Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dksuddeth · 01-18-2006, 06:44 PM

resurrecting this post at the invitation of willravel:

I'm going to try to stake this out in a point by point argument.

1) San Fran votes to ban handgun ownership.
Will this get rid of all handguns in San Fran? very doubtful. You will end up with 2 reasons why handguns will still exist in San Fran.
1-criminals who want to use them will still get them. they will be more emboldened by knowing that real law abiding citizens will not be armed.
2-Some people, though law abiding they want to be, will refuse to give up what they see as a means, maybe their only means, of home/personal defense.

2) The Bill of Rights. Now I know that there are two different end arguments about what this means to people but I assure you that if you look at the BoR in an objective and logical manner you will see that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The objective look at this is to understand that the BoR was written to let the government, and the people, know that, in no uncertain terms, the people had inalienable natural rights and these were to be guaranteed above all else. That is what the BoR does, protect the natural and individual rights of the people. That means that the 2nd cannot be misinterpreted to define a 'collective' right referring to the national guard, especially considering that the national guard did not exist at that time. That being said, a handgun ban would be unconstitutional.

3) Now, say San Fran wants to try this grand expiriment of a handgun ban.....what will it accomplish? some say it will result in fewer gun related deaths. That may be, however, what a criminal cannot accomplish via a handgun, it will accomplish via another weapon. Case in point, look at Great Britain. With the firearm ban, more criminals are resorting to other weapons like the katana. Yes, you read that right....the katana. Do we ban katanas then? or start to regulate their purchase in a restrictive manner? then the machete? and the bowie knife? you see where this is going?

Weapons bans will not work because people intent on using them for villainous means will always, and I mean always, find alternative items to use as weapons. Whether those weapons are used to kill or not is irrelevant anymore. Some people will want to argue that 'life' is more important than protecting a valuable item, but it is at that time that we just become slaves to small bands of thieves or worse. If your sole intent is to limit the deaths by handguns, you may accomplish that, but violent crime will continue unless you start dealing extremely harsh sentences to them.

There are some people in this world that just don't think and probably don't care. The animal that murdered wills friend is one of them. It would not have mattered whether it was a handgun then or his bare hands later in life. It would have happened sooner or later. It managed to just find a very easy way because of an irresponsible handgun owner. A very tragic loss for all involved and my heart goes out to the family and friends of that young man. What we need to consider, though, is that the handgun is a tool. A tool for defense with the capacity to kill. Some people wish to call it nothing more than a killing tool and I have to admit, theres not much in the way of physical evidence that shows otherwise, but we must not take that as face value. In todays world, when we have 250 lb men invading the homes of 80+ year old people in order to steal what little they may have left, and possibly brutalize them physically, a handgun may be the only thing left to provide a defense for these older individuals.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make sense to remove handguns from law abiding citizens so you can eventually whittle away at the illegal use of handguns over the next several years.

01-18-2006, 06:44 PM	#93 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	resurrecting this post at the invitation of willravel: I'm going to try to stake this out in a point by point argument. 1) San Fran votes to ban handgun ownership. Will this get rid of all handguns in San Fran? very doubtful. You will end up with 2 reasons why handguns will still exist in San Fran. 1-criminals who want to use them will still get them. they will be more emboldened by knowing that real law abiding citizens will not be armed. 2-Some people, though law abiding they want to be, will refuse to give up what they see as a means, maybe their only means, of home/personal defense. 2) The Bill of Rights. Now I know that there are two different end arguments about what this means to people but I assure you that if you look at the BoR in an objective and logical manner you will see that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The objective look at this is to understand that the BoR was written to let the government, and the people, know that, in no uncertain terms, the people had inalienable natural rights and these were to be guaranteed above all else. That is what the BoR does, protect the natural and individual rights of the people. That means that the 2nd cannot be misinterpreted to define a 'collective' right referring to the national guard, especially considering that the national guard did not exist at that time. That being said, a handgun ban would be unconstitutional. 3) Now, say San Fran wants to try this grand expiriment of a handgun ban.....what will it accomplish? some say it will result in fewer gun related deaths. That may be, however, what a criminal cannot accomplish via a handgun, it will accomplish via another weapon. Case in point, look at Great Britain. With the firearm ban, more criminals are resorting to other weapons like the katana. Yes, you read that right....the katana. Do we ban katanas then? or start to regulate their purchase in a restrictive manner? then the machete? and the bowie knife? you see where this is going? Weapons bans will not work because people intent on using them for villainous means will always, and I mean always, find alternative items to use as weapons. Whether those weapons are used to kill or not is irrelevant anymore. Some people will want to argue that 'life' is more important than protecting a valuable item, but it is at that time that we just become slaves to small bands of thieves or worse. If your sole intent is to limit the deaths by handguns, you may accomplish that, but violent crime will continue unless you start dealing extremely harsh sentences to them. There are some people in this world that just don't think and probably don't care. The animal that murdered wills friend is one of them. It would not have mattered whether it was a handgun then or his bare hands later in life. It would have happened sooner or later. It managed to just find a very easy way because of an irresponsible handgun owner. A very tragic loss for all involved and my heart goes out to the family and friends of that young man. What we need to consider, though, is that the handgun is a tool. A tool for defense with the capacity to kill. Some people wish to call it nothing more than a killing tool and I have to admit, theres not much in the way of physical evidence that shows otherwise, but we must not take that as face value. In todays world, when we have 250 lb men invading the homes of 80+ year old people in order to steal what little they may have left, and possibly brutalize them physically, a handgun may be the only thing left to provide a defense for these older individuals. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make sense to remove handguns from law abiding citizens so you can eventually whittle away at the illegal use of handguns over the next several years. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."