TW Scott said:
Switserland dumbass.
How do you feel about guns?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Switserland dumbass.
TW Scott is repeating the Swiss fallacy of gun ownership. Switzerland and the US have greatly differing laws and attitudes towards firearms, which explains the dissimilarity in gun abuse. But that completely scuppers the gun strokers argument; that regulation makes you safer. So he has to wriggle. And boy, is he wriggling.
No, I didn't. As I said, a well regulated militia doesn't mean what you think it does.
"10 USC 311 - “Militia: composition and classes”
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
If a well regulated militia meant that only the National Guard counts as our militia, then there would be no such thing as an "organized" and "unorganized" militia in U.S. law.
It's pretty friggin' simple to read and understand what the 2nd ammendment means. Only hippies try to convince people otherwise.
Let's look at some definitions of the only part you guys can focus on for your argument whereas all the people who know how to read is able to point to the whole thing, or even other parts, not just one little phrase like ya'll.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
For 1: A "well-ruled/principled/lawed militia"? Okay, look at the militia laws of the U.S. Every person over the age of 17 is considered to be in the miltia therefore all those people are allowed guns.
For 2: A "well-required" militia? Well what's the requirement of a militia? Be over 17 and, as the 2nd ammendment mentions, have arms.
For 3: A "well maintained and proper functioning militia"? The 2nd ammendment clearly states that arms are what make a militia, otherwise there wouldn't even be a need to mention that people's rights to bear arms can't be infringed in the first place! Not only that, but there would be no need to even mention "the right of the people" as all they would have to do is say "the right of the select few in the militia" if you want to try and limit who can use it, but you know why you can't? Because EVERYONE is part of the militia!
Arms for the people are clearly what the 2nd ammendment is about. Every ammendment is about the people in the first place, not selective groups ommitting our free people. If arms are not what the 2nd ammendment is about, it's a pretty stupid and redundant ammendment. Why? That would be like making an ammendment saying "a professional army is neccessary for the security of our country (duh), so you can't infringe on army people's rights to have weapons (double duh)". Nice way to waste a buncha time telling us something we don't already know. Clearly it's about people's rights to bear arms. People are what make up the militia and EVERYONE age 17 and over is in it, so clearly it means everyone has the right to bear arms and not some non-existant special group called the National Guard.
For the 4th, last, and least used of definition of "regulate" : Again, "maintained". See answer #3. A militia without arms is not a militia. Now hey, how about the only part that you irresponsible people unable to use a gun focuses on (just like they only focus on the militia part of the 2nd ammendment): a "well-ordered" militia? Perhaps if the "orderly" National Guard existed back when this ammendment was written, maybe you'd have a case to argue against, so that automatically makes that argument null and void. That's really clings of desperation and also ignores U.S. militia laws. Perhaps if there were only a such thing an organized militia, again, you might have an argument. Not only that, but unorganized militia aren't unorganized in the sense you may think. Order IS still there, just not in a very high chain of command as our professional department of defense is. Rag-tag militiamen are still required to report to local offices and/or bases in an event that they're needed such as our country being under attack. So hey, your "well-orderly militia" still applies to all regular citizens!
Every definition of the word "regulate" still shows that the right to bear arms is for everyone. You can go ahead and focus on any ol' very selective part and still be shown wrong. It just shows your lack of reading comprehension of the 2nd ammendment and also shows your ignorance of U.S. law -- specifically in regards to militia law. Every single post I tell you guys to read your militia laws yet nobody does it. It's pretty simple what the 2nd ammendment means and what is meant behind it, but ya'll don't like it because guns are boohoo evil and it ruins your image of a utopian dreamworld. Reality people, reality.
If you don't want a gun, go ahead and use the freedoms granted to you and DON'T OWN ONE, but the moment you try and force your views onto others is when you're just flat out wrong especially when the law is against you. You liberals hate people who force and preach their religion on you, and I don't like em either, so how about you get some balls and not be a hypocrite acting like them trying to preach about your misguided utopian society views on others too. Gun laws only hurt LAW-ABIDING citizens, not criminals. Criminals are the ones you have to worry about, so why do you continue to hurt regular ol' joes while glorifying crimials?
When a crime happens, you blame the police for the actions they take if and when they find the criminal. You guys complain about harsh living conditions in jails so they all have TVs, tons of books, phone time, computer time, sex time, and other goodies. When a criminal murders people, you want that person rehabilitated. When a criminal robs a home, you don't want people able to defend themselves. Criminals also don't serve much time for their crimes as most criminals after commiting a crime gets put in jail, comes out a couple months or a year or two later then goes out and commits more crime where the cycle is repeated where many have been in jail numerous times! And you guys wanna blame LAW-ABIDING citizens when it's CRIMNALS that commit these bad acts and YOU guys are the ones RELEASING these CRIMINALS all the time! Gimme a break. Hey, I like marijuana just like you guys, but you hippies must be smokin crack or something cause it's ridiculous the way you continue to make criminals out to be victims and law-abiding citizens as the bad guys!
- N
Too bad nobody else realizes that.
Oh no, some guy killed his wife with a gun.. they must be banned! Yeah, like he wouldn't have used a friggin' knife or even his bare hands! Violent crimes will happen regardless. This is why in countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia where they proudly say they can't use guns, that's why violent crimes have increased because I mean hey, only guns make people commit crimes, right?
Oh yeah, that's also why gun crimes still happen over there..No, there's nothing wrong with that because it's true. Guns don't affect murder rates. Violent crimes have actually gone UP in countries that banned guns. Maybe if you said something like "guns reduce the effect of mass murder", you'd be a bit more accurate, although still wrong. Look at all the mass serial killers.. hardly any ever used guns. And heck, gimme a bow and some arrows and also a $10 machete I can cause just as much damage with that in a crowded area such as a school as I could with a gun.
And just so you know, NO I'd never do that. It's for the sake of argument. Only the liberals here so far have said they'd shoot someone during road rage which goes to show how irresponsible they are.
Gun crimes still happen in Switzerland, but hey, that's to be accepted especially since in countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia which have basically banned guns, gun crimes still happen there too!
Yep, that's the reason, not guns.
Gun crimes happen most often in big cities. Big cities have high poverty and crime. Big cities also have lots of people which increases the number of criminals and chances of crimes happening. Criminals can gain access to any weapon as well. That's pretty much the reason for the majority of U.S. gun crimes. Not only that though, but also in those big cities, they're usually liberal and have strict gun control laws which means most people can't have em. You can't really defend yourself against a gun without one so it makes most people bigger targets as they're unable to adequately defend themselves.
Agreed 100%! And if you'll note, the biggest cause of political correctness is from liberals. Who are the ones running those large, crime-infested cities? Liberals. And who are the ones that make criminals out to be the biggest victims and who are the ones that keep releasing criminals? Liberals. They're more dangerous than anything. They have this so-called perfect dreamworld in their mind, but when they try and apply it, they screw it all up! There's a reason why reality isn't called dreamland.
My definition of a liberal: One who grants a freedom while taking away a previously held one which results in a negative gain.
1. Note that guns are required to be locked away here as well and in some states even have a safety lock and/or fastening cable. Note: laws are still broken (omg but gun laws are supposed to work!)
2. Note that liberals don't want people to have guns when gun owners want every person to have a gun and since every person over the age of 17 is part of a militia (which you even have to sign papers for when you're of age or risk going to jail), it WOULD be part of our equipment if not for liberals holding us back.
3. Note that there are strict laws on gun abuse here as well. Punishment quadruples if a gun is used in a crime or even present.
4. Note that guns are still used for self defense there and gun crimes still happen. Note that if they ever had to overthrow their government, I'll pay you $50,000 if they wound up not using their guns.
5. Note that Switzerland has millions and millions less people in their country and have less large cities that are the bastion of poverty and crime. Also note, they have less minorities and cultures than the U.S. It's a simple fact that the more various cultures you have, the more tension there will be.
6. Note that where the majority of crime and gun crimes happen in the U.S., gun laws aren't different as they're usually outright banned, yet those crimes still happen just like they do in the UK, Canada, Australia, and other places where guns are banned.
7. Note that sounds just like the "war on terror" because we all know who criminals are so we all know who to target. For the criminals that are known, they cannot legally own a gun. Mentally ill people can't own a gun. Lots of people can't own a gun. All that matters little because criminals can gain access to anything. Where there's a will, there's a way.
8. Note, that only applies to their militia equipment. Guns still exist in Switzerland aside from militia weaponry.
9. Note that since you can't get anything through your own skull either, while Switzerland has strict gun laws that are allowed, in the places where there is high crime and gun crimes in the U.S., guns are usually outright banned. Gun control doesn't stop violent crimes or gun crimes.
10. Note that you need a permit for handguns here. Shotguns and rifles are hardly used in the majority of crimes. Note that all those regulations wouldn't matter anyways because guns are banned outright in most major cities yet gun crime and other violent crimes still happen because we all know that gun control works, lol.
- N
Not just guns banned, but the bullet proof vests are banned, and even stun guns and pepper spray are banned. The citzens are supposed to be defenseless to make it easier for the criminals to rob and bully them.
Neildo said:
unorganized militia = Well-regulated militia?
What is an antonym of well-regulated? unorganized.
Haha. You are really wiggling your ass.
TimeTraveler said:
Nonsense. Why is crime lower in countries with strict gun laws?
spuriousmonkey said:
Do you have proof that crime is lower? I highly doubt anything can lower crime. Aggressive people do aggressive things, and nothing really changes them, not the laws, not the access to weapons.
Yes.
Do you have proof agressive people are everywhere?
Do you have proof agressive people are everywhere?
Ya' know, perhaps we're all viewing this issue from the wrong perspective? I think that in order to see it in a neutral light, perhaps we should examine gun control from the perspective of ...taking away a "right" which millions of Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years.
If the government can take away the "right" of Americans to own guns because of the actions of a few individuals, what other "rights" can they take away from us ...and will we let them take those "rights" away as well?
Why do we insist on gun control? If we're against gun ownership because of the number of people killed by guns, murders as well as gun accidents, then what about those other "rights" that kill even more people? Car accidents kill many thousands of people than all of the gun deaths combined. Drunken and drugged-out drivers kill more people than guns. Drug "accidents" kills thousands more people than guns. Alcohol is the cause of thousands of deaths. Knives and various clubs kill many more people than guns.
So, if we insist on taking guns away because of deaths, how can we not insist on taking away booze and drugs? Or knives and clubs? And if we don't, perhaps the reasons for gun control are different than stated???
So ...perhaps the reasons for taking away the enjoyments of gun ownership is NOT because of deaths, but for some other reason(s)?
I would also ask why do we feel that it's necessary to infringe on the enjoyment of gun ownership by millions of people because of the actions of a few errant individuals? And should we use that same criteria for limiting the freedoms of Americans on all other issues?
All-in-all, I think taking away what millions of people enjoy is much, much different to permitting it in the first place. What else should we take away? Porno? Strip joints? Bars? Knives? Drugs? Booze? Sexy clothing?
Baron Max
If the government can take away the "right" of Americans to own guns because of the actions of a few individuals, what other "rights" can they take away from us ...and will we let them take those "rights" away as well?
Why do we insist on gun control? If we're against gun ownership because of the number of people killed by guns, murders as well as gun accidents, then what about those other "rights" that kill even more people? Car accidents kill many thousands of people than all of the gun deaths combined. Drunken and drugged-out drivers kill more people than guns. Drug "accidents" kills thousands more people than guns. Alcohol is the cause of thousands of deaths. Knives and various clubs kill many more people than guns.
So, if we insist on taking guns away because of deaths, how can we not insist on taking away booze and drugs? Or knives and clubs? And if we don't, perhaps the reasons for gun control are different than stated???
So ...perhaps the reasons for taking away the enjoyments of gun ownership is NOT because of deaths, but for some other reason(s)?
I would also ask why do we feel that it's necessary to infringe on the enjoyment of gun ownership by millions of people because of the actions of a few errant individuals? And should we use that same criteria for limiting the freedoms of Americans on all other issues?
All-in-all, I think taking away what millions of people enjoy is much, much different to permitting it in the first place. What else should we take away? Porno? Strip joints? Bars? Knives? Drugs? Booze? Sexy clothing?
Baron Max
Oniw17 said:
No there aren't.
Baron Max said:
Booze used to be taken away. have you forgotten? Drugs have been taken away. Have you forgotten?
Besides most things mentioned are under strict control.
spuriousmonkey said:
Spurious, I actually don't have too much of an issue with "control", the difference between us is that you seem to want to take my guns, not control my having them! Big difference! And that difference is why I'll never submit to that idea!
If you want to control guns, that's one issue ....so why don't you first "control" the guns that criminals use in violent crime? Then once that's done, you won't have to worry about my guns. But see, that's not what yo're trying to do, is it? You want to take the guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens while doing virtually nothing about the guns in the hands of criminals! Isn't that pretty fuckin' stupid?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
You can stuff your guns up your ass. I don't care. As long as you have the permits.
Needless to say you should not own a gun because you are just too american.
Wow! Spurious, I'm surprised that such a peace-loving, non-violent individual such as yourself would resort to such obvious violent reactions to my post. Odd, don't ya' think?
So the next time you wonder why there's so much violence in the world, I hope you remember your own tendencies. It might temper your foolish ideals about life in the world, ...which you seem bent on posting all the time.
And to think this site is just for open discussions .....what if it were in a meeting of diplomats negotiating a peace treaty? ....LOL!
Baron Max
So the next time you wonder why there's so much violence in the world, I hope you remember your own tendencies. It might temper your foolish ideals about life in the world, ...which you seem bent on posting all the time.
And to think this site is just for open discussions .....what if it were in a meeting of diplomats negotiating a peace treaty? ....LOL!
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
I don't know on what kind of drugs you are but I never claimed to be peaceful.
what's on trial here is your silly defense of your selfishness.
It depends. Are you talking about Rifles, bolt action, lever action, revolvers, kalashnikov AK, desert eagles, smith and west? You have to be more specific.
Jokes aside, I think guns should be banned, they are depressing. They psychologicaly devalue life.
Jokes aside, I think guns should be banned, they are depressing. They psychologicaly devalue life.
Baron Max said:
As you you perfectly well know I do not have ideals. I merely hold the truth.