Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Since the other thread was meant just on info from the shooting but quickly turned into a debate on gun laws I think we should just have to make a separate thread, now its not unusual for people to use this emotional roller coaster to justify banning guns, first many people dont understand that gun ownership is in fact a right protected by the consitution as it should be:

Here it is in wording, 2nd amendment- 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.

that should be enough to end the debate but it isn't so people use these emotional situations rather than facts to prove their point on gun control, here are some links with different stats, including about the "success" of the british gun law ban, haha:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3419941.stm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do0502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/05/ixopinion.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html

even when the UK had the same gun laws as the US did, there was more murders by handguns in the US...

http://guncite.com/swissgun.html
As for the swiss example, yes the control of firearms in switzerland is much stricter than the US, but gun ownership but that doesnt take away from the fact that if you have a crazy guy ready to kill I dont think he will be to concerned with breaking ammo laws, and guns are mroe available than many european countries who still have higher murder rates...


ps. not that these results will change your mind, as we have seen feel good policy is always supported regardless of results...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,411 Posts
ban them for civlians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
won'r make a difference. Look what ahppened in Germany and Dunblane etc....
In Switzerland every male has to have military service and he gets to keep his arm after that. Yet Switzerland is not like the U.S. There was only one mass killing in recent years and not that many people died.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
I said it then, I'll say it again. Gun control won't curb murderous intent. All a weapon really is, is a force multiplier. Even with a gun ban, it will STILL be easy to acquire a firearm. Even if all the guns in the world were destroyed, they'd be created and rampant on the black market. Do proponents of Gun Control really believe that supply and demand (the latter greatly amplified as a consequence) would plummet as soon as guns are abolished?
Anecdote time: When I was in middle school in a relatively upscale neighborhood, I could easily come in possession of a firearm if I so wished. If you can convince me that gun control will work, sure I'll keep an open mind. I've done several debates for school on this subject though, and I've never been convinced either way. There is just nothing you can do about incidents like yesterdays shooting without restructuring how we raise the world's young--the majority of the blame can be directed at society in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,115 Posts
Here it is in wording, 2nd amendment- 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.

that should be enough to end the debate
It is in theory possible to repeal the Bill of Rights, sacred as they are held.... amendments have been repealed before (prohibition), and thus nothing is set in stone.

I am personally unsure what effect a change in gun laws would have on the likelihood of this sort of incident happening. But it's certainly still deserving of debate.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,459 Posts
Changing the amendment and/or across-the-board banning of guns will do nothing but create a black market and cause more crazies to stockpile weapons and become paranoid of the government taking away their constitutional rights. It would have the potential of creating another Civil War here which I assume nobody wants.

If somebody wants a gun badly enough, they will find a way to get one, legally or illegally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
On the other side of the coin, on a college campus where controlled substances are everywhere, allowing a bunch of drunken fratboys (EXAMPLE ONLY!) the right to possess a firearm isn't the brightest idea. Then again, where do you draw the line on gun bans?

Saying that guns should be banned because they serve one purpose alone is borderline ignorant. Swords were made for one thing alone...BAN THEM ALL! Unless you find yourself cutting your steak with a sabre...

If I were to rob my neighbor, yes, I admit--I'd use a gun. If I didn't have a gun? Would I still rob him? Most likely, but in this case, I'd use a kitchen knife. I'd also be much less afraid of a bullet that he is incapable of owning thanks to a gun ban.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,674 Posts
Guns should be banned, and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The 2nd Amendment was brought into being in order to protect the US civilians from a corrupt and unwanted government (I'm sure those who framed the constitution had Britain in mind) and is really the rather radical right to insurrection. Using the wording of the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership in the 21st Century just seems to me to be bizarre.

However, I personally can't see any real changes in the law happening in the near future, partly because it would probably be a major vote-losing idea, in particular with the influence of the NRA in American politics.

I think it is unquestionable that the east access to guns which seems to exist in America is rather influential in boosting the number of shootings.....that would seem obvious to me.
Of course one would still be able to get hold of a gun even if they were banned, but the illegality of possession, and the added trouble which it would be necessary to go to in order to obtain one would certainly lead to fewer gun owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
On the other side of the coin, on a college campus where controlled substances are everywhere, allowing a bunch of drunken fratboys (EXAMPLE ONLY!) the right to possess a firearm isn't the brightest idea. Then again, where do you draw the line on gun bans?
Guns are banned in most campuses in the US, in fact just 2 years ago the Virginia Tech law of guns on campus was more enforced when a student with a state permit to carry a gun was found to take a gun to school, imagine how many other students had taken guns to school before that and how many shootings happened? But I agree school's should ban guns...


Chris 84 said:
Guns should be banned, and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The 2nd Amendment was brought into being in order to protect the US civilians from a corrupt and unwanted government (I'm sure those who framed the constitution had Britain in mind) and is really the rather radical right to insurrection. Using the wording of the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership in the 21st Century just seems to me to be bizarre.
Switzerland has lower crime rates then the UK and the US, maybe we should adopt their gun laws, they must be doing something right...

If you would of cared to look at the links I provided, gun ban in the England backfired as violence increased by a good margin, even gun crime increased...

and as I pointed out before even when the UK had the same or similar gun laws to the US, the US always had more gun crimes... so why do you insist on a policy that does not work.

as for the 2nd amendment it was not thinking of Britain, the use of guns for personal defense was a given and any writing from that time suggest that the law was not questioned in that way, but yes the right to bear arms was done as a means to protect from the US government...

I think it is unquestionable that the east access to guns which seems to exist in America is rather influential in boosting the number of shootings.....that would seem obvious to me.
Of course one would still be able to get hold of a gun even if they were banned, but the illegality of possession, and the added trouble which it would be necessary to go to in order to obtain one would certainly lead to fewer gun owners.
The injust drug prohibition causes more deaths than legal guns, why does switzerland who has higher gun ownership than most if not all European countries have lower crime rate?

and just like drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition didnt work so would gun prohibition not work.

If you would make gun's illegal the only one's who would not buy them are lawful citizens, criminals and nutjobs will just go to the black market...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,674 Posts
Switzerland has lower crime rates then the UK and the US, maybe we should adopt their gun laws, they must be doing something right...

If you would of cared to look at the links I provided, gun ban in the England backfired as violence increased by a good margin, even gun crime increased...

and as I pointed out before even when the UK had the same or similar gun laws to the US, the US always had more gun crimes... so why do you insist on a policy that does not work.

as for the 2nd amendment it was not thinking of Britain, the use of guns for personal defense was a given and any writing from that time suggest that the law was not questioned in that way, but yes the right to bear arms was done as a means to protect from the US government...


The injust drug prohibition causes more deaths than legal guns, why does switzerland who has higher gun ownership than most if not all European countries have lower crime rate?

and just like drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition didnt work so would gun prohibition not work.

If you would make gun's illegal the only one's who would not buy them are lawful citizens, criminals and nutjobs will just go to the black market...
I don't know enough about Swiss gun laws and crime to comment, but Swiss society is very different from American society.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your links really are crap. They are just opinionated rants, no more valid as evidence than your own comments in this thread. Where stats are indicated they are often wrong, and the UK legal system is constantly highlighted, when in fact the Scottish legal system is quite different to the English.

"Well, there may be trouble in paradise. Our friends across the Atlantic did tighten their already strict gun laws, with the Firearms Act of 1997, making self defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. Obedient British subjects generally maintained a stiff upper lip as they surrendered their guns and their rights. How much did crime drop as a result of this sacrifice? It did not drop at all. In fact, according to the local newspapers, England is being swept by a wave of crime, including plenty of gun crimes."

The part in bold is not true, and the evidence used is flimsy to say the least.

From the last link " It is illegal to even own toy guns" - this is absolute garbage. Seriously.

I don't set much store by links which are so riddled with inaccuracy.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
Here it is in wording, 2nd amendment- 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.
I have always wondered why more is not made of the fact that the amendment speaks of a "Militia" and the "People'' with a capital P. Use of the word ''People" suggests to me that it is a collective right, such as a national army.
I see nothing there to suggest that private citizens have a right to bear arms. The amendment even speaks of a ''regulated militia'', which makes it clear to me it is not talking about private, unregulated ownership.

And being brought up in Britain I have no doubt that prohibiting private arms is the way to go, especially non-hunting type guns. I have never even held a gun and am happy not to have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
I have always wondered why more is not made of the fact that the amendment speaks of a "Militia" and the "People'' with a capital P. Use of the word ''People" suggests to me that it is a collective right, such as a national army.
I see nothing there to suggest that private citizens have a right to bear arms. The amendment even speaks of a ''regulated militia'', which makes it clear to me it is not talking about private, unregulated ownership.

And being brought up in Britain I have no doubt that prohibiting private arms is the way to go, especially non-hunting type guns. I have never even held a gun and am happy not to have.
Non-hunting type of guns? What sorts of guns would those be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,078 Posts
Amendment II

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.
There is no mention of "guns" in the 2nd Amendment. It says the right to bear arms - which would include guns but today "arms" also means nuclear weapons. Would anybody advocate people owning their own stash of nuclear weapons? :lol:

As someone said, the amendment was meant to protect citizens from a corrupt government.

It was not meant for many of the reasons pro-gun people rant on and on about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
There is no mention of "guns" in the 2nd Amendment. It says the right to bear arms - which would include guns but today "arms" also means nuclear weapons. Would anybody advocate people owning their own stash of nuclear weapons? :lol:

As someone said, the amendment was meant to protect citizens from a corrupt government.

It was not meant for many of the reasons pro-gun people rant on and on about.
I agree with you. The second amendment should not be read as enshrining an individual right to have guns. However, I highly doubt the current Supreme Court would agree with us.

By the way, I was reading yesterday the opinions posted in the NYT and I was so amazed. There are so many people who belive in this notion of a constitutional right to bear arms. It's also surprising how they feel much more secure with guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,078 Posts
By the way, I was reading yesterday the opinions posted in the NYT and I was so amazed. There are so many people who belive in this notion of a constitutional right to bear arms. It's also surprising how they feel much more secure with guns.
Many people in the US are in love with their guns. I'm from the Northest and it's bad enough there, but I lived in the South for awhile - in a couple of the towns, it is against the law NOT to have a gun in your house. They ride around with them in their cars, and actually bring them to work.

I don't get the love affair with guns. :shrug: I wouldn't allow a gun in my house for all the money in the world. Personally, I think all guns should be melted down and made into something that would be positive for the world.
 

·
Gugaholic
Joined
·
84,779 Posts
I agree with you. The second amendment should not be read as enshrining an individual right to have guns. However, I highly doubt the current Supreme Court would agree with us.

By the way, I was reading yesterday the opinions posted in the NYT and I was so amazed. There are so many people who belive in this notion of a constitutional right to bear arms. It's also surprising how they feel much more secure with guns.
You need to live in USA to understand how they feel about guns. And after living in Arizona, a state where it's legal for people carrying their guns with them everywhere (except otherwise banned like schools, etc), I can tell you no matter what kind of gun control law or ban imposed by the federal government, the gun owners will still be carrying their guns with them and the law enforcement won't care too much about enforcing the law.

Unless the mentality/culture of the gun owners/lovers change, it won't really work no matter what gun control laws are in place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I have always wondered why more is not made of the fact that the amendment speaks of a "Militia" and the "People'' with a capital P. Use of the word ''People" suggests to me that it is a collective right, such as a national army.
I see nothing there to suggest that private citizens have a right to bear arms. The amendment even speaks of a ''regulated militia'', which makes it clear to me it is not talking about private, unregulated ownership.

And being brought up in Britain I have no doubt that prohibiting private arms is the way to go, especially non-hunting type guns. I have never even held a gun and am happy not to have.
the issue of intent of wording has been recently debated and there is not much doubt about the wording, it did indeed mean the right of citizens to own guns. Just years later after the constitution was written we see the first mention directly quoting the constitution for the right of citizens to bear arms, that discussion has been debated by much more qualified people and it really is a non issue. If we go by the earlies interpretations of it, meaning they are the closest to how the wording was used then we can determine the meaning.

Plus the same wording is also used in the 1st and 4th amendemnet:
4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NicoFan said:
here is no mention of "guns" in the 2nd Amendment. It says the right to bear arms - which would include guns but today "arms" also means nuclear weapons. Would anybody advocate people owning their own stash of nuclear weapons?

As someone said, the amendment was meant to protect citizens from a corrupt government.

It was not meant for many of the reasons pro-gun people rant on and on about.
a nuclear weapon is not a self defense weapon for individuals, its an indescriminate killer, its like saying I should be able to ut mines on my yard to protect me,lol...

So by your interpretation of the constitution if people by weapons to protect themselves from a corrupt government then its ok?

Chris 84 said:
I don't know enough about Swiss gun laws and crime to comment, but Swiss society is very different from American society.
But if the law works then it should work regardless of the society, by your thinking switzerland who has higher gun ownership than the UK should have lower crime and murder rate, and that is not the case at all...
Knowing that switzerland has a lower crime and murder rate dont you think the UK should adopt the same laws?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your links really are crap. They are just opinionated rants, no more valid as evidence than your own comments in this thread. Where stats are indicated they are often wrong, and the UK legal system is constantly highlighted, when in fact the Scottish legal system is quite different to the English.
Opinion rants, yes but with facts included, one of the facts is how crime went up in the UK right after the ban on guns, even gun violence went up, haha...

another point which you keep on ignoring is since murder by guns has been recorded (late 1800's) the US and Uk had similar laws yet the US always had higher murder rates...

"Well, there may be trouble in paradise. Our friends across the Atlantic did tighten their already strict gun laws, with the Firearms Act of 1997, making self defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. Obedient British subjects generally maintained a stiff upper lip as they surrendered their guns and their rights. How much did crime drop as a result of this sacrifice? It did not drop at all. In fact, according to the local newspapers, England is being swept by a wave of crime, including plenty of gun crimes."

The part in bold is not true, and the evidence used is flimsy to say the least.

From the last link " It is illegal to even own toy guns" - this is absolute garbage. Seriously.

I don't set much store by links which are so riddled with inaccuracy.
Its not true? so you can buy a handgun in the UK, because if you cant then you cant defend yourself with it, obviously...

Even if illegal, much like drugs which you can find easily you would have no problem buying guns in the US...what you would do is create a black market and a new opportunity for gangs, the mafia and thugs to make money...


And this is to all, I cant see why people have a problem with people owning guns for protection, unless you have a policeman posted out in each house then people will feel the need to have guns for protection, I personally know of two stories (where I know the people) that a gun prevented a mugging and a house robbery....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
You need to live in USA to understand how they feel about guns. And after living in Arizona, a state where it's legal for people carrying their guns with them everywhere (except otherwise banned like schools, etc), I can tell you no matter what kind of gun control law or ban imposed by the federal government, the gun owners will still be carrying their guns with them and the law enforcement won't care too much about enforcing the law.

Unless the mentality/culture of the gun owners/lovers change, it won't really work no matter what gun control laws are in place.
I lived two years in Boston. But I know the north east is not the US. People are much more liberal there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,411 Posts
You need to live in USA to understand how they feel about guns. And after living in Arizona, a state where it's legal for people carrying their guns with them everywhere (except otherwise banned like schools, etc), I can tell you no matter what kind of gun control law or ban imposed by the federal government, the gun owners will still be carrying their guns with them and the law enforcement won't care too much about enforcing the law.

Unless the mentality/culture of the gun owners/lovers change, it won't really work no matter what gun control laws are in place.
well... USA economy is (in a big part) based on Weapons Industry.
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Top