Nobody forgets that part. Every time the 2nd Amendment is quoted, it's mentioned.
We also have the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property, and the means to protect it.
We also have the right to secede, and the 2nd Amemdment protects our ability to do so. The Supreme Court agreed. Game over...have a nice day.
I'll be honest...I know that you're European. If you like the way your own country is run, that's great...keep on doing what you're doing. Leave us alone. Quite frankly, it's none of your goddamn business...it doesn't affect you in any way. I don't mean to seem hostlile, but half this country doesn't want to become Europe...let alone Cuba.
I care about my fellow man. I don't care if they're European or American or Asian or African or from anywhere in the world, I will get involved in debate if I think it's helpful to my fellow man. For someone who presumably values First Amendment rights, you seem awfully keen to shut me up :P Just as you have a right to comment about politics in my country (whether you choose to exercise that right or not) I have a right to comment about politics in your country (whether you like it or not).
I'm just trying to debate people. Why does it matter if it has an impact on me or not, and why does it matter what country I'm in? I have a view on gun control. The OP never specified if had to be specific to the United States ;P
You might not want my input into debate, but some people clearly do or else they wouldn't debate with me. I fail to see how me debating is ever going to change your country. If the people in America dislike my ideas they will not happen, so you have nothing to fear.
I'll presume your comment about secession was a typo, because the Supreme Court absolutely does *not* grant states the right to unilateral secession from the Union.
"whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development."
They may not be "essential" in a broad sense but there are people, a LOT of people, who work in manufacturing, sales, ect who would be out of work if guns were banned. Remington Arms is close to where I live and they have been in the news a lot speaking on gun bans, the effect of them shutting down would be detrimental to many people. The ripple effect of these people losing their livelihood is enormous. There's a LOT of people who depend on hunting for meat. You might not realize this but lots of people would literally starve or be in really bad shape without being able to hunt. It's not just a hobby for many, it's life or death.
Not that that's even a valid argument for or against guns themselves Constitutionally but it's still a concern related to the topic.
You're also not American and you don't know what it's like to live here where guns are an actual NEED of many. Our country is HUGE and many parts of it are still very wild! People in remote areas need to have firearms for protection and hunting. You guys in the UK don't have the same threats we have. You don't have the same needs we have. You guys don't have rabies, you don't have bears, you don't have large game, you don't have as many farms, you don't have a lot of what we have. Many people here don't live where police/rescue can reach you in a reasonable time frame.
But, we're not allowed guns so that we can hunt or protect ourselves from dangerous wildlife...we're allowed them to secure our freedom.
I don't think the risk of unemployment is a good reason to avoid doing something. The unemployment caused by gun control laws would only be a single-generation problem, as the next generation would stop developing those skills and instead develop other skills.
The hunting argument is one I won't get into, because I'm a vegetarian and I don't believe in people having a moral right to hunt animals in the first place. Although if I did believe in the moral right to hunt, I wouldn't be able to argue against your point.
Okay then, let's control guns in cities only. That's where I would guess most gun crime happens anyway. I'm not necessarily advocating federal gun control laws, but how about state gun control laws? How about people who need guns in rural areas to protect against dangerous wildlife are allowed them, but people who live in densely cities who aren't at risk from wildlife do not?
I don't think guns are necessary to freedom at all. I think it's pure paranoia that makes people think a tyrannical government is going to take over America, and I think it's ridiculous that people think having guns could stop that happening when your government has one of the largest militaries in the world at its disposal. I think the air of paranoia regarding the threat of a tyrannical government is what makes so many anti-gun control advocates seem so annoying to me, because it's very frustrating arguing with conspiracy theorists.
Some cities HAVE banned guns and it hasn't worked out. Washington DC and Chicago have gun bans. Several other cities have very restrictive gun laws.
I live in NY and it's just like what you propose, we have laws for NYC and different laws for areas outside NYC (many other states also have different laws for urban and rural areas). It doesn't really "do" anything. While handguns aren't blatantly banned outright, NYC has made it impossible for ordinary civilians to legally own one, only the criminals have them. The entire state of NY (city and rural) has the strictest gun laws in the nation. What has this accomplished? Besides infringe on legal gun owners, I don't believe it has accomplished anything.
I disagree that guns aren't necessary to freedom. And regardless of what the odds may be, people just aren't going to roll over and give up without a fight. Would you advocate just giving up (on anything) without a fight? I'd hope not!
Just because the laws in NYC are unsuccessful that doesn't make the whole concept of restricting gun ownership flawed. I don't have any idea about the specifics, but the laws just need to be more sophisticated.
I disagree that the tiny amount of protection a gun would give you - in the tiny chance you would need to use it against a tyrannical government anyway - is worth the thousands of lives lost in gun-related incidents each year.
More sophisticated how? Please tell us, from several thousand miles away and ignorant to our lifestyle, how our gun laws, that only affect law abiding citizens, would affect the homicide rate in NYC.
I value 1st Amendment Rights well beyond your capacity. My own parents, to whom I owe my very life, and respect beyond your wildest dreams, disagree with me on most political views. I would risk my own life to defend the right of any citizen who disagrees with me..as I would any of the other 26 Amendments. Life's value is absolutely dependent upon freedom, and when people sacrifice freedom for safety, they deserve neither.
I presume you're happy with they way your own country's run? Great! Revel in it and live there happily! Personally, the idea of sacrificing individual rights for the sake of the collective doesn't appeal to me, nor did it appeal to the founders of this country, for whom you must hold a particular distane. I don't care..and neither should you, since you don't live here.
If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile? Your time would be better spent, saving MANY more lives, and attacking a tool that isn't protected by Civil Liberties.
If you're going to make condescending, nitpicking remarks about spelling or typos, this conversation ends.
"nor did it appeal to the founders of this country". I don't believe the founders of a country should have any bearing on how it is run *now*, in the present. The past is that past, let it die and start considering new ideas objectively.
"neither should you, since you don't live here". I will decide what I care about, thank you. Refer to my two sentences of my first reply to you.
"If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile?" Cars also make millions of lives easier. Cars aren't designed to kill, they have a greater purpose; guns are designed to kill. Cars would be much, much, much harder to ban than guns because cars are (at the moment) essential to economic development, whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development.
It was hardly condescending or nitpicking - your comment was unclear. It was hardly a simple spelling mistake when you substitute a whole other word in. I didn't start this (unnecessarily hostile) conversation with you, and I don't really care if you want to end it.
What is your opinion on gun control?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Nobody forgets that part. Every time the 2nd Amendment is quoted, it's mentioned.
We also have the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property, and the means to protect it.
We also have the right to secede, and the 2nd Amemdment protects our ability to do so. The Supreme Court agreed. Game over...have a nice day.
I'll be honest...I know that you're European. If you like the way your own country is run, that's great...keep on doing what you're doing. Leave us alone. Quite frankly, it's none of your goddamn business...it doesn't affect you in any way. I don't mean to seem hostlile, but half this country doesn't want to become Europe...let alone Cuba.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I care about my fellow man. I don't care if they're European or American or Asian or African or from anywhere in the world, I will get involved in debate if I think it's helpful to my fellow man. For someone who presumably values First Amendment rights, you seem awfully keen to shut me up :P Just as you have a right to comment about politics in my country (whether you choose to exercise that right or not) I have a right to comment about politics in your country (whether you like it or not).
I'm just trying to debate people. Why does it matter if it has an impact on me or not, and why does it matter what country I'm in? I have a view on gun control. The OP never specified if had to be specific to the United States ;P
You might not want my input into debate, but some people clearly do or else they wouldn't debate with me. I fail to see how me debating is ever going to change your country. If the people in America dislike my ideas they will not happen, so you have nothing to fear.
I'll presume your comment about secession was a typo, because the Supreme Court absolutely does *not* grant states the right to unilateral secession from the Union.
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
"whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development."
They may not be "essential" in a broad sense but there are people, a LOT of people, who work in manufacturing, sales, ect who would be out of work if guns were banned. Remington Arms is close to where I live and they have been in the news a lot speaking on gun bans, the effect of them shutting down would be detrimental to many people. The ripple effect of these people losing their livelihood is enormous. There's a LOT of people who depend on hunting for meat. You might not realize this but lots of people would literally starve or be in really bad shape without being able to hunt. It's not just a hobby for many, it's life or death.
Not that that's even a valid argument for or against guns themselves Constitutionally but it's still a concern related to the topic.
You're also not American and you don't know what it's like to live here where guns are an actual NEED of many. Our country is HUGE and many parts of it are still very wild! People in remote areas need to have firearms for protection and hunting. You guys in the UK don't have the same threats we have. You don't have the same needs we have. You guys don't have rabies, you don't have bears, you don't have large game, you don't have as many farms, you don't have a lot of what we have. Many people here don't live where police/rescue can reach you in a reasonable time frame.
But, we're not allowed guns so that we can hunt or protect ourselves from dangerous wildlife...we're allowed them to secure our freedom.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't think the risk of unemployment is a good reason to avoid doing something. The unemployment caused by gun control laws would only be a single-generation problem, as the next generation would stop developing those skills and instead develop other skills.
The hunting argument is one I won't get into, because I'm a vegetarian and I don't believe in people having a moral right to hunt animals in the first place. Although if I did believe in the moral right to hunt, I wouldn't be able to argue against your point.
Okay then, let's control guns in cities only. That's where I would guess most gun crime happens anyway. I'm not necessarily advocating federal gun control laws, but how about state gun control laws? How about people who need guns in rural areas to protect against dangerous wildlife are allowed them, but people who live in densely cities who aren't at risk from wildlife do not?
I don't think guns are necessary to freedom at all. I think it's pure paranoia that makes people think a tyrannical government is going to take over America, and I think it's ridiculous that people think having guns could stop that happening when your government has one of the largest militaries in the world at its disposal. I think the air of paranoia regarding the threat of a tyrannical government is what makes so many anti-gun control advocates seem so annoying to me, because it's very frustrating arguing with conspiracy theorists.
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
States DO make their own gun laws.
Some cities HAVE banned guns and it hasn't worked out. Washington DC and Chicago have gun bans. Several other cities have very restrictive gun laws.
I live in NY and it's just like what you propose, we have laws for NYC and different laws for areas outside NYC (many other states also have different laws for urban and rural areas). It doesn't really "do" anything. While handguns aren't blatantly banned outright, NYC has made it impossible for ordinary civilians to legally own one, only the criminals have them. The entire state of NY (city and rural) has the strictest gun laws in the nation. What has this accomplished? Besides infringe on legal gun owners, I don't believe it has accomplished anything.
I disagree that guns aren't necessary to freedom. And regardless of what the odds may be, people just aren't going to roll over and give up without a fight. Would you advocate just giving up (on anything) without a fight? I'd hope not!
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Just because the laws in NYC are unsuccessful that doesn't make the whole concept of restricting gun ownership flawed. I don't have any idea about the specifics, but the laws just need to be more sophisticated.
I disagree that the tiny amount of protection a gun would give you - in the tiny chance you would need to use it against a tyrannical government anyway - is worth the thousands of lives lost in gun-related incidents each year.
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
More sophisticated how? Please tell us, from several thousand miles away and ignorant to our lifestyle, how our gun laws, that only affect law abiding citizens, would affect the homicide rate in NYC.
I value 1st Amendment Rights well beyond your capacity. My own parents, to whom I owe my very life, and respect beyond your wildest dreams, disagree with me on most political views. I would risk my own life to defend the right of any citizen who disagrees with me..as I would any of the other 26 Amendments. Life's value is absolutely dependent upon freedom, and when people sacrifice freedom for safety, they deserve neither.
I presume you're happy with they way your own country's run? Great! Revel in it and live there happily! Personally, the idea of sacrificing individual rights for the sake of the collective doesn't appeal to me, nor did it appeal to the founders of this country, for whom you must hold a particular distane. I don't care..and neither should you, since you don't live here.
If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile? Your time would be better spent, saving MANY more lives, and attacking a tool that isn't protected by Civil Liberties.
If you're going to make condescending, nitpicking remarks about spelling or typos, this conversation ends.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"nor did it appeal to the founders of this country". I don't believe the founders of a country should have any bearing on how it is run *now*, in the present. The past is that past, let it die and start considering new ideas objectively.
"neither should you, since you don't live here". I will decide what I care about, thank you. Refer to my two sentences of my first reply to you.
"If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile?" Cars also make millions of lives easier. Cars aren't designed to kill, they have a greater purpose; guns are designed to kill. Cars would be much, much, much harder to ban than guns because cars are (at the moment) essential to economic development, whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development.
It was hardly condescending or nitpicking - your comment was unclear. It was hardly a simple spelling mistake when you substitute a whole other word in. I didn't start this (unnecessarily hostile) conversation with you, and I don't really care if you want to end it.