Gun Crimes and the US Constitution

[Darth Sason]

I feel late in this as well but yes what ever happend to right to bare arms???

 

[Cailst]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Matt @ Apr 18 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]160153[/snapback]</div>

Over-running our government? Have you lost your mind.

What the hell would our or even your population do against a modern army, I wouldn't feel very happy going against a challenger 2 tank with a 9mm.[/b]

The insurgents seem to be doing okay with a fairly hostile population (people don't like being bombed) If they can pull that kind of stuff off, then in the U.S. with a friendlier population towards the guerillas, they might be able to pull off a victory for the same reason that the insurgents seem to be pushing Congress to try to pull out.

Though the army would have no where to pull out to, they would still be less inclined to fight their own friends and family and I can imagine there would be a massive amount of defections as they had sworn to uphold the constitution during their induction.

That was the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, if the government goes bad, the people can revolt and restore the original government like when the United States threw off the British. To keep the government from doing anything bad and going against the democratic ideals, the civilians should be able to violently overthrow them if they turn too evil.

 

[lakorish]

And what would an anti-gun law do anyways? Or even a gun restriction law. They may sound good on paper and might even be expected to save lives, but would they really be effective. I think it would end up being like the 18th amendment's attempt to kill alcohol consumption, only to have more people drinking alcohol than ever before in US history. If the government said that I couldn't have a gun, I would get one because I would feel the need for one then. And the government couldn't crack down on just me, because millions would refuse to follow it. Texas is a good example. So is the rest of the South and Mid-West. In short, its a great idea to save lives, but the reality of it is that too many people would violate it and it would make the government look weak.

 

[Enishi]

The problem with gun crimes is quite simple; we are giving weapons to people who have either have proof of being mentally ill or are mentally ill and have not talked about it nor shone it.

I will be the first to admit; much of my family has a history of schizophrenia. My grandfather had it, and I somtimes fear I could have it. I have showed no signs (IE: I do not think people are trying to poison me) of having it, but I will see what the future holds. As far as I'm concerned, I am clean.

The Vtech massacre was because of a student who was mentally ill; it wasn't video games, it wasn't bullying: it was because he was mentally ill. HE WAS PROVEN IN COURT THAT HE WAS MENTALLY ILL and yet he was still given weapons. That says somthing; while we worry about kids getting violent video games, we are selling weapons to people who are fucking psychotic. But people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are so convinced that video games are the reason.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 17 2007, 08:43 PM) [snapback]160014[/snapback]</div>

There is no point in arguing this issue in front of the members[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 17 2007, 08:43 PM) [snapback]160014[/snapback]</div>

and not setting the example.[/b]

We may not have the power to ban someone or lock a thread, but that does not mean that we are inferior. You may be older then alot of members, but not all of us. Some of use are older then you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 17 2007, 08:43 PM) [snapback]160014[/snapback]</div>

as we are simply detracting from the debate at hand.[/b]

We should.

 

[Scurge]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. That gun did'nt walk into VA Tech alone and kill them all. That guy went in and killed them. So guns are not to blame it is the person.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Enishi @ Apr 18 2007, 11:08 PM) [snapback]160227[/snapback]</div>

We may not have the power to ban someone or lock a thread, but that does not mean that we are inferior.[/b]

What the fuck is your problem? When the hell did I ever say that anyone on this site was inferior? I was simply saying that there was no point in me and Jetzt arguing procedure in front of the members as it detracts from the debate and we would be breaking our own rules by doing so. Also, do you not want us to set the example? Okay, fine, I won't.

I hate you. Go fuck yourself. You're adopted. Your parents hate you.

Better?

 

[Scarface]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Matt @ Apr 18 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]160153[/snapback]</div>

Over-running our government? Have you lost your mind.

What the hell would our or even your population do against a modern army, I wouldn't feel very happy going against a challenger 2 tank with a 9mm.

And you will never know how your country will react without trying but if your happy with this happening every 6 or 7 months then power to ya.[/b]

I think the only proof I need lay in the American Revolution, we were vastly outnumbered by the greatest military power in the world, we still won. We can do the same, it takes intelligence, not numbers and technology.

 

[Enishi]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 18 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]160229[/snapback]</div>

I hate you. Go fuck yourself. You're adopted. Your parents hate you.

Better?[/b]

Much better then coddleing us.

 

[Adamis]

Banning will drive everything underground and make regulating guns impossible. Larger restrictions on guns and more investigation into people as well as keeping an eye on them would be better. Granted that would take more man-power but since it should mean less people killed in shootings problem solved. :thumbsup:

 

[Jetzt]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scurge @ Apr 19 2007, 04:20 AM) [snapback]160228[/snapback]</div>

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. That gun did'nt walk into VA Tech alone and kill them all. That guy went in and killed them. So guns are not to blame it is the person.[/b]

yes, but when anyone can walk into a shop and buy a gun your allowing the risk of something like this to happen.

 

[Adamis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scarface @ Apr 19 2007, 10:05 AM) [snapback]160149[/snapback]</div>

You haven't been to Texas have you? I have friends who have talked me through the process of making pipe bombs, C4, and napalm. Bombs are a social activity where I live, me and my dad made a few bombs out in the country, not large enough to kill large numbers of people, but enough to mess up the face.

Fuck petty crimes dude. Gangs may not run rampant in your country but here they do because it's a vastly larger country. And here if you ban guns people will die, there would be riots in the streets, sociopaths all across the nation would seize the opportunity and start killing in vast numbers. And I hate to tell you dude but in my opinion, your country bans guns to stop people from over-running the government, we still have that power, and if guns are banned the government would either crumble or be over-run.[/b]

You kind of just made the whole argument for why American's shouldn't have guns right there. If they do that kind of things with explosives what are they going to do with an easier weapon such as a gun?

I would also like to point out that while martial arts can also be used to kill people, only true masters can kill 30 odd people in a few minutes with martial arts. While you can do the same kind of thing, its just not on the same scale when you have a gun.

 

[Matt]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scarface @ Apr 19 2007, 04:35 AM) [snapback]160233[/snapback]</div>

I think the only proof I need lay in the American Revolution, we were vastly outnumbered by the greatest military power in the world, we still won. We can do the same, it takes intelligence, not numbers and technology.[/b]

No it doesn't.

Wtf is your population gonna do against the best army in the world.

And the gap in technology between the british army and your rebels wasn't big at all

 

[Adamis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scarface @ Apr 19 2007, 03:35 PM) [snapback]160233[/snapback]</div>

I think the only proof I need lay in the American Revolution, we were vastly outnumbered by the greatest military power in the world, we still won. We can do the same, it takes intelligence, not numbers and technology.[/b]

So then you freely admit that the Iraq "freedom-fighters" are smarter than your guys over there since they are beating you? You freely admit that teh Vietnamese are smarter than you cause they kicked you ass in the 60s?

 

[Raze]

Simply said, banning guns hah! that wont solve anything, thats about as helpful as banning drugs. The united states does not adopt Mercentilism. The constitution says that citizens have the right to bear arms, and frankly I think this is an alright rule.

Woopidy freakin doo, canada may have more gun control and so they have fewer cases of blah blah, right.

Point is banning guns will do nothing, people will still get them, some way, and will still use them. These cases where deppressed kids go on a rampage at school [va. tech] are scenerios where people are like "noooes, get ride of the gunz!" whats next? Kids don't have guns, so they bring knives to school and pull a 'screm' on everyone in a much more brutal massacar.

Taking away guns will not by any shot, change a thing, violence will still exist, stupid people will still exist, terrorism will still exist. Get over it.

 

[Matt]

lol...I'd like to see someone kill 30 people wit a knife rampage.

As for getting hold of guns if you ban them, make it very very difficult to do.....Most other countries manage it.

Britain's gun crime is one of the worst in europe but it's still a billion miles away from america's.

 

[Raze]

If someone really wants to get their paws on a gun, a law isn't going to stop them. And the people who normally do gun crimes have 'sources' if they need them, as for the occasional depressed teenager, thats a different story.

Theres no point to banning guns as it wont solve anything, just prevent, and only a little bit at that. Depressed teenagers will kill 30 or so people, maybe more, but thats not a threat to the country, thats just a sad experiance which is impossible to fully prevent under ANY law, or ANY goverment system. Frankly the only threats are the people seeking to topple the goverment, and some stupid kid has no ability what-so-ever to do that. Sure, what happened at Va. Tech was horrible, but really didn't 'shatter the economy' like 9/11.

School shootings happen in every country, uncontrolled. And thats unchangeable, the only way to stop this entirally. Is a strict facist goverment where the goverment controls what everyone thinks and feels, and all crimes are punishable by death. And all opposed are slaughtered like cattle.

When this happens, the world will know peace.

 

[Drago Solaris]

First off you have a shit system, im not talking about guns being legal, this guy who HAD mental problems and had been diagnosed earlier just walked into the gun shop and all he had to do is tick a box that said he wasnt mentaly ill an dhe got the gun bascialy, no proof required at all.

NOW to the legalised gun bit. First off if guns were banned yes some people would still have them, people over here have them, but these people would be the guys who smuggle drugs and stuff and use it within that buisness. These people who are complete nutjobs with no friends who just want to go on a kill rampage would no longer be able to get hold of them, this would greatly cut down on school shootings and stuff. And as for a knife rampage? HA first off a knife cant break the lock on a door and let you into a classroom thats been locked from the inside, i knife cant kill someone from the other side of the room, even if you throw it youl more likely miss than anything else, a knife very rarley kills someone in one hit it would have to be a hit to a vrery vital organ to do that and so if you were determined to kill someone it would take more time and most of all a knife is much easier to defend yourself against than guns, push a table in the way hit them over the head with a chair, 3 organized brave people could easily take down a guy with a knife, where as if the guy had a gun they would have no chance.

 

[Cailst]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Matt @ Apr 19 2007, 06:04 AM) [snapback]160274[/snapback]</div>

No it doesn't.

Wtf is your population gonna do against the best army in the world.

And the gap in technology between the british army and your rebels wasn't big at all[/b]

Though the gap in tech level was hardly existent, the revolution was fought in set piece battles, not guerilla warfare. Obviously, the civilians of the U.S. would have a hard time fighting off the U.S. army in a set piece battle or even on a huge front like WW2 and WW1 and most conventional wars. However, the U.S. would be fighting a true guerilla war against the civilians and worse for them, it would be an urban guerilla war (unlike Vietnam but like Iraq) which would likely have more civilian casualties. As I said before, the populace and some of the soldiers woud be sypathetic to the rebel cause and even more so than in Iraq. Also, the populace vastly outnumbers the soldiers, far more so than in Iraq and more could keep on fighting and for longer than in Iraq. And if Iraq is a mess, then America would probably be worse.

 

[Ser Yorick]

If there were tighter restrictions on guns, such as having to go through medical and mental evalutaions before even qualifying to fill out other forms and have background checks, then I can openly say without fear of contradiction, that the massacre at VA Tech would never have happened.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Indeed. We shouldn't be handing over guns to the insane.