Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

Thread: Your position on guns

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,714
    Images
    142

    Your position on guns

    Interested to hear from you politically thoughtful folks on the topic of guns.

    Specific arguments I'd like to read:

    Is the Second Amendment of the US Constitutution an individual right, or a collective right?

    Should Americans have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves? If you answer yes to this one, does your answer include situations in public spaces?

    Do you think governments (local, state, and/or federal) are good custodians of your well being, when/if your rights are infringed by criminal, terrorist, or police action?

    Do you believe that more guns equals more crime?

    What dangers do an armed populace represent?

    If guns are outlawed, will criminals be able to get guns?

    Is our government, in current or future form, capable of systematically opressing us? If you answer yes, do you envision we might have no choice but to physically fight for our rights?


    Let fly. Take this in any direction you like.

  2. #2
    my position on guns?

    it's an essential right of American democracy

    get em before teh government takes em away

  3. #3
    only non-automatic firearms should be allowed.

    And anyone found with illegal firearms should be put in prison for at least 5 years.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    my position on guns??? I hate them- but that's just me.....

  5. #5
    too many guns in the world.

  6. #6
    I think the second amendment represents the ultimate decentralization of military power because it essentially preserves that the citizenry at large plays the central role in preserving national security. To self govern, the People require access to bullets as well as ballots. It, among other things, ensures that we own our government. To our founding fathers... this was as real as flesh and blood. Our Revolution was wrought by arms.

    The Constitution itself is a populist document and not a liberitarian one. In this case the second amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It didn't say persons. Therefore, the right is collective. The amendment is nothing less than popular sovereignty applied to the military realm. Individual benefit because it serves a public purpose. An individual's right to hunt, target shoot, or collect is protecting the second in the same manner that first amendment protects ones right to post stupid threads on the internet.

    However, many people don't realize the second amendment was modified during the Reconstruction period to deal with oppressive states in the South. I believe this is where the individual right to bear arms became so popular. People needed to defend against outlaws and blacks needed to defend against the KKK attacks.

    I particular disagree with issues about the second that both liberals and conservatives make. However, in the larger scheme of things, I believe that the second amendment is a pivotal reminder that self-government comes in many forms.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #7
    Yea but ONE STRONG military is more essential..The citizens of the USA who own guns pose ZERO threat to the establishment..It's BS..It doesn't safeguard against an abusive regime...
    Look at Iraq...There are literally hundreds of groups of people with guns..and there's no strong unified authority to stop them...If Iraq had NO weapons, it would be different..
    bottom line is it's WAY too easy to get you hands on weapons designed for killing..

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=bman]Yea but ONE STRONG military is more essential..The citizens of the USA who own guns pose ZERO threat to the establishment..It's BS..It doesn't safeguard against an abusive regime...
    Look at Iraq...There are literally hundreds of groups of people with guns..and there's no strong unified authority to stop them...If Iraq had NO weapons, it would be different..
    bottom line is it's WAY too easy to get you hands on weapons designed for killing..[/QUOTE]

    Whether the 2nd amendment existed or not, whether all guns are legal or no guns or legal, it wouldn't stop anyone from getting one if they wanted to acquire one. See: War on Drugs.

  9. #9
    true..but guns can be purchased in a store (drugs can't)..and for the [I]most[/I] part, drug use is a victimless crime..

  10. #10
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bman]true..but guns can be purchased in a store (drugs can't)..and for the [i]most[/i] part, drug use is a victimless crime..[/QUOTE]

    wrong again, dumbmarine, the sale & use of illegal drugs are not a victimless crime at all. they're a plague on society

    1st there's physical damage to one's self - healthwise

    2nd there's damage to others health-

    spreading hepatitis & AIDS and contracting diseases
    like leukemia from intravenous drug use;

    accidents at home, at work, and in public
    from minor injury to death-
    auto accidents, fires, etc

    rape and assorted violence committed under the influence


    3rd there's economic loss/ theft, & intentional damage to property under the
    influence
    robberies, muggings, other assorted destruction

    4th there's higher insurance costs for autos & properties of all kinds
    especially in drug-infested "neighborhoods"

    5th there's loss of productivity by attempting to work under
    the influence

    6th there's emotional damage to families affected by drugs.
    i shouldnt have to explain it to you

    so much for drugs being a victimless crime

    areas w/o gun control laws tend to have less crime

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,714
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=finlee17]In this case the second amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It didn't say persons. Therefore, the right is collective. [/QUOTE]
    "the right of the people" phrasing is used in the Fourth Amendment as well. By your logic, based on the phrasing, the government could search and seize the property of individuals, but not groups. Clearly, the courts don't see it that way.

    [QUOTE]The amendment is nothing less than popular sovereignty applied to the military realm. Individual benefit because it serves a public purpose. An individual's right to hunt, target shoot, or collect is protecting the second in the same manner that first amendment protects ones right to post stupid threads on the internet.[/QUOTE]
    Stupid responses are protected, too. :)

    [QUOTE]However, many people don't realize the second amendment was modified during the Reconstruction period to deal with oppressive states in the South. I believe this is where the individual right to bear arms became so popular. People needed to defend against outlaws and blacks needed to defend against the KKK attacks.[/QUOTE]
    Ya got me puzzled on that one. Can you provide some details or reference? My understanding is the Second Amendment stands as originally written.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,714
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=bman]true..but guns can be purchased in a store (drugs can't)..and for the [I]most[/I] part, drug use is a victimless crime..[/QUOTE]

    So is gun use, for the most part. For the tens of thousands of rounds fired in criminal acts each year in the U.S., billions of rounds are fired for recreational purposes. That's without even trying to account for lawful, defensive use of guns.

  13. #13
    [I]spreading hepatitis & AIDS and contracting diseases
    like leukemia from intravenous drug use;

    accidents at home, at work, and in public
    from minor injury to death-
    auto accidents, fires, etc

    rape and assorted violence committed under the influence


    3rd there's economic loss/ theft, & intentional damage to property under the
    influence
    robberies, muggings, other assorted destruction

    4th there's higher insurance costs for autos & properties of all kinds
    especially in drug-infested "neighborhoods"

    5th there's loss of productivity by attempting to work under
    the influence

    6th there's emotional damage to families affected by drugs.
    i shouldnt have to explain it to you[/I]

    everything you just mentioned also happens due to abuse of legal alchohol.

  14. #14
    My "position" on Guns?

    I prefer to be behind them, rather than in front of them.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Warfish]My "position" on Guns?

    I prefer to be behind them, rather than in front of them.[/QUOTE]


    :funnyguy: :funnyguy: :funnyguy:

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    Heres my two cents worth...
    [QUOTE=rbstern]Interested to hear from you politically thoughtful folks on the topic of guns.



    [QUOTE=rbstern]Is the Second Amendment of the US Constitutution an individual right, or a collective right?[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, I don't know enough about the constitution to give a solid answer.

    [QUOTE=rbstern]Should Americans have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves? If you answer yes to this one, does your answer include situations in public spaces?[/QUOTE]

    I'd like to know why this is so important. I also think it is part and parcel with individualism and the movement toward that. IF an individual is to be free and to buy the whole concept of individualism, its just another aspect of selling the whole concept.

    [QUOTE=rbstern]Do you think governments (local, state, and/or federal) are good custodians of your well being, when/if your rights are infringed by criminal, terrorist, or police action?[/QUOTE]

    I think the whole terrorism aspect is just another way of trying to scare the public into giving up personal freedom. This whole concept that you can be protected from terrorism, in my opinion, is a bit of a joke.

    [QUOTE=rbstern]Do you believe that more guns equals more crime?[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely. Tough to have gunfights in the street when nobody has guns.

    [QUOTE=rbstern]What dangers do an armed populace represent?[/QUOTE]
    [QUOTE=rbstern]If guns are outlawed, will criminals be able to get guns?[/QUOTE]

    Its one thing that everybody can own a gun. It is something completely different when people are arming themselves collectively against Big Brother. I also don't think automatic weapons are what the fathers of confederation had in mind when they said you had rights to bear arms. One thing to need a gun to protect your land, its another to need uzi's and grenade launchers to keep someone out of your house.

    [QUOTE=rbstern]Is our government, in current or future form, capable of systematically opressing us? If you answer yes, do you envision we might have no choice but to physically fight for our rights?[/QUOTE]

    YEs, and no...I also think corporations are doing a great job of oppressing.

    Let fly. Take this in any direction you like.[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    "I also think corporations are doing a great job of oppressing."

    What's the alternative? We know that socialist policies don't make us better off.

    "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the
    others."

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution an individual right, or a collective right?
    [B]I'm not sure what that means, sorry.[/B]

    Should Americans have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves?
    [B]Yes[/B]
    If you answer yes to this one, does your answer include situations in public spaces?
    [B]You should be able to carry a gun other then if you are drinking or at a place where there is a hired official that is carrying a weapon to protect the people. Such as a bank, courthouse, jail etc. I think if you use a bank that does not have a hired armed guard then you should be able to carry a concealed weapon into it. [/B]

    Do you think governments (local, state, and/or federal) are good custodians of your well being, when/if your rights are infringed by criminal, terrorist, or police action?
    [B]The government can only do so much, the rest is up to the individual.[/B]

    Do you believe that more guns equals more crime?
    [B]No, criminals are going to commit crimes no matter what.[/B]

    What dangers do an armed populace represent?
    [B]People shooting each other.[/B]

    If guns are outlawed, will criminals be able to get guns?
    [B]Of course, drugs are illegal and they are everywhere. I do think that all guns sold should be finger printed so that if the gun is used in a crime they can trace the gun back to it's owner. This would work other then if a certain type of bullet is used that is illegal, it breaks up so much it can not by traced. Automatic weapons should be illegal as well as 50 caliber sniper rifles. These two weapon serve no point for hunting or protection and are way to dangerous for someone to use that is not trained.[/B]

    Is our government, in current or future form, capable of systematically oppressing us? If you answer yes, do you envision we might have no choice but to physically fight for our rights?
    [B]Yes, any government that has power has the ability to oppress the masses and our masses have no chance of overpower our government with physical force it would need to be done by voting.[/B]
    Last edited by New York Mick; 11-30-2006 at 11:52 PM.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]

    wrong again, dumbmarine, the sale & use of illegal drugs are not a victim less crime at all. they're a plague on society
    [B]Alcohol is by far a bigger plague.[/B]

    1st there's physical damage to one's self - health wise
    [B]Cigarette and alcohol kill a lot more people then drugs.[/B]

    2nd there's damage to others health-

    spreading hepatitis & AIDS and contracting diseases
    like leukemia from intravenous drug use;
    [B]Only a very very small portion of drug users use intravenous drugs. More people catch STDs because of getting drunk and having unprotected sex.[/B]

    accidents at home, at work, and in public
    from minor injury to death-
    auto accidents, fires, etc
    [B]Alcohol by far cause more.[/B]

    rape and assorted violence committed under the influence
    [B]Alcohol by far causes more fights, rapes, domestic violence or any type of violence.[/B]

    3rd there's economic loss/ theft, & intentional damage to property under the
    influence
    robberies, muggings, other assorted destruction
    [B]I agree that drug addicts are heavily involved with theft but even if there where no drugs or alcohol there is going to be every crime still. Drugs and alcohol get to much credit for people acting like animals.[/B]

    4th there's higher insurance costs for autos & properties of all kinds
    especially in drug-infested "neighborhoods"
    [B]Drug infested neighborhoods have lower insurance and overall cost for the simple reason the neighbors with drugs are dumps. You don't see drug dealers on the street corners of nice neighbors and they have a lot higher insurance cost.[/B]
    5th there's loss of productivity by attempting to work under
    the influence
    [B]This is true for drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. And one of the reasons coke was outlawed was the owners of farms and docks used to give blacks coke so they could work longer and harder hours and then blamed coke for blacks being aggressive toward whites. I'm sure it might have had something to do with the fact that blacks had no rights and got treated like **** by whites. So if you really want to be technical coke and meth would increase certain workers out put.[/B]

    6th there's emotional damage to families affected by drugs.
    i shouldn't have to explain it to you

    [B]Alcohol causes more emotional damage then drugs by far[/B].

    so much for drugs being a victim less crime.

    [B]Weed if it was legal would be more victim less by far then alcohol. [/B]

    areas w/o gun control laws tend to have less crime.
    [B]true[/B]

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=rbstern]"the right of the people" phrasing is used in the Fourth Amendment as well. By your logic, based on the phrasing, the government could search and seize the property of individuals, but not groups. Clearly, the courts don't see it that way. [/QUOTE]

    No, that is not my logic. The noun "People" is used throughout the Constitution and embodies voters and jurors. "We the People" is basically the first principle or our Constitution. In order to self-govern, three fundamental constitutional roles of ordinary citizens (vote, fight, and judge) are inherently public, involving citizens in a collective enterprise.

    The problem that I have with liberals and conservatives is that they treat the Constitution as a hand bag of independent clauses. One cannot interpret the Constitution by isolating individual clauses. One must take in the text, structure, and history of it to get a holistic interpretation. For instance, linking both the third and fourth amendment protects "houses" from needless and dangerous intrusions by government officials. Also, there is a link between the first and fourth because the fourth requires that warrants specify the places and things to be searched. It runs deep with the first because the British had used search and arrest warrants to restrict free speech.

    However, the fourth amendment is one of those amendments that is widely abused and misunderstood. But that is another topic for another day. Additionally I haven't read up on it in a while.



    [QUOTE=rbstern]Stupid responses are protected, too. :) [/QUOTE]

    Sorry... I wasn't referring to your post. Just the majority of the stuff that gets posted.



    [QUOTE=rbstern]Ya got me puzzled on that one. Can you provide some details or reference? My understanding is the Second Amendment stands as originally written.[/QUOTE]

    Ummm... I'm pleading the fifth here. :)

    [url]http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/freedman.html[/url]

    Once again, my bad... I meant our interpretation of the second was modified/altered during the Reconstruction period. It had to due with the 14th amendment extended rights to blacks, women, and other non-voters. The Reconstruction Congress and courts knew the police could not be trusted to protect blacks in the south and saw self-protection as a constitutional right. It wasn't until the 15th that blacks were able to vote. Women had to wait a little longer.
    Attached Images Attached Images

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us