Unfiltered | Elizabeth Gerritzen X Faction Skis

Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Right to bear arms?

profile picture
Anathema
Posts: 21048 - Karma: 5,061
remember, when this amendment was written, everybody had a single shot, 6 foot long rifle that took a minute to reload.

that amendment would never be re-written today with the guns we have now.

it's a stupid law, and nobody should have guns but soldiers and officers of the law.

end of story.
Dec 14 2012 4:29PM
17 30
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
true dat. end of question.
Dec 14 2012 4:30PM
0 0
profile picture
bangarangmules
Posts: 5065 - Karma: 84
Agreed.
Dec 14 2012 4:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Petey.
Posts: 5736 - Karma: 4,885
If the Government has advanced weaponry to protect themselves and their families, then civilians will have those same rights.
Dec 14 2012 4:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
I disagree whole-heartedly. As citizens we have every right to bear arms. We need stricter gun control. Automatic weapons should only be reserved for police and military personnel.

Just a scenario but what if the government decided to become a dictatorship. With no guns people would literally have no way to defend their home/property/families.

Banning guns for civilians is a terrible solution to this problem.
Dec 14 2012 4:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeebus.
Posts: 4904 - Karma: 5,822
Bullshit, we need to arm ourselves more than ever!!! how can you even say that?!?
Dec 14 2012 4:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeebus.
Posts: 4904 - Karma: 5,822
exactly.
Dec 14 2012 4:36PM
0 0
profile picture
manzear
Posts: 843 - Karma: 849
do you think you and your guns is going to stop the government with military and their guns?
Dec 14 2012 4:38PM
0 0
profile picture
NickSki.
Posts: 2009 - Karma: 61
Its working in every other country than the shit-hole that is the United States
Dec 14 2012 4:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Petey.
Posts: 5736 - Karma: 4,885
This is a very ignorant statement considering we are vastly different from other countries.
Dec 14 2012 4:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
Oh yeah? Please elaborate.
Dec 14 2012 4:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeebus.
Posts: 4904 - Karma: 5,822
Go fuck yourself, No its not.
Dec 14 2012 4:42PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51835 - Karma: 164,690
Yes. Turn every RARE act like this into a reason for more restrictive gun legislation.


Fuck this shit. Try as hard as you might but you can't just legislate all bad things away. You can get rid of guns, make seat belt laws, curfews, make sidewalks out of gym mats, and everything else, but bad shit will still happen.


Fuck everything turning into a discussion about gun control. Fuck this shit.
Dec 14 2012 4:43PM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,459
I hate to have to defend guns on a day like today but since when have laws made guns unobtainable? Harder yes, unobtainable, no.
Dec 14 2012 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
No but it is our right to defend ourselves. Jesus I can't believe people would want to give up that right.

What if a fucking murderer broke into your home? there is no doubt in my mind that i would want a gun to defend myself.
Dec 14 2012 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
here is all im going to say i run off statistics and doing some research in to it the numbers don't lie.
Dec 14 2012 4:45PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
you know that i am on the other side of this. i dont want to be disrespectful, just answer me a few questions


how likely do you think is it that there will be a dictatorship in the US that everyone wants to overthrow? lets say over the next 100 years?

how probable would it then be that an unorganized militia of more or less untrained civilians with inferior weapons would be able to hold up against the us army/navy/air force? that is, if the civilians even form a milita?



Dec 14 2012 4:46PM
0 0
profile picture
HWW
Posts: 3084 - Karma: 3,436
With due respect, I don't ever read about shootings in any countries except for the US. Maybe it happens, maybe the media blows it up, or maybe I just am missing something.

How can you live with such a horrible law, which makes it easy for anyone to get hold of firearms, capable of killing multiple people within minutes? How can this be possible? Why is it still allowed now?

For people arguing about your "right" to bear arms, maybe you should think about the consequences behind using a right just because it exists. How does being able to have your own killing machine benefit you in any way at all? In the rare case that you do use it, most likely someone will end up dead, and there's a good chance that it might be you. Possibly you will be too scared to use it anyway when the time comes.

After so many public massacres, I don't see any proper, moral reason why the US gun laws are so loose. Have people not started to realise that peace is the only way to exist?
Dec 14 2012 4:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Thadius.Castle
Posts: 1436 - Karma: 250
Let's ruin the activities of millions via the act of hundreds/probably thousands. Banning them isn't the answer, more rigid regulations are, and serious fucking regulations not a quick background check and a few questions.
Dec 14 2012 4:46PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51835 - Karma: 164,690
The box, think outside of it.
Dec 14 2012 4:47PM
0 0
profile picture
.Hugo.
Posts: 17360 - Karma: 28,488
It won't do anything. The people that want to go out there and commit the horrible crimes we have been seeing lately will find a way to get a gun. Other laws obviously don't matter to them so why would they obey this one?
Dec 14 2012 4:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
Seriously. Look at Mexico. How is their gun control laws working out?


I also hate the fact that people took this incident and made it into a chance to talk bout gun control laws. I'm sure if guns were strictly regulated or even banned this fuckhead would have just found some other way to get what he wanted done. The argument is hollow.
Dec 14 2012 4:47PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
Dec 14 2012 4:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
Ok that was a bad example. But let me counter with this. An intruder breaks into your home, threatening your/your families life. Would you rather have a gun to defend yourself or not?
Dec 14 2012 4:49PM
0 0
profile picture
HWW
Posts: 3084 - Karma: 3,436
I don't agree. When enough people are unhappy with their leadership and commit to making a change, there is nothing a dictatorship can do to stop them. If they kill all their people, then they are destroying themselves.

Besides, how would you defend against military and police gunfire, even with guns?
Dec 14 2012 4:49PM
0 0
profile picture
HWW
Posts: 3084 - Karma: 3,436
Does this mean that you would have a chance to get the gun while an intruder is aiming at you with his own? Would you already be carrying it around?

More importantly, at which point would you fire at the intruder? Would you kill this him before he has launched an attack?
Dec 14 2012 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
tBatt
Posts: 9632 - Karma: 580
Because prohibition of alcohol worked so well in the 20s, and weed being illegal means not a single person smoked it ever.
Dec 14 2012 4:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
Based on how many people? It could be 54% of 10,000. I honestly would just like to see where you are getting these stats. Im sure they are correct but Im interested to see how current they are.


Ans using another model. Look what happened to the U.S. when the government banned alcohol. What do you think would happen if the government banned guns?
Dec 14 2012 4:55PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51835 - Karma: 164,690
Yes but people have to find something to blame and fix something.


Instead of recognizing that bad shit happens we have to do something.


A girl jumped in front of a car and got hit and died near me, for no reason they dropped the speed limit for a 1/4-1/2 mile in each direction. They had to feel like they accomplished something to prevent it from happening again.

It's completely illogical but it's how we think I guess. It's our coping mechanism. If we feel like we've fixed the problem we can sleep better at night.
Dec 14 2012 4:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
Implying that you realize your house has been intruded when the intruder already has his gun on you.

Personally, I would fire at the intruder after I gave him a single warning. There is no way to prove it wasn't self defense if the intruder is dead. And to further that point, my father was told IN PERSON BY A POLICE OFFICER that if you fire on an intruder you "shoot him in the head".
Dec 14 2012 4:59PM
0 0
profile picture
GuacamoleMane
Posts: 1421 - Karma: 2,013
That wouldnt do shit. Have u ever heard of detroit? U basically cant have a gun, still more handgun related deathes are from there than anywhere else in the u.s.
Dec 14 2012 5:01PM
0 0
profile picture
ThisAngelicRage
Posts: 8681 - Karma: 54
bingo. civilians should not be able to posses automatic weapons period. i support the 2nd amendment completely, i own and use guns. i don't walk around town with a pistol on my belt but i value the right i have to do exactly that. there needs to be a serious gun control reform. the assault weapon ban is a joke and does very little to increase safety. guns don't kill people. people kill people. it's far too easy to aquire firearms, especially automatic weapons. there has to be a way to weed out people who can safely own a firearm, and those who cannot. i don't know how, but i believe there is a way to prevent most of these horrible tragedies from occuring w/o infringing upon our constitutional rights. i do agree with anathema that if the founding fathers knew what weaponry advances would come about they would have wrote the 2nd amendment completely different. with that said i think the government has been dragging it's feet for decades when it comes to gun control. as technology advances our laws must be updated as well. how many people have to be shot dead before something will really be done to change things?
Dec 14 2012 5:03PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31061 - Karma: 29,362
No, people have a desire to bear arms.
Dec 14 2012 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
PeppermillReno
Posts: 4843 - Karma: -793
1. I have a friend from this town in Connecticut so its a little closer to home than most.

2. Even people with guns do nothing to stop this. GO read the thread about Oregon and you'll see a poster on here had a boy in that mall who was carrying. But he was a bitch and didn't use his gun to shoot the shooter. So his gun was useless as tits on a bull the one time he could have done something positive with it he was a bitch.

3. If any of you go to any sort of "meetings" and listen to the stories the people in there tell you'll hear that most get to a point where they stop giving a fuck and will be driving around with a bottle all blacked out. Switch it to a gun and this shit happens.



There are people in rural areas who can responsibly shoot and use firearms and can also get food with the guns. No problems there.

Urban/Suburban America does not need them though.



I bet everyone on this site 100 bucks that another shooting happens before XMas. Probably more than 1.
Dec 14 2012 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
95959
Posts: 2765 - Karma: 377
If you make owning a gun a crime, only criminals will have guns. Sure, in a perfect world only law enforcement having guns would be great, however that's impossible. Shit, give me access to the internet, the proper tools, some metal, and a ton of time and I'll make myself one.
Dec 14 2012 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
artfullydodged
Posts: 8358 - Karma: 1,674
Prohibition has proved itself to be more harmful than legalization so many times that I just cant agree with you. If demand exists there will be a market to fulfill it, legal or not. We might as well let sane individuals control and regulate it in a manner that keeps the weapons in the hands of responsible people.

Just imagine the market for guns going the way of the drug market. You think the wars over coke and weed are bad?

As far as people being able to purchase semi-automatic weapons with extra magazines go, that shit needs to stop. No citizen legitimately needs a fucking AR-15 or AK-47 for ANY reason.
Dec 14 2012 5:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
wut? We literally have the right to bear arms is what I am saying.
Dec 14 2012 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
95959
Posts: 2765 - Karma: 377
We have the right, wether you agree with that or not.
Dec 14 2012 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31061 - Karma: 29,362
% of time that self defense has been justified in the event of armed robbery of a household, when the owner has used a firearm to kill the intruder?

Dec 14 2012 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
BChaps1209
Posts: 1350 - Karma: 2,441
the more guns the worse things are going to be. the "people need guns to protect their families" is frankly bullshit. the percent of the population that would actually use a gun to protect their family must be super low.
Dec 14 2012 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
shibby
Posts: 7088 - Karma: -19
ah yes this thread already has it all.

american exceptionalism - stricter gun control works virtually every else, but no, we americans are different, we have a RIGHT to own weapons.

the guv, oooo nooo the fucking guv will become a dictatorship tomorrow. and i need my AR15 to rise up comrades, against the guv who has fucking nukes and aircraft carriers (DERP)

the old, what if a robber broke into my house? of course, he would courteously let you go find your gun like a true sir and an epic battle of good vs. evil would ensue, hollywood ending, everyone becomes a super hero with a gun in their hands.

the constitution, the mightiest scripture in the land lawd jesus christ himself may as well have written it oh praiiise jebus

you cant legislate bad shit away so why even try? amirite

lol @ those comparing gangbangers killing gangbangers to some wacko shooting up a fucking elementary school, big difference

these are the threads that show the immaturity of NS. 30+ innocent CHILDREN are murdered in cold blood and the immediate response is to defend the status quo of guns rights. get real. at least most of you reets cant vote, hopefully for your sake some people in the good ol USA (MURICA suck mah d) get serious about this problem.
Dec 14 2012 5:11PM
0 0
profile picture
95959
Posts: 2765 - Karma: 377
I'm sure it's quite high, actually.
Dec 14 2012 5:11PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
first numbers 1986
In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that

1988
In 1988, Kellermann published a study comparing robberies, burglaries, assaults, and homicides in Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia, a city "similar to Seattle in many ways" that had "adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns." The study found that
both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.
The study concluded that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community by reducing the lethality of assaults.

gun can not be made by distilling fruit in people's basements you're comparing fruit 2 guns.
Dec 14 2012 5:13PM
0 0
profile picture
shibby
Posts: 7088 - Karma: -19
tldr: yall mothafuckas brainwashed by the NRA
Dec 14 2012 5:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeebus.
Posts: 4904 - Karma: 5,822
I could say the same thing about you being brainwashed by the liberal media. But either assumption is dumb and incorrect, NRA members respect and are responsible with their guns.
Dec 14 2012 5:15PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31061 - Karma: 29,362
I know the US has it written down, but there is absolutely no need for a "right" to them, unless the population was using them for hunting to survive. Which it isn't.

Owning a firearm is a privilege, and the only thing holding back the USA from stricter gun regulation is that outdated statement people have become attached to. And their desire.
Dec 14 2012 5:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
Holy shit you are mislead. First, lets blow everything out of proportion, then once we've done that we can move on to the assumption that banning guns would have prevented this from happening!

It's ironic that you criticize the maturity of this site when you make a post like this.
Dec 14 2012 5:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Drail
Posts: 14013 - Karma: 10,005
It's funny. In most countries people don't have hand guns. Sure, there's a lot of hunting rifles and the like in Canada, but hand guns? Few and far between. We seam to do fine 'defending' ourselves.


I'm just wondering why you Americans think you need hand guns and semi/full automatic weapons (that are only in existence for killing humans) to 'defend' yourself. Who are you even defending yourself from?


Did you know that cops in New Zealand don't carry guns?
Dec 14 2012 5:16PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31061 - Karma: 29,362
Agreeing with shibby? I'd never thought i'd see the day
Dec 14 2012 5:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11955 - Karma: 12,302
Regulation does not have to mean banning. Jesus, to address you and zzzskizzz, prohibition DOESN'T work. Stop acting like banning guns would change anything.
Dec 14 2012 5:17PM
0 0
profile picture
95959
Posts: 2765 - Karma: 377
There is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to start..
Dec 14 2012 5:18PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)