This Is My Boomstick!

[duckula]

I think that the right to bear arms should be like the right to vote. No kids, no felons. Thats me looking at the spirit of the text. The spirit of the text also seems to be pro gun.

Also, why would greater gun control help with illegal weapons? They aren't getting any more illegal. If you want to deal with them, you use the current laws, don't enact more, that's just sloppy.

My position is fundamentally this: You can vote, you can have a gun. The laws as they stand need no additions and so anyone running on a gun control ticket is just pandering. Finally, if I was in America I know for damn sure I would want a gun.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by duckula

I think that the right to bear arms should be like the right to vote. No kids, no felons. Thats me looking at the spirit of the text. The spirit of the text also seems to be pro gun.

That makes it a privilege, not a right

Also, why would greater gun control help with illegal weapons? They aren't getting any more illegal. If you want to deal with them, you use the current laws, don't enact more, that's just sloppy.

The current laws aren't working, clearly.

My position is fundamentally this: You can vote, you can have a gun. The laws as they stand need no additions and so anyone running on a gun control ticket is just pandering. Finally, if I was in America I know for damn sure I would want a gun.

You want a gun anyway...you wanted a gun from the armed cop at Heathrow...you just love guns...doesn't make your argument any more logical

[Kelsey]

I don't think guns should be banned because that would be pointless, but I do think they should be harder to get. They're sold at K-Mart and Wal-Mart for god's sake. Some places where there is a lot of gang activity, or out in the country, I can understand owning a gun. But I think people are too leniant with their guns. I hate those all too common stories of the ten year old bringing his dad's gun to school and shooting the kid who wouldn't pick him for his team (or some other stupid reason). There also needs to be more gun control and safety awareness aimed at children.

[Hazzle]

What Kelsey said...oh dear...am I agreeing with her AGAIN?!?!

[duckula]

Enforce the laws you have, don't get any more. Maybe teach some responsibility to gun owners. Or just accept the modern face of evolution. Dumbasses always find a way to die.

[Kelsey]

Duckula, I agree....we don't need any "no gun" rules or anything like that....we need more awareness. I hardly ever see anything aimed at children that tells them the effects of shooting a gun and the dangers of it.

[hasselbrad]

How did I manage to not post in this?
Sorry for the bump, but maybe we can have some more discussion here, which couldn't possibly do any harm, right?

I realize Haz is a lawyer and all, but Ducks is right. Banning firearms runs contrary to both the literal and spiritual context of the Second Amendment. Many of the founding fathers felt that the federal government should never be more powerful than the states, and one of the ways of ensuring this was to make sure the populace was armed. Many felt that if the federal government became too powerful and began to trample on the rights of the individual, that armed revolution would be the only solution. These men had few qualms about spilling a little blood in the name of freedom.

It may seem silly to think about a bunch of Americans armed with nothing more than a rifle and a box of ammunition going up against an army as well equipped as ours, not to mention a navy and airforce. However, one has to remember the context of the time in which the document was written. The armed citizen had roughly the equivilent firepower of an English infantryman. It would be well over one hundred years before man figured out how to fly, let alone mount weaponry on the aircraft.

Likewise, as Ducks pointed out, the founding fathers couldn't have fathomed that the population of the United States would be one hundred and twenty times what it was. In 1776, the population of the United States was roughly 2,500,000. Now, it's over 300,000,000. The total population of the United States in 1776 wouldn't rank among the top twenty metropolitan areas now. That's a lot of people, and with proper motivation, that could be a mighty tough force to go up against, regardless of technology. Add to that, the fact that many in the military would probably desert once they found out they might be attacking their own family, and I don't see why this scenario couldn't happen.

And, as has been pointed out, most crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons anyway. Seriously, as the '64 Impala is rolling up on a rival gang's house, do you really think anyone in the car is thinking, "jeepers, this AK-47 might not be completely legal"? Take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and you have no deterrent to criminals whatsoever.

[Leonie]

I'm tempted to post something about all the rhetorical fallacies Haz employed while pointing Duckula's ones out, but I won't :P

[duckula]

Go for it. We were young and foolish, carried away by the heat of the moment. Also, the timing of the bump is quite apposite what with the Supreme Court finally looking at the 2nd Amendment (see Heller v. DC).

[Leonie]

Is it just me or is it scary to think how long ago that was? I was just out of secondary school at the time of this thread...

As for Haz's argument that if no one had guns, we wouldn't need guns for self-defence either -- let's face it, we don't live in utopia. There are guns. You can outlow them, but there are guns and there will be guns. We might as well be well-prepared to deal with them.

That said, I do think there should be some way of regulating gun licenses so that those with a criminal convinction to their name - and with the more severe ones, I don't care how long ago it was - can be excluded. I don't know enough about legal systems in different countries to decide where the line should be drawn, but I think we can all imagine the general gist of the idea.

Also, Ducks, Heller v. DC - link pretty please?

[duckula]

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

[Jacoby]

Can it be about the Evil Dead series, instead? I mean, since I've now actually seen the movies and get the reference.

[Ranman]

everyone who votes in this country should have a gun? Have you seen some of the people here who vote. I will give you a visual, "The hillbillys in the movie Deliverance "

[duckula]

The hillbillys already have guns.

[Ranman]

exactly, and they say " Duckula sure does have a purty mouth" Is that what you wanna hear from someone holding a gun?

[Leonie]

I can't believe that the Supreme Court ruled that only Heller had shown sufficient interest in the case to have standing to sue. Does it then all come down to money again? If you can afford to sue, we'll let you have a gun?

[duckula]

You only need to rule on one case to set precedent for the rest. This case is likely to determine whether the 2nd amendment is an individual or a collective right. Which is quite important. If it is an individual right there isn't going to be much chance of more gun laws barring a further constitutional amendment and some existing laws may be ruled unconstitutional. It's interesting stuff.

On Ranman's point I suppose that if I found myself in such a position I would like to be equipped to get out of it.

[Ranman]

Originally Posted by duckula

On Ranman's point I suppose that if I found myself in such a position I would like to be equipped to get out of it.

lipgloss? chapstick?

[duckula]

Glock?

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by duckula

Glock?

Much more effective.

I want a .45 Thompson.