![]() |
<font color=plum><font color=white>Aragarn</font> - Please show me the Constitutional Amendment that grants us the right to own another human being.
The Right to Bear Arms (provided by the 2nd Amendment) is designed to make sure the general populace can be armed to resist our OWN government IF it should ever become as oppressive as our Founding Fathers felt the British gov't was at that time. It is NOT designed solely for protection against outside invasion. It was another measure used to put prevent our government turning into a tyranny (though many here would probably argue it is already dangerously close to that outcome after the last election ;) ).</font> |
Well, it wasn't Aragorn who wrote what you were answering but me... [img]smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, the reason I wrote that it allowed people to own another human being is because, I thought the original constitution allowed people to keep slaves but was changed with the 13th amandment later... But I was wrong... and I admit it, it doesn't say so explicitly and I apologise. I heard this some time ago and of course just believed it. Then, now when reading your reply I actually read the constitution (well skimmed over it [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and couldn't find it saying so explicitly, guess they meant that by not addressing slavery in the original 10 amandments slavery was seen as being accepted. |
Quote:
But even if you and others want to insist that the intended purpose of guns is to harm or kill other people, I and others have shown that it CAN be used for other purposes. And the fact is that the VAST majority of guns owners in America do NOT use their guns for this so called "intended purpose". Guns DO have other purposes BESIDES inflicting injury on another person. So banning guns based on the presumption that inflicting injury is the primary purpose is nothing more than reactionary legislation that seeks to blame the object rather than the PERSON for the actions the owner takes. And it also fully supports <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRiders</font> original point - that many objects CAN be used to inflict injury even if this is not their "intended purpose". IF we are going to ban guns because they are designed to harm other people, then we would have no choice but to ban all these other tools with designs that can harm other people. ORRRRRRRRRR we could actually try placing the blame solely on the PERSON who inflicts the harm instead of blaming the object he/she used.</font> |
Quote:
But even if you and others want to insist that the intended purpose of guns is to harm or kill other people, I and others have shown that it CAN be used for other purposes. And the fact is that the VAST majority of guns owners in America do NOT use their guns for this so called "intended purpose". Guns DO have other purposes BESIDES inflicting injury on another person. So banning guns based on the presumption that inflicting injury is the primary purpose is nothing more than reactionary legislation that seeks to blame the object rather than the PERSON for the actions the owner takes. And it also fully supports <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRiders</font> original point - that many objects CAN be used to inflict injury even if this is not their "intended purpose". IF we are going to ban guns because they are designed to harm other people, then we would have no choice but to ban all these other tools with designs that can harm other people. ORRRRRRRRRR we could actually try placing the blame solely on the PERSON who inflicts the harm instead of blaming the object he/she used.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]It's not about who is to blame, anyone who kills another with intend is to be blamed, and neither is it about banning guns because their made to inflict harm, something I haven't proposed. I just reject the notion that the purpose of a gun isn't about causing harm and death. I doubt that the millions of dollars spent on R&D are just to entertain civilian Americans, regardless of how much you like guns. It's more likely that new weapon technology is developed to aid the US military as they and their contractors are the main researchers in this field, and where new technology goes first and foremost. |
I figured this thread deserves the text of the second amendment so we can discuss it in context rather than bits and parts.
Quote:
In other words gun control is not only constitutional, a lack of gun control is unconstitutional and at the same time blanket bans are not allowed unless for the purposes of well-regulation. I interpret "well" in this instance to mean laws that make common sense, are fair and are effective. Banning handguns here in the U.S. would be inneffective, would make no sense, and would not be fair to honest people wanting self-defense for long, long time- not to mention political suicide. There are simply too many handguns available, with millions upon millions manufactured every year. It would take generations for handgun supply to dry up and the sustained crime caused by the gap during disarmamnet would drive up demand from both criminals and ordinary folk looking for protection. Indeed prohibition would breed an artifical blackkmarket just like the drug war. Street prices might increase, but not alot considering just how many freaking guns are available in the U.S.A. Before all this could happen, we would probably have a swift change in government and a repeal on any law put forth and signed that outright bans guns. Guns would be legal and cheap once again and all would be well...unless you happen to get shot. [ 05-29-2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'd even go as far as rephrasing this bit Quote:
As for this part: Quote:
But to be honest, only if crime figures in the US were incredibly low and those in Europe ridiculously high you'd really have a point. Misleading articles and bold statements aside, that's simply not the case. Anyway, just for the record - I may disagree with gun ownership entirely. I may have praised my own gun-free society and voiced my concerns on how a gun-ridden society like the US would make anyone feel safer (which was pretty much what I thought Michael Moore for example was trying to convey), but I don't care about anti-gun lobbyist groups or fierce gun restriction law proposals because it doesn't concern me. I may think the application of the second amendment is somewhat disappointing, but I'm not contesting its validity - I realize that in the end it's a personal decision, permitted by your laws; and I respect that. Criminal behaviour can't be rooted out, period. You can only work towards establishing a culture that uses less lethal means to 'defend' itself and in a way lowering the fear level of said culture, but you can't establish that by banning something from one day to another that people rely on too heavily for their sense of safety. If a nation isn't ready for that, then don't do it. Quote:
Quote:
It's nice of you to say that it's nice of me to acknowledge that ;) , but honestly - it really is somewhat of a disappointment if this is attitude is truly surprising to you. I might get the feeling you're generalizing a wee bit too much now, giving me very little credit in the process. [ 05-30-2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ] |
Quote:
I suppose your own feelings on the subject are closer to the opposite, though. |
Quote:
Also see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf [ 05-30-2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ] |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved