648 replies to this topic

[Puppeteer]

But he's right: who's going to stop the King of England coming through their front doors?

[Pasidon]

Or anyone else, for that matter. The law was made to keep the crazy British guys out way back when, but it still has its advantages with keeping crazy guys / terrorists off my property.

[Rafv Nin IV]

I'm not a gun nut, per se. My family only has seven or so, all of which are rifles and shotguns that we use to kill animals, not people. That's not an absurd amount for the West. I just don't like the idea of the government telling me what I can and can't own, much like I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I can and can't put in my body.

On the subject of the second Amendment, the text is as follows: "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."

The way I read it, the second phrase applies to the first only. However, the fourth phrase applies to both the first and third phrase, such that two certainties are granted: firstly, that there will exist a military branch operated only in defense (which has, incidentally, been completely violated by sending the National Guard overseas), and secondly that citizens will have the right to own and use weaponry so long as no other laws are broken.

[Mathijs]

Oh... just seven? Jeez, I thought most Americans had at least thirty. Guess it isn't so bad then.

[Florisz]

Poor animals.

That's what I have to say.

[Vortigern]

Rav, you missed my point by a little way. I'm saying that the first clause should be read to affect the entire sentence, implying that the right to bear arms is applicable only in a well regulated militia. Are you in a well regulated militia?

[Pasidon]

With seven guns, he is a militia.

[Rafv Nin IV]

To clear things up: I don't own seven guns. My immediate family does. That means my hunting rifle, my .22, my father's rifle and shotgun, my brother's (he has moved out) shotgun, rifle, and .22 . No handguns, no automatics, none of that. Just a rifle for big game and a shotgun for fowl, and a .22 for when you want to shoot something inanimate without spending eighty cents a bullet.

Vort, I haven't missed your point. I just disagree. You see it this way: "[In order to have] A well regulated Militia [which is] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [in the context of the Militia] shall not be infringed."

I see it this way: "[Because] A well regulated Militia [is] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [on their own and beside the Militia] shall not be infringed."

Beyond that, I don't recognize the authority of the government to regulate what its citizens do, except to tax, provide essential services, and maintain law and order. Just like I don't think the government ought regulate marijuana, I don't think the government ought regulate minor arms.

[Vortigern]

I think you've rather helped my point there. For mine you inserted an entirely redundant clause for the purposes of clarification, whereas in yours you inserted a whole new clause. There is nothing in the surrounding text to suggest your interpretation. Either way, the whole passage is very poorly phrased. Those damnéd Yanks from way back when could have done everyone a favour and just said "American folks can have guns if they're in a militia, but no guns if they're not. Fact." Or "Guns for everyone! Yeehah!" and then fired their revolvers into the air. Who are we to judge? It just would have been nice to have some clarity.

Marijuana is an entirely different matter, as are drugs. Drugs can only affect you, unless you're forcing them on someone else, which is a wholly separate criminal offense. Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing things. If you were to tell me that you kept only the hunting rifles and shotguns, I would have no problem with that. It's handguns and the like to which I object, the ones which you can't use to hunt and which are only used to kill people at pretty close range. Oh, and for the sake of a man who isn't big into guns, what exactly do you mean by a .22?

[Rafv Nin IV]

I certainly agree with the sentiment that those rebellious easterners could have made the whole thing a lot less verbose. Even for two hundred years old, much of the writing seems deliberately confusing. I mean, The Wealth of Nations is another sixty years older and is far easier to read.

I do indeed tell you that we only have hunting rifles and shotguns. A .22 caliber rifle, for clarification, is a low-powered rifle that costs a lot less in pretty much every manner than a high-powered rifle built for big game animals. The last living thing any of our family shot with a .22 were three nutria (which, for clarification, are essentially gigantic water rats) that were posing issues on my father's commercial property (of course, if people weren't idiots and didn't feed wildlife, there wouldn't have been any problem).

I see no need for a civilian to own a handgun (unless you happen to be hiking in Alaskan brown bear territory or something) or an automatic. However, if the civilian just wants to shoot a bit at the range, I don't really care what type of firearm he owns.

Incidentally, in order to have a militia, the citizenry needs to have some experience with firearms. Can you imagine if we shoved a militia together full of people who had never shot a gun before? The only reason why American militias ever stood a chance against Redcoats is that they were comprised of people who used their weapons as everyday tools.

Of course, the whole militia point is moot. The closest thing that the USA has to a militia is its National Guard (which, for the last seven years or so, has been in the Middle East, and not acting as a militia), wherein guardsmen receive significant training. A militia, no matter how well regulated, can't stand against tanks, especially with the types of weapons that the majority of "gun-totin' hicks" own--hunting rifles and shotguns.

My last point to make is that the preservation of gun rights is closely related to the preservation of Western culture (and by that, I mean the American West). As we become more urbanized, the use of firearms for hunting, dispatching sick ranch animals, and the like drops, and so does the urge to maintain gun rights. In other words, rural communities that have more use for these tools want to use them more than urban communities. This is why, where Vort lives, a person doesn't learn what a .22 caliber entails just by having lived; and where I live, until recently, a person would take his rifle to school and leave it in the office until the end of the school day because Hunter's Education classes were offered as after-school activities.

[Pasidon]

I dunno why self-defense hasn't come up yet...

[Vortigern]

Because it's a bullshit argument. "Oh, I need a gun to defend myself against the millions of burglars and murderers and assassins who are going to be breaking into my house every night!" Unless you live in a really shitty neighbourhood, you won't get burgled all that often. And if you do, move. If you can't move, get a bat.

I read something t'other day, anyway, which says that guns aren't as scary as knives. People will react more quickly and more intelligently when faced with a gun than when faced with a knife, so just get yourself a big fat blade and the crims will be putty in your hands. Or something.

In addition to my first point, you Americans really have no right to be afraid, the numbers of people you lock up. More than 1% of all Americans are in prison because of your ridiculous "3 strikes and out" policy with convictions. A tiny pathetic crime can get you sent away for life because of that rule, but I guess it's the American way. 'If you can't figure out a solution, pretend it's baseball.'

[Pasidon]

My buddy Ron-Bob had been robbed 4 times and one of those times he was threatened. If he didn't have a gun, that man would be dead. Not quite a crap argument when guns have saved people.

Right, we locked up all the bad guys in the world, so now we're safe.

[Vortigern]

OK, I'm going to make a different point based on the same information. The reason there are still real criminals is because you've locked up all the petty nobodies because they got caught three times. Let them out and free up prison space for the real bad guys. Then again, maybe you don't have that problem across the pond, but we definitely do here.

How about if your buddy had a bat, or a machete? Or a more fearsome name than Ron-Bob?

[Pasidon]

Hey... he's the lovable red-neck. Why not be part of the Ron clan? But anywho... sure, we'll lock up all the real bad guys.

And he was threatened by a guy with a sword. I wouldn't risk using a bat. Shot that sucker in the foot with his Mossin and he let the poor soul crawl out alive. Taught the kid a valuable lesson.

[Rafv Nin IV]

I would like to point out that I am separating myself from the self-defense argument and any other completely ridiculous arguments.

The self-defense argument is moot. If someone comes to rob my house, am I going to get out of bed, run down the hallway into another room, open a closet door, type in the combination (accompanied by noisy beeps), open the gunsafe (quite loud), pull out a rifle, pull out some ammunition, load the rifle, and then seek to defend myself? That's ludicrous. The whole procedure takes ten minutes and is nothing close to clandestine. I'm either going to leave the house out my window, or avail myself of closer weapons--namely, the ice axe underneath my bed.

Secondly, a gun is only effective in self-defense if you are willing to use it--if you are willing to kill another human being. Most people aren't. And even if desperation forces a person to squeeze the trigger, it is likely that (especially if they're using a handgun and/or don't have a whole lot of experience) the intended target will not be hit. It's hard enough to aim a handgun; what would it be like under that much stress?

Yes, in some instances having a pistol under your nightstand could save your life. But far more frequently, that pistol on the nightstand means gun accidents when your thirteen-year-old boy wants to show off to his friends. If your main purpose for buying a firearm is "self-defense", then you have no legitimate reason to spend your money.

[Pasidon]

Thieves love people who claim 'it's dumb to defend your life with bullets'. I'd be more encouraged to raid a home if I knew the little retards didn't have a chance to fight me off with a well placed bullet. But I'm a thief... so it doesn't matter if my gun is legal. Now it's armed robbers vs. the normal citizen. My chances of success are good.

[Vortigern]

I think you overestimate the criminal motivation of the average burglar. A regular b&e will get you a few years, max, as long as it's not your third strike, whereas shooting someone will count as aggravated assault, maybe even murder if it ends badly. That's a hell of a lot longer in prison, and most burglars aren't violent people anyway. They're in it for the money, not for the wanton commission of random felonies. That is the biggest problem with this whole discussion. You've been assuming that, if somebody will commit one crime, they'll commit any crime. This is absolutely not the case.

[Pasidon]

Well, we'll always have guns whether it's likely or not, so I'll let the case rest.

[olli]

And you'll always be willing to shoot a naughty crim on sight if he is in your property?