murders per capita. The main difference is that we don't own guns (except for hunting) and that no civilian would ever consider carrying a gun around or taking one to a nursery, a school or a day care center. In this country private investigators don't carry guns and we have a deep rooted mistrust of any form of vigilantism. I think it is really preposterous to assume for one second that there are more murders in France than in the US (considering the difference in population of course).You missed the point, haven't you? The discussion was that increased gun ownership will lead to an increase in violent crimes. The comparison with France was just because the person I was responding to lives in France. Fox News does not report on French crime rates. My statement that French crime rates are on the rise is based off the statement of the French government. Crime rates are on the rise as a whole in Europe. Not just France. I could compare the U.S. to England as well. Crime rates in the UK are 3-4 times greater than the U.S. The U.S. murder rate is currently 4.8 and it is dropping. France's murder rate is something like 2 and it is climbing. The overall violent crime rate in the U.S. is around 400, in France it's something like 600. These numbers are per capita. As in 4.8 murders for every 100,000 Americans. I don't watch the news. I haven't watched the news since the Bastrop wild fires were threatening to engulf our neighborhood and before that it had been years. But even during the Bastrop fires, I relied more on social media and press statements from the local Office of Emergency Management because the mainstream media was just flatout wrong on almost everything they reported. Which is just one of the many examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. But if you're clever then you will hand the weapon to your wife and let her shhot the evildoer because women normally get off easier ... hmmm, reckon I'll tell my boyfriend to leave his gun with me.Actually, if a woman is a competent shot, the juries will look negatively upon her, whereby if it is a competent man they will look upon it favorably. And vice versa, an incompetent woman will be favored over an incompetent man. Well, that was the case in 91. Things have changed since then. I don't think it much matters whether the person is male or female anymore. you clearly asked for opinions, so refering to currently existing laws regarding exactly what you ask is sortof... guiding the responses to your desired result :D i still think it should at least be _in writing_, if your a complete nutter, and you try to buy a gun the legal way, then you should be barred from it.wouldnt that be better? if you have a twitchy serial killer type, worst case scenario, to let him struggle at least a LITTLE? in another country, such as norway, our famous mass murderer anders breivik struggled a lot aquiring a weapon. he had HK-416 in mind, yeah, dream on dude, he ended up with a hunting rifle.Just because there are laws against former criminals(one is only a criminal if they are actively violating the law) owning weapons does not mean those laws are right. As we've pointed out already. The only thing these laws do, is disarm the law abiding citizens. Once again, law abiding means anyone that is not actively violating law. Even if they have done so in the past and have served their time, as long as they do not violate the law again, they are law abiding. As for Norway, even with a hunting rifle he managed to kill a lot of people. It's also a perfect example of when seconds count, the police are only hours away. Once again, this is not a negative reflection on the police. They can not be everywhere at all times and can not respond to an emergency until they are informed about it. It would be foolish and disrespectful to the police to expect otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDNA Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 History has then to repeat itself over and over again .. selective amnesia on historic events ... oh dear... result 100000 of civilians you don't mind and does the result justifies the outcome allays?Lets rethink again on every country America that has had to cross weapons with in the last 67 years .. hmmm is there anything you might have missed ? Weapons never make peace they only make victims and surviving victims have an opinion as well as they have family in most cases. I missed a statistic in this topic might be any of you can answer me how many people in America died accidentally with a weapon involved and how can this be related to how many people not accidentally died with a weapon involved ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balagor Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Freedom archived through weapons in the 21st century is always invalid and no freedom at all . Welcome to the 21st century!Even Ghandi's revolution had to use some violence, welcome to the actual way the world works. My dear @Aurielius, I can not resist this.Ghandi´s revolution used nothing but disobedience. Those who used violence/weapons did not have Ghandi´s support.While we are at it: how much power did the British weapon had when facing such a strong opponent as a determent mind? Nothing.My conlusion weapons a good for nothing more than keeping a high rate of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Freedom was the objective in the Revolution and it was achieved with both the pen and the sword, neither would have succeeded on their own. Question answered.I find it a bit silly people think you can have a revolution without violence now days. I agree with you. The government and corporations we have now days are far too powerful for peaceful protests. If the people in power don't like something they can just use the media to convince everyone otherwise. The main reason the second amendment was made was so we had a militia in case of a invasion, or if we required to have a revolution later on. The second amendment directly mentions a militia, and not anything about using weapons for protection. People seem to forget this. The main intent of the founding fathers was to have a citizen military, not to have guns around to protect yourself. The whole protection thing is great and all, but it is not the purpose of the amendment. As much as some people hate it you have to get rid of a few people to have peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Freedom was the objective in the Revolution and it was achieved with both the pen and the sword, neither would have succeeded on their own. Question answered.I find it a bit silly people think you can have a revolution without violence now days. I agree with you. The government and corporations we have now days are far too powerful for peaceful protests. If the people in power don't like something they can just use the media to convince everyone otherwise. The main reason the second amendment was made was so we had a militia in case of a invasion, or if we required to have a revolution later on. The second amendment directly mentions a militia, and not anything about using weapons for protection. People seem to forget this. The main intent of the founding fathers was to have a citizen military, not to have guns around to protect yourself. The whole protection thing is great and all, but it is not the purpose of the amendment. As much as some people hate it you have to get rid of a few people to have peace. lets break it down shall we."The right to 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" - 2nd Amendment, US Constitution the first part says we as a people have the right to form a militia for the protection of our freedoms. this does apply to invasion yes, but it was really pointing to the government, that we have a right to protect ourselves from Tyrants. the next part says we are able to have guns in our house (keep) or on our persons (bear)....it does not say we can only have guns in the event we need to form a militia, nor does it say you have to be in the militia to own a gun. it says we have the right to have guns. period. lastly ...shall not be infringed. is talking about both previous statements. our right to a militia and our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. also, militia isnt defined by numbers. one person can be his own militia. as such, even if what you say were to be taken as true, that the second amendment only correlates to a militia, it would still then apply to every person in the US because he or she could be their own militia. Edited January 31, 2012 by hoofhearted4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balagor Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 >snip<militia isnt defined by numbers. one person can be his own militia. as such, even if what you say were to be taken as true, that the second amendment only correlates to a militia, it would still then apply to every person in the US because he or she could be their own militia. Lol, I´m rather sure that if I walk around in full warpaint, loaded with weapons, shouting: "I´m my own militia", I would either get gunned down by police, or taken to a mental hospital.Don´t think that argument works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Freedom archived through weapons in the 21st century is always invalid and no freedom at all . Welcome to the 21st century!Even Ghandi's revolution had to use some violence, welcome to the actual way the world works. My dear @Aurielius, I can not resist this.Ghandi´s revolution used nothing but disobedience. Those who used violence/weapons did not have Ghandi´s support.While we are at it: how much power did the British weapon had when facing such a strong opponent as a determent mind? Nothing.My conlusion weapons a good for nothing more than keeping a high rate of violence. Then I would suggest that you read the history of the Indian resistance to to the Raj pre WW2, there was violence since Ghandi was not the only leader of the movement to gain independence from Imperial Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts