Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

NO!

Today it's guns, tomorrow it's popsicles. You never know.

 

That's what I meant, an amendment, whatever the requirements are. You would have to if the proposition in the thread title were to become an actuality, wouldn't you? It does not bode well with many in this thread saying they would 'never give up' their guns.

 

I'm never going to give up my gun, mainly because I don't own a gun and I'm not just going to go out and buy a gun just so I can give it up.

 

Nobody's takin' away my guns and beer yeeeeeeehaaawwww

 

Look at the 18th and 21st amendments. The people will not always stand still and allow their freedoms to be taken away. There's a few other amendments that should be repealed too, and just maybe enough people will learn which they are and why they should never have been passed. We have so many laws on the books now that it's likely that the vast majority of citizens could be found guilty of violating one or more of them without even having knowledge the law exists. For those who are religious, think about it, even God only handed down 10 commandments, and they were short and to the point.

 

On what basis are you distinguishing between the good laws and the bad? In a democracy, if the sufficient number of people want an amendment as per whatever the requirements in the constitution are, who are you to argue against that as a citizen?

If the constitution was amended today to repeal the 2nd, would you not respect the decision of your fellow citizens?

 

Common sense helps.

Democracy doesn't assure that right decisions are made, only that a majority has been made to feel that they will benefit, while the minority may be the source of the right decision.

I think I already stated that I would not respect such an amendment even it were able to be passed. If the 1st amendment was to be repealed, would you respect the decision of your fellow citizens?

 

Your Christian/moralistic view of what the right decisions are is at odds with your country's democratic framework. In a democracy, a 'right law' either doesn't exist or, at best, is considered to be whatever the populace deems it to be. A democracy can't really exist without free speech, while it can without guns. Repealing the 1st amendment would entail eliminating most of the constitution.

 

I'm an atheist, but that has nothing to do with my views. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, made up of 50 sovereign States, but slowly becoming governed as a Socialist Democracy.

This thread is dead as far as I'm concerned. The form of government, democracy or the Constitution should be discussed in threads of their own.

 

It can be both, you know. It's not one or the other. Unless you want to claim the US is a non-democratic state, which I don't think you do as that would move it further towards the "socialist" description you appear to be afraid of.

 

The principle of a Constitutional based Republic is to avoid the destructive consequences that result from democracy. Socialism, as a form of government is totally unacceptable to me as it requires giving up many individual freedoms in order for those who govern to accomplish "their" agenda of what a society should be.
But like I said, this is a topic for another thread. Thread topics as shown in their title should attract those who wish to weigh in on the subject, and this one is on guns.

Start a new thread, and if it attracts interest of others I may weigh in as well.

 

Brother

Either do i.

Well said

 

I think one of the problems that you are over looking is that the 2nd amendment does not give the right to bear arms but is merely stating a right that already exists and is acknowledged in the 2nd amendment. Thus repealing the 2nd amendment would not remove that right from the people, it would just meant that there would no longer be a 2nd amendment that acknowledges that right.

Free speech is an inalienable right and it does not matter what repressive government a person lives under that person has the right to free speech.

Self defense is also an inalienable right and thus having the tools to defend oneself is also an inalienable right and it does not matter what repressive government a person lives under that person has those rights. Thus the repeal of the 2nd amendment would not take away that right, it would only reveal how oppressive the US government had become.

 

Roo

Please read my posts.

I said – “There are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns. And that to me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.”

Gun ownership has its own concerns.

I mean, think about it, there are concerns regarding private car ownership and public swimming pools but the regulations that have grown up regarding those concerns have not resulted in the exact same regulations because they are two completely separate set of concerns.

One of the concerns regarding gun ownership is that guns bought legally often end up in the hands of criminals. So I’ve argued that -

Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

 

OWB

I have not ‘jumbled’ your posts so as to produce some falsehood. I’ve just pointed to the posts as they were posted in sequence -

In post 661 you stated that you didn’t believe that prohibitions (the making of something like alcohol or drugs illegal) worked.

My reply to that post was in 683 - in which I said that I was also not in favour of a prohibition but that I did believe in regulation to reduce the likelihood of harm.

In post 686 you tell me that I am lying when I claim I have nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun.

It can’t be any clearer. They are not ‘jumbled’. Anyone can read them in sequence.

You did however say I was lying when I claimed to have nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun.

Post 686

Anyone reading that would I believe assume I was therefore in fact against the law abiding and responsible owning guns that I’m actually against anyone owning a gun legally?

But now what you are claiming is that what you meant was that in your view anyone that wants any type of regulation in relation to guns is in fact against the law abiding and responsible owning guns.

Which is an anarchist position (any law is an impediment to a persons right to do as they wish).

But just because I am in favour of some level of regulation in relation to guns does not mean I don’t believe that the law abiding and responsible should be allowed to own them. Just as my belief that their should be some level of regulation in relation to private car ownership doesn’t mean I don’t think the law abiding or responsible should not be able to drive on the public highway.

That is why your argument doesn’t seem rational or reasonable.

 

OWB

So are you saying that only once someone has committed a violent crime WITH A GUN, would that warrant the removal of their ‘right’ to own a gun?

Oh so they don’t mean the same to you, that isn’t an explanation of a fact it is just an opinion and you would want to claim that because this is supposedly ‘evidence’ of me ‘twisting’ words. But I know what I meant and others who have read it agree that’s what I meant, so…

Anyway I got the answer I wanted (why it had to take so long I’m unsure but…) and my reply to it is next -

.

 

OWB

From this your view isn’t quite anarchist but close.

And is that “strictly from a individual rights standpoint” mean this isn’t your actual viewpoint only one you are taking from another position? If so what is your actual viewpoint?

*

Anyway this seems to hinge on the idea that any adult should be able to own a gun (I presume there would be an age limit?).

Only a ‘misuse’ would take away that ‘right’.

So far as examples of misuse you have stated

1) Using a gun in the commitment of a violent crime.
2) Reckless use of a gun (e.g. hunting accident).

And you say (in this viewpoint) that even those that had already committed other crimes or had shown a tendency to violent acts would also be allowed to have a gun and only if they used it to commit a crime or use it recklessly would that ‘right’ be removed?

*

It doesn’t seem to be about prevention or trying to improve things it is about reacting to the symptoms rather than trying to get at the root causes.

And it certainly is not about trying to lessen the number of guns that might get into the hands of criminals and/or the irresponsible, if anything it is about giving the criminal and irresponsible even easier access to guns.

What you seem to be suggesting fits in exactly with what I’ve been saying about the pro-gun stance and mentality.

 

OWB

I’ve come back to this because I didn’t reply directly to it the first time it was put up because it was so simplistic, naive and childlike (I mean it was told to someone young) that I didn’t think it warranted a reply.

But OWB brought it up again recently and it does seem to be the basis of his philosophy so I’ve revisited.

*

I also believe that a person has the right, the liberty, and the freedom to swing their arms around - but only in a responsible way, which means they shouldn’t be allowed do it anywhere.

If you are in a clear space, say the middle of a field, away from anyone else and where it wouldn’t be possible to hurt someone else it would seem ok to swing your arms around wildly, in dance or exercise for example.

But I think that someone shouldn’t be allowed to swing their arms around wildly for example in a crowded commuter train. Or any place where the likelihood of such action injuring someone else is very likely. And I wouldn’t see anything wrong with that person being restrained if they didn’t stop when asked to, so that any likely injury could be averted.

And I know from a bouncer that if someone was swinging their arms in a crowded nightclub in such as way as they looked like they might cause someone an injury (but hadn’t yet) they would very likely get themselves thrown out of that club.

What this post suggests is that such action to avert injury is wrong and that to do so is an infringement of that person ‘right’ to swing their arms – that only once an actual injury had been caused could action be taken.

And the same philosophy is applied to gun ownership, very little or nothing should be done to try and prevent a gun being misused or falling into the hands of someone that will misuse it, even if the likelihood of that happening is high.

The thing is that most regulations or laws are about prevention – for example there are rules governing food sale and preparation, to try and prevent food poisoning. Inspections are made and places that seem like a risk are not allowed to open or are closed down. This works alongside laws that are used after the food poisoning has taken place.

The philosophy above would seem to be about not trying for prevention and so allowing anyone however unhygienic to sell or prepare food and only stepping in once people were sick or dead.

The rules relating to driving are also largely about trying to prevent harm. The licence system is in part to keep bad drivers off the roads, and suspected drunk drivers are breath-tested to get them off the road before they cause harm as well as for evidence after an accident.

This philosophy would seem to say that these things are against such people’s individual rights and that only once they have caused an accident, injury or death should their ‘right’ to drive be taken away.

So I wonder why shouldn’t there be regulation in place to try and prevent harm with relation to guns?

 

Using this logic, you could use anything from oak trees to laser pointers as an analogy for guns.

"it has positives and negatives, and should, as such, be regulated in an appropriate manner"

That's why that analogy is tired. And why pretty much any analogy you throw at this will tire pretty quickly.

I've read your posts, there's just nothing TO them, you're just playing with words.

It's a simple issue of rights: You have no right to hurt others without provocation, so don't hurt them. But you have the right to have the CAPACITY to hurt people, until you show that you will hurt them without provocation.

I expect that a large number (over 90%? ) of murders are committed by the murderer utilizing their right hand to kill someone (with a gun, knife, club, or otherwise) so I propose that we start amputating right hands at birth, nobody has the right to walk around with that POTENTIAL to kill somebody just dangling off their arm.

 

Roo

To me it seems prudent that certain things need to be properly regulated.

Or are you saying there should be no regulations on anything?

Now in relation to guns, one of the thing I think it would be prudent to do is try and limit the ways in which criminals and the irresponsible obtain guns, or are you opposed to that?

This is really childish just because you can’t think of a rational argument you make up a silly one.