|
Post by morty14 on Jun 25, 2006 2:05:49 GMT -5
You will note however, the seperation comes in the form of a comma, as opposed to a semicolon. Therefore, it is part of the same right. It is saying 'People in the militia,' not 'People and the militia.' The latter would be redundant. And I assume, being the great writers they were and how important the document was, they wouldn't make such an error and not change it.
As for thedevil696's agruement about guns, I'd have to respond with- Unlike all those other things, guns have but one purpose: to kill or harm. There is no other reason to have a gun. Shooting at targets you say? That is just practice for killing/harming more effectively. Also, mandatory training just means that while every citizen is trained to defend him/herself, every criminal-to-be is also given free training and will probably expand on that training so they have a distinct advantage over the average citizen. A banning of guns, which is enforced, makes many criminal activities much harder and also less likely to occur.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 25, 2006 2:37:43 GMT -5
As for thedevil696's agruement about guns, I'd have to respond with- Unlike all those other things, guns have but one purpose: to kill or harm. There is no other reason to have a gun. Shooting at targets you say? That is just practice for killing/harming more effectively. Also, mandatory training just means that while every citizen is trained to defend him/herself, every criminal-to-be is also given free training and will probably expand on that training. Yes, and with that training, the gangster wont go out and shoot 18 rounds and kill 17 civilians, he'll kill his target, with alot less collateral damage. I disagree, most "gangsters" start out with a knife or thier fists. You can just as easily mug someone with a knife, or by pretending you have a gun, as with having that gun pointed at their face.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 25, 2006 8:48:34 GMT -5
I know your not asking me what my stance is on hunting, but I think it can be a great thing, if done in moderation. Its a great sport, in my opinion. As long as your not being cruel to the animal, like letting it bleed to death, or torturing it. If its still alive after you shoot it, shoot it again, this time in the head. I can't support hunting for sport. Its not for me to force my views on someone but I certainly never would take part in it. Agreed. Disagreed. Forcing people to use guns? What about people who don't want to use guns? What about people who really ought not to be using guns? No, I say keep guns out of the hands of those who can't be trusted with them. You will note however, the seperation comes in the form of a comma, as opposed to a semicolon. Therefore, it is part of the same right. It is saying 'People in the militia,' not 'People and the militia.' The latter would be redundant. And I assume, being the great writers they were and how important the document was, they wouldn't make such an error and not change it. I'm still sticking to my guns (Pun not intended, at least not consciously Oh, and I don't actually own guns, nor would I want to, I fight for the right to, after lengthy security checks) Anyway, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" suggests the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and like you, i'd think the writers wouldn't keep something like that there unless they meant it. Who was it that said a revolution should take place every 15 years? To keep the government on its toes? Not sure, but it serves my point adequately. And that is why I think the right of the people to bear arms, as said, with hefty security checks would be best. Its for a government to be afraid of its people, not the other way around. I agree there, except the banning guns thing. That only means criminals will have them. Yes, and with that training, the gangster wont go out and shoot 18 rounds and kill 17 civilians, he'll kill his target, with alot less collateral damage. Sorry, but thats idealistic at best. Yeah, but mugging someone and killing them are very different matters.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 25, 2006 9:49:05 GMT -5
Yes, and with that training, the gangster wont go out and shoot 18 rounds and kill 17 civilians, he'll kill his target, with alot less collateral damage. That's quite hopeful of you. I don't place that much hope in training. There will still be drive-bys and drive-bys tend to just be firing randomly, not even trying to aim. Also, if you have an automatic weapon, aiming becomes less important and often you just want it to happen fast then get out of there. Training gansters to make them more effective killers will just mean them killing more people. This may be true, but they aren't nearly as dangerous with those as they are a gun. A gun can be used at a great distance. A gun carries much less personal feeling of killing with it; studies show it is much more mentally draining to stab someone as compared with shooting them. I guess that is meaningless if they are soceio-paths, but not that many are. If you take it by itself, yes that is what it means. But when you add what the rest of the Amendment said, you get the clear picture that they intended this to be in regards to the militia only. Again, I shall bring up the comma. In every other Amendment of the Bill of Rights, seperate clauses (rights) were separated by a semicolon. When it was separated by a comma it was part of the same clause (or right). And because it would be redundant to mention the militia's right to bear arms when you are giving everyone the right to bear arms, one can safely come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment is only meant to protect the militia's right to own guns. Jefferson said something to that effect. But that doesn't mean anything in regards to the Second Amendment. If it did, then that would still be defunct because we (the people) haven't upheld our side of the bargin. 30,000. That is the a rough number of deaths per year due to guns. Shouldn't a government protect its people from each other? I don't know about you, but I see that as one of the main functions of the government as protecting its people from each other, through laws and enforcement of those laws. Without such things we would have near anarchy. But that makes it much, much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on them. Plus, if an officer of the law saw someone with a gun, it would automatically mean they were breaking the law, there would be no ifs, ands, or buts about it, if someone had a gun they would be breaking the law and could be arrested on the spot. Look at how well other countries that have banned guns have done for their murder rate, their suicide rate, and their guns deaths rate. The USA is (excuse the pun) shooting itself in the foot by allowing everyone the ability to own a gun.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 25, 2006 11:11:27 GMT -5
Forcing people to use guns? What about people who don't want to use guns? What about people who really ought not to be using guns? Im not saying force everyone to own a gun, just give them some training, or familiarize people with guns, so that kids dont accidently blow their friends away, and the gangsters dont miss so many damned times and hit so many civilians.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 25, 2006 13:22:09 GMT -5
This may be true, but they aren't nearly as dangerous with those as they are a gun. A gun can be used at a great distance. A gun carries much less personal feeling of killing with it; studies show it is much more mentally draining to stab someone as compared with shooting them. I guess that is meaningless if they are soceio-paths, but not that many are. Great point, and one I hadn't considered. Ok, I stand corrected. But who exactly is this militia? The U.S army? Ok, I guess thats fair enough, too. Im not saying force everyone to own a gun, just give them some training, or familiarize people with guns, so that kids dont accidently blow their friends away, and the gangsters dont miss so many damned times and hit so many civilians. I don't think if someone makes the conscious choice to kill someone they care that much about this. Or, at least not the type of people you are suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 25, 2006 15:49:21 GMT -5
I don't think if someone makes the conscious choice to kill someone they care that much about this. Or, at least not the type of people you are suggesting. If they dont thier idiots, it attracts alot more attention than a dead gangster. Dead gangsters arent looked into very hard, dead civilians are.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Jun 25, 2006 15:51:56 GMT -5
I don't think if someone makes the conscious choice to kill someone they care that much about this. Or, at least not the type of people you are suggesting. If they dont thier idiots, it attracts alot more attention than a dead gangster. Dead gangsters arent looked into very hard, dead civilians are. And if the gangster does the killing, its not like morals will say "Oh, I care whether I kill one or more" Its not like getting training in using a weapon will do anything more than to give them something to justify their use of a firearm. I mean, if you go to court, you could say "If its so bad, why am I trained in it?" And its a valid question.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 25, 2006 15:56:56 GMT -5
And if the gangster does the killing, its not like morals will say "Oh, I care whether I kill one or more" Its not about morals, its about staying alive and out of jail. How exactly does knowing how to use something justify killing innocents? I know how to throw rocks at people, does knowing how to do that justify doing it? And the answer is, "So that you dont kill so many civilians when doing a hit."
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Jun 25, 2006 16:35:29 GMT -5
[Its not about morals, its about staying alive and out of jail. So, if they kill, say a fellow drug dealer, then they will stay out of prison, where if they kill any other person in the wrong place at the wrong time, they go down? If someone is going to be a murderer, they don't need to go to a class to learn about it. And if you have a training school like this, then obviously the ability to use a weapon on a daily basis is encouraged. It logically follows that if you are encouraged to use a weapon, that many defense pleas will use this logic in their motions for defense. So, you are saying that "a hit" is fine, morally and legally? You are saying your only problem with these murders, is collateral damage when its to other people outside the two having an argument? So, say we both had guns, and one of us shot the other, and then killed some people going for a walk, the fact one of us killed the other is..... Not important?
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 25, 2006 21:46:01 GMT -5
So, if they kill, say a fellow drug dealer, then they will stay out of prison, where if they kill any other person in the wrong place at the wrong time, they go down? Im not saying they wont go to prison for killing another ganster, Im just saying the police wont put as much effort into finding them as they would if it was a civilian. I hate morals, everyones morals are different. Yes, that is the only problem I have with the murders. Im not talking about arguments, Im talking about business. Im not a drug dealer, your not as far as I know, we dont conduct business together, nor against each other. Though if we were both criminals, and one of us shot the other, it wouldnt matter to me, I would only care becuase civilians had been killed.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 26, 2006 9:15:48 GMT -5
...Wow I'm glad devil isn't responsible for making laws... How exactly do you classify 'gangster'? Someone who hangs out in a group of other like-minded individuals attempting to gain power over others through the group? That defines a 'gang,' does it not? That also brings in a whole bunch of other things. The law can't be so vague as to just say a 'gang' and leave interpretation of a 'gang' up to the courts. We've all seen what happens when courts have to do too much interpretation... *groans* This also creates an unequal legal system, therefore is unconstitutional. Any bum on the street could see that. Ever heard of 'fair treatment under law'? Yeah, they kinda touch on that in the Bill of Rights.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 26, 2006 10:04:41 GMT -5
Im sorry I havent studied criminal law, or your Bill of Rights, but theres isnt a whole lot of fairness in this world. Ever look at the assualt charges? Why is it a different crime when a man hits a woman? I know its becuase they are physically weaker, but they fought so long and hard to be "equal."
I define gangster, any member of an orginisation that partakes in criminal activity.
One other thing, how is it "unfair" to let gangsters kill gangsters? Who else needs to kill other people, aside from soldiers?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 26, 2006 10:28:15 GMT -5
I define gangster, any member of an orginisation that partakes in criminal activity. So, if you are a criminal you are allowed kill your rivals? Gangsters killing gangsters... I don't even get how you can't understand that murder is just not good. Why would you approve? Would you consider it doing the world a favour? Would you argue about what gangsters contribute to society? Is that your thinking?
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 26, 2006 10:37:07 GMT -5
Im sorry I havent studied criminal law, or your Bill of Rights, but theres isnt a whole lot of fairness in this world. Ever look at the assualt charges? Why is it a different crime when a man hits a woman? I know its becuase they are physically weaker, but they fought so long and hard to be "equal." I define gangster, any member of an orginisation that partakes in criminal activity. One other thing, how is it "unfair" to let gangsters kill gangsters? Who else needs to kill other people, aside from soldiers? I agree that fairness issues need to be resolved. But adding on more unfairness doesn't help. So can I kill Tom DeLay now? And if we knew they were criminals, would they already be in jail? It is unfair because we should protect the rights of all citizens, gangsters or otherwise.
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jun 27, 2006 7:15:48 GMT -5
Ya know, the thing about outlawing firearms, is that the only people without access to them would be honest people. Criminals don't care if guns are outlawed. Criminals will get guns through illegal means. I own a gun for home/self defense. I don't carry it out with me, but I keep it on the stand next to my computer, and next to my bed, and if someone forcefully enters my home without my permission, they will be shot. End of story.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 28, 2006 8:36:40 GMT -5
Ya know, the thing about outlawing firearms, is that the only people without access to them would be honest people. Criminals don't care if guns are outlawed. Criminals will get guns through illegal means. I own a gun for home/self defense. I don't carry it out with me, but I keep it on the stand next to my computer, and next to my bed, and if someone forcefully enters my home without my permission, they will be shot. End of story. Yeah, you are right, because its not as if cops are going to routinely find people who have guns in the wrong, or if they do, it'd be impossible to do a great job on it, realistically speaking.
|
|