Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willypete
After all, don't you need to renew a driver license every 5 or ten years?
|
Well that's a topic for a whole other thread, but that's stupid too. Of course, it makes sense in the USA since our minimum requirements to drive are so appallingly low that testing is virtually pointless anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
It wasn't a 'rise' so much as it was to point out that there are thousands of guns in the hands of people who either aren't trained with them, use them for criminal purposes, or are negligent with them. Those were the idiots I was referring to. With regards to the chip implant remark, there is NO WAY to control guns on the street. D.C., New York, and Chicago have tried it for decades and it does NOT work. We live in a reactive world, not a proactive world.
|
Sure there's a way to control some of the guns on the street. We can keep the idiots who buy a gun, don't train with it, and then shoot their child thinking he's a robber from getting a gun. The idea that "if we ban guns only criminals will have guns" is kind of pointless. That's true of ANY law. If we enact speed limits then only rule breakers will get to go fast, so why bother? And so on.
Quote:
I'm tired of proving people wrong on this point. why is it that some people just refuse to acknowedge that the second amendment is about an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective right? What you need to do shakran is read all the documentation about how the bill of rights was authored, drafted, and ratified. (snip)
Tell me again that the second amendment does not give a right to a gun.
|
The second amendment does not give a right to a gun. You can put up all the documentation you want for your side of this argument, and I can find an equal amount of documentation on my side. That's the trouble with the 2nd. It's written somewhat ambiguously. It has a qualification in it (the WELL REGULATED militia bit). If the qualification doesn't mean anything then why is it there?
Plus if the 2nd is meant to be interpreted your way, then I don't have the right to bear guns, I have the right to bear ARMS. It doesn't distinguish what KIND of arms. If I want to walk down the street with a samauri sword I should be able to. If I want to patrol my yard with a bazooka, I should be able to. If I want to park a missile battery in my driveway, I should be able to. Why can't I, if the 2nd should be interpreted your way?
You and I are not going to agree on this. I won't move you and you certainly won't move me. Perhaps we can agree on the fact that the 2nd has a LOT of people on both sides of the interpretation.
Quote:
|
Thats why we have a justice system so that when you use your firearm in a criminal manner, you face charges.
|
And the laws simply aren't tough enough.
Quote:
|
why should the average citizen be required to train or qualify with expectations beyond what our own law enforcement are required to do?
|
Well first off LEO's should have to train harder with their guns as well. And to answer your question, because LEO's spend all day every day facing the possibility of using their weapon. This is something they think about a lot. They're trained for it and they're mentally prepared to deal with situations in which the gun might become a factor. The average citizen rarely thinks of getting into a conflict. They're not going to spend a lot of time going over scenarios in which they will have to decide whether or not to pull their gun.
Quote:
|
there is a HUGE difference between a hunting accident and clear violations of law with intent to do harm. this isn't even a bad comparison, it just sucks.
|
Sure, as far as intent goes. But the end result is the same. Someone still got shot. That hunting accident should never have happened, and if Cheney had been more responsible with his gun, it wouldn't have happened. Maybe if people who had accidents like that because they were not responsible for their weapon had to take a 3 year break from playing with that weapon again, we'd have a greater incentive to learn what the hell you're doing before you pick up that gun.
Quote:
|
I do not need an AK47 to kill a deer, but I will need that AK to fight off armed gangs of thugs or the government, should they decide that the rest of the country needs to be disarmed like they did in new orleans.
|
As I said above, you will not defeat the government. Period.
Quote:
|
Do you realize the political ramifications if our government were to dispense military weaponry against a large portion of the populace? A standing army of 3 million, no matter how well armed, could never fight off a 'militia' of over 100 million. If you wish to stop hearing the argument that we need to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government then you've already submitted yourself as a willing slave instead of an american.
|
A tyrannical government that's out to get its people is not concerned about political ramifications. And if you get in their way with your pea shooter, they'll mow you down.
A standing army of 3 million could easilly fight off 100 million. Bombers and cruise missles would easilly let 3 soldiers kill 100 people. You've got your ratio right there.
I'm not a willing slave, but I AM a realist. If the other side has infinitely more sophisticated weapons, and infinitely better training than I do, I am not going to win.