Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Right to bear arms
    #3349566 -

There are many issues around the right to bear arms: waiting periods, weapon registration, etc.

Ignoring all those issues, let me ask you:
What weapons should individuals be allowed to own?
Handguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, grenades and other explosives, SAMs, anthrax, sarin, nuclear warheads?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: phi1618]
    #3349589 -

As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment explicitly covers guns. I think that includes handguns, rifles, assault rifles.

But if you're looking at the 2nd Amendment as a way for us to avoid government tyranny, there may be room for explosives, etc. In the interest of defending yourself against tyranny, you could make the argument that you should be able to own whatever the government owns. Afterall, how would the masses be able to carry out their constitutional coup when the government is armed with nukes and biological weapons?

...It's a tough question, but I'd still draw the line at guns. Weapons beyond simple firearms existed during the revolution. If the founding fathers wanted to be more explicit they could have been.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: phi1618]
    #3349623 -

I would say any semi-automatic gun should be allowed. Beyond that, I don't know. I have actually heard some pretty good arguments for why even some of the more extreme weapons, even bombs, should be allowed, but I'm not gonna get into that as that's sure to drag me into a long, drawn-out argument that I don't want to be a part of.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: silversoul7]
    #3350023 -

i agree with the semi-auto requirment. i dont personally agree with how slack us laws are. i liek the canadian way of taking a test but disagree with most other of canadas laws about guns. test/license means there has to be at least a little brain in there. but of course tehy mess it up and charge a bunch of cash for it and get eveyone all pissy.


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: phi1618]
    #3350044 -

Americans = Stupid gun nuts.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3350074 -

:lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3350233 -

say that to my .45...lol :grin:


--------------------


Correlation is not causation!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: Gijith]
    #3350247 -

i know most on the right disagree, but i think we live in a different world than we did in 1789, just finishing a bloody revolution. though the 2nd amendment was created then to protect from government tyranny, it no longer really applies. for example, the south revolted and were squashed. the drug war against victimless crimes is tyranny, but there's nothing even close to a revolution. as military prowess exponentially increases, hope of a civilian revolution becomes more and more infeasible. democracy is now the only way to bring about change. an outright military takeover of the population a) would not happen under this system of government IMO and b) we would be protected by allies if it somehow did.

thus, now gun laws should be created in response to this pandora's box of allowing everyone to have guns. thus i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, easily concealable weapons should not and semi-automatic weapons which are designed for fighting off many foes (i.e. police) should not--especially because i always hear they can 'easily' be turned into an automatic.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: Tao]
    #3350682 -

i know most on the right disagree, but i think we live in a different world than we did in 1789, just finishing a bloody revolution. though the 2nd amendment was created then to protect from government tyranny, it no longer really applies.

i tend to agree with you there to some extent. the situation is very different now than it was then. back then, there was little difference between civilian technology and weapons of war. the cavalry and infantry of a revolutionary war era battlefield could be made up of what only months ago were civilian hunters, horsemen, and farmers.

now we have advanced military technology and modern, professional armies.

while i still believe that an armed populace can serve as a last line of defense of the nation, and at the very least, a person can serve as the last line of defense of himself, i can certainly see that things are different now than when the amendment was written. the importance of citizen soldiers has wained considerably. things are different than they were then. i don't think anyone has brought a defense based on the 3rd amendment's prohibition of quartering soldiers in private homes in time of peace to the courts any time recently.

but i do think that even with the waining importance of the unorganized militia, the second amendment still holds meaning and that meaning still is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". i tend to think of self-defense as a fundamental right, perhaps the fundamental right. if you haven't got a right to defend yourself from attack, what have you got a right to do? i believe that the founding fathers agreed, and though at the time, the militia was important enough to be explicitly mentioned in the second amendment, the fact that it is probably not as important now as it was then does not make the 2nd null and void.

besides, the meaning is still very clear. whether citizen soldiers are useful today or not, the second amendment means what it means.

thus i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, easily concealable weapons should not and semi-automatic weapons which are designed for fighting off many foes (i.e. police) should not--especially because i always hear they can 'easily' be turned into an automatic.

i disagree with you on both counts. the police have no obligation, or ability, to protect you at all times. in the face of this, i think it would be wrong of them to prevent you from protecting yourself. now, i can understand arguments related to overriding concerns for public safety, but the fact is that banning handguns or semi-automatic weapons simply has no beneficial effect in reducing crime. in fact, where concealed carry permits have been issued, the rate of violent crime has tended to go down.

The Lott-Mustard Report

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

"More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit."
("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

the state of florida was one of the first to liberalize its concealed carry laws. the program was a great success and led to a significant reduction in violent crime. since then, many other states have followed suit and you can now get a CCW in most states in the union.

for various reasons, i have no interest in carrying a gun in public, but i respect the right of others to do so, and i actually feel more comfortable knowing that their are people around legally carrying firearms because this makes us all safer whether we carry or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3350808 -


Americans = Stupid gun nuts.




Arabs look like they are a little nuts about guns themselves...

P.S.  And are Americans firing guns wildly into the air during
weddings......?  :smirk:

Edited by RandalFlagg (11/12/04 11:37 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: ]
    #3350826 -

but i do think that even with the waining importance of the unorganized militia, the second amendment still holds meaning and that meaning still is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

If you only take notice of half the sentence..

whether citizen soldiers are useful today or not, the second amendment means what it means.

Exactly. A well regulated militia. Clem and Burl do not constitute a well-regulated militia.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: phi1618]
    #3350857 -

The 2nd amendment doesnt exist because of the citizens allowed to hunt. Its so the people can protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Why should I trust a government that doesnt trust its own civilians with firearms.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: ]
    #3350869 -

but with rifles and shot guns you still can defend yourself, you don't need easily concealible weapons to do so.


and ive seen those statitistics about concealed weapons a lot, for a while i saw the argument in it and even mentioned them to people, but then after thinking about it for a while and relating it to my day to day life, im very glad i don't live in a society where many are going around carrying a gun. the reason is i dont want to have to be so delicate in my dealings with people every day in case they might flip out and happen to have a gun. i was playing soccer this summer at a local park and this 230 pound guy seriously threatened to fight me if i came in to a tackle too hard again. i don't know if you're going to bars yet, but i'd really rather not be in a situation where stupid testosterone/alcohol feuled fights are combined with guns.

bottomline, people are irrational, make mistakes and get in fights and arguments. id rather those mistakes leave me with a black eye or even in a hospital, but not in a casket. to me, everyone carrying around a gun is not 'domestic tranquility'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: Tao]
    #3350904 -

but with rifles and shot guns you still can defend yourself, you don't need easily concealible weapons to do so.

you do if you want to carry in public.

bottomline, people are irrational, make mistakes and get in fights and arguments. id rather those mistakes leave me with a black eye or even in a hospital, but not in a casket. to me, everyone carrying around a gun is not 'domestic tranquility'

your fears are not supported by the available statistics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: ]
    #3350915 -

police and cameras combing the streets would cut down on crime too. doesnt mean i want to live in a society like that.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: Tao]
    #3350932 -

also, this is in a society that has legalized handguns, so concealed weapons permits for all other people follow so long as handguns remain legal.


anyway my main beef is ensuring registration, background checks and closing the gun show loophole. feel free to defend the gun lobbyers' stance on these issues.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: Tao]
    #3351129 -

police and cameras combing the streets would cut down on crime too. doesnt mean i want to live in a society like that.

if not to reduce crime, what is the intended purpose of banning concealed carry of handguns in public?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: Tao]
    #3351137 -

anyway my main beef is ensuring registration, background checks and closing the gun show loophole. feel free to defend the gun lobbyers' stance on these issues.

i have no problem with requiring a license to buy or sell guns. the license to buy guns must be a "shall issue" license though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3351177 -

Quote:
P.S. And are Americans firing guns wildly into the air during
weddings......?


Um, yea? That's a fairly popular stereotype of em rednecks...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Right to bear arms [Re: ]
    #3351185 -

As for the Lott study you have posted numerous, numerous times, do you have something to refute this?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=lott_mglc&menu=pro

i wont fill up this whole thread with the article, but this is the jist:

Quote:
Both Lott's book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott's methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.



--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Right To Keep and Bear Arms
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )		 Ancalagon 10,705 201 12/25/04 09:28 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* The right to bear arms... in bars.
( 1 2 all )		 Baby_Hitler 2,918 22 03/25/05 06:10 PM
by unbeliever
* Handguns vs. Rifles
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Tao 6,637 74 03/19/04 01:14 AM
by Mushmonkey
* Define "ARMS" DigitalDuality 564 4 10/05/05 10:02 AM
by SirTripAlot
* U.N. Conference On "Small Arms" Finally Ends xDuckYouSuckerx 1,104 13 08/08/06 12:06 PM
by Hank, FTW
* Brit group opposes right to arm bears Phred 850 9 04/23/04 05:46 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Canada's Liberal party promises to completely ban handguns
( 1 2 all )		 carbonhoots 2,137 20 12/12/05 01:05 AM
by chodamunky
* Help End Draft Registration! ez-e 1,767 2 06/13/01 07:24 PM
by Suntzu

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,458 topic views. 0 members, 24 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.