The Second Ammendment

[tay120n64]

I agree with you guys entirely, but as it has been said, guns are already available in America, so it's harder to go without them. That's why I think there just needs to be a stricter approval process for attaining them. In America you only have to be licensed to carry some guns, but if you change that to include all guns, I think that would be a fair concession to organizations like the NRA and whatnot. Not outlawed, just regulated.

Personally, I don't think we really need guns, but what's done is done, and all we can do is work with the mess we've put ourselves into.

[chicken]

all you guys need is that little stick from "men in black"... that thingie with the red flash

and then there are cars with speakers rolling through the streets: "you dont bear guns!" - "yeees... we dont bear guns" ^^

[Jason Tandro]

There's an old american adage: "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns." There are millions of Americans who own and operate firearms and only a fraction of those people commit violent crimes.

I will concede that total disarmament works well in theory and in certain countries it has worked well in pratice (Japan is practically violent crime-free by comparison to the States).

With America it's basically too late to have a total disarmament. Too many people have access and weapons dealing is too commonplace.

However let's not forget why America made the second ammendment to begin with. We exist because we had to rebel against a corrupt government. Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government.

[inferiare]

@Flamez: If people had to show their paperwork showing that they were certified, sure. But people breaking and entering to get their hands on a firearm, or even going to the black market won't stop people from getting them either. Outlawing them altogether does nothing for us in terms of protection in our own homes. It doesn't matter if you're on a hit list or involved with some gang either, people will still break into a house just because they can. Sometimes they're armed, sometimes they're not and a dog will scare them off. Things work differently here than they do in the land of Oz, I'm sorry to say. :/ People will murder other people just because they can, and if they break into your house just to off random people, they will. Firearms aren't the only cause of death either; torture, knives, and fists can all cause death too. I'm thinking Charles Manson here. They broke into houses to kill people JUST BECAUSE WE CAN WAHAHAHAH THE MAN WON'T KEEP US DOWN ANYMORE (and also because Manson was kind of batshit anyway.)

Having easy access really doesn't do anything, unless they're kids like the Columbine kids who walked into a Wal-Mart and bought stuff. As I said earlier, having to show your certification to get a firearm would be good! Up until people started getting said certification, buying guns, and going on rampages, that is. There's always a way around the system. :\

@psychokind: Not necessarily. I think I sort of covered that in my tl;dr up there to Flamez though.

[chicken]

Quote:

Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government.

oh really? what about the military? i think they are better organized and have the bigger bang... even if they are outnumbered (by far), your army sure knows how to deal with people... they have been in wars, actually

[inferiare]

chicken wrote:

Quote: Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government. oh really? what about the military? i think they are better organized and have the bigger bang... even if they are outnumbered (by far), your army sure knows how to deal with people... they have been in wars, actually

However, who controls the military? The government.

[psychokind]

rainichan wrote:

@Flamez: If people had to show their paperwork showing that they were certified, sure. But people breaking and entering to get their hands on a firearm, or even going to the black market won't stop people from getting them either. Outlawing them altogether does nothing for us in terms of protection in our own homes. It doesn't matter if you're on a hit list or involved with some gang either, people will still break into a house just because they can. Sometimes they're armed, sometimes they're not and a dog will scare them off. Things work differently here than they do in the land of Oz, I'm sorry to say. :/ People will murder other people just because they can, and if they break into your house just to off random people, they will. Firearms aren't the only cause of death either; torture, knives, and fists can all cause death too. I'm thinking Charles Manson here. They broke into houses to kill people JUST BECAUSE WE CAN WAHAHAHAH THE MAN WON'T KEEP US DOWN ANYMORE (and also because Manson was kind of batshit anyway.) @psychokind: Not necessarily. I think I sort of covered that in my tl;dr up there to Flamez though.

what you say seems common sense for people who stand for weapons-for-everybody, but reality shows that 95% of the victims are caused by weapons-for-everybody.
everyone can kill with a gun, killing somebody with fists or knives requires much more criminal energy.

there's a documentary about americas prisons in germany right now, and they tell you that 90% of the killings were under the influence of drugs. most killers state "so he made me angry, I got my shotgun and killed him". I don't think that most of this people would have killed if they had to use a knife or their fists and neither would buy their weapons on the black market, for most kills are in affect.
the ones like manson and his crew would for sure kill without guns, but you can't prevent something like that even if everybody has stationary rockets at home. these are the minor part of deadly crimes.
I don't know the accurate number, but I can't imagine the knife/fist-kills reach the 11000 of gunkills.

[chicken]

rainichan wrote:

chicken wrote: Quote: Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government. oh really? what about the military? i think they are better organized and have the bigger bang... even if they are outnumbered (by far), your army sure knows how to deal with people... they have been in wars, actually However, who controls the military? The government.

of course they do, thats what i actually wanted to say... the population will have a REALLY hard time overthrowing a government that is protected by the worlds biggest army: yours!

[inferiare]

chicken wrote:

rainichan wrote: chicken wrote: Quote: Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government. oh really? what about the military? i think they are better organized and have the bigger bang... even if they are outnumbered (by far), your army sure knows how to deal with people... they have been in wars, actually However, who controls the military? The government. of course they do, thats what i actually wanted to say... the population will have a REALLY hard time overthrowing a government that is protected by the worlds biggest army: yours!

Not necessarily! Because of the fact that those who got the hell out of England had guns to fight the Revolutionary War (and at that point, we were CRAZY for going against England who at that time had the biggest military force in the world), we won our freedom. Just because we'd be going against our own military to get our point across just makes it more difficult, but not impossible if we have our second amendment still upheld.

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

chicken wrote: rainichan wrote: chicken wrote: Quote: Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government. oh really? what about the military? i think they are better organized and have the bigger bang... even if they are outnumbered (by far), your army sure knows how to deal with people... they have been in wars, actually However, who controls the military? The government. of course they do, thats what i actually wanted to say... the population will have a REALLY hard time overthrowing a government that is protected by the worlds biggest army: yours! Not necessarily! Because of the fact that those who got the hell out of England had guns to fight the Revolutionary War (and at that point, we were CRAZY for going against England who at that time had the biggest military force in the world), we won our freedom. Just because we'd be going against our own military to get our point across just makes it more difficult, but not impossible if we have our second amendment still upheld.

You both are ignoring the human element. If there is a government overthrow scenario then you can figure half the men will side with the rebellion and half with the government (all other things being equal). It would be absolute chaos. At least this way both sides will be armed.

[inferiare]

There's always the third side: the side that is torn and will do nothing for either side because they either want to do what's right for those they want to protect, but they don't want to be court-marshaled or the like. Sure they might pick a side eventually, but they might not and stay neutral.

[chicken]

rainichan wrote:

chicken wrote: rainichan wrote: chicken wrote: Quote: Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government. oh really? what about the military? i think they are better organized and have the bigger bang... even if they are outnumbered (by far), your army sure knows how to deal with people... they have been in wars, actually However, who controls the military? The government. of course they do, thats what i actually wanted to say... the population will have a REALLY hard time overthrowing a government that is protected by the worlds biggest army: yours! Not necessarily! Because of the fact that those who got the hell out of England had guns to fight the Revolutionary War (and at that point, we were CRAZY for going against England who at that time had the biggest military force in the world), we won our freedom. Just because we'd be going against our own military to get our point across just makes it more difficult, but not impossible if we have our second amendment still upheld.

yea, but that was quite some time ago, huh? im talking about the present where there are automatic rifles, airstrikes, teargas, and GIs... the population wont stand a chance against its own army, im sure of that.

[psychokind]

chicken wrote:

rainichan wrote: chicken wrote: rainichan wrote: chicken wrote: Quote: Using a firearm is not just for civil protection but also the worst case scenario of having to overthrow a corrupt government. oh really? what about the military? i think they are better organized and have the bigger bang... even if they are outnumbered (by far), your army sure knows how to deal with people... they have been in wars, actually However, who controls the military? The government. of course they do, thats what i actually wanted to say... the population will have a REALLY hard time overthrowing a government that is protected by the worlds biggest army: yours! Not necessarily! Because of the fact that those who got the hell out of England had guns to fight the Revolutionary War (and at that point, we were CRAZY for going against England who at that time had the biggest military force in the world), we won our freedom. Just because we'd be going against our own military to get our point across just makes it more difficult, but not impossible if we have our second amendment still upheld. yea, but that was quite some time ago, huh? im talking about the present where there are automatic rifles, airstrikes, teargas, and GIs... the population wont stand a chance against its own army, im sure of that.

I'd say that too. there are formulas about how many soldiers can seize how many civilians, and this grows exponentially.

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

There's always the third side: the side that is torn and will do nothing for either side because they either want to do what's right for those they want to protect, but they don't want to be court-marshaled or the like. Sure they might pick a side eventually, but they might not and stay neutral.

We call that side Switzerland.

"If there's ever a nuclear war, they'll be the only ones going 'What was that noise?' Sitting in their hollowed-out country with their chocolate and their watches. Ya. The Nice Germans. Or as they like to be called 'The Other White Race."

-Robin Williams

[Azure Phoenix]

how about this as an idea, all police cars have a Giant electro Magnet on them and (assuming guns are at least a bit magnetic, if not they should be) if anything bad happens the police pull up and shoom! there goes the gun onto the electro magnet, it has a lot of flaws yes but it might work

...then maybe who wins wars might depend on who has the most powerful magnet...

i have no real reason to suggest this, i just thought of the idea when i read this thread again and i felt like voicing my thoughts.