Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 40 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
well... USA economy is (in a big part) based on Weapons Industry.
not that big: GDP by sector- agriculture (0.9%), industry (20.4%), services (78.6%)
and military spending as part of GDP is only 4.06%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,674 Posts
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...


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....
But many of the facts are flawed. I have pointed out a couple of errors, but there are many :shrug:

Have the UK and US has similar laws since that time? Owning guns has never been something which is "normal" in the UK, and whereas it is a "constitutional right" in America, gun control laws have existed for years and years in the UK. A license was always needed, and many people were priced out of the market for gun ownership in this way.

As for gun ownership, people still can own guns if the authorities are convinced by them that their owning of a gun is necessary. Self defence is not, however, a valid reason for owning a gun, and hasn't been thought of such in the UK since the Second World War.

The case of Tony Martin which is often brought up is a case where a couple of young guys broke into his house. He disturbed them and they ran away, but Martin, while they were running, shot one of them in the back. Under any sensible self-defence laws that exist in this world, self-defence could not have been said to be an "excuse" for him in this instance.

I have a problem with anyone owning a gun, and that goes for the police too.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
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 think you are getting lost in your own bad logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not make any sense of this at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
The legal arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

"Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).

Recently, although the Supreme Court has not issued a clear cut ruling on 2nd Amendment rights, a 1992 decision by the conservative majority stated that "Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992). This opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Chief Justice William Renhnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, indicates that the Supreme Court has a right to limit 2nd Amendment rights. So, it is clear that the 2nd is not absolute, and thus cannot be used as a prima facie reason why any gun should be legal."

In addition:

Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'''). See also Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 276 (1996); United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770, 775 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (interpreting federal prohibition on possession of firearm by a felon as having a justification defense ''ensures that [the provision] does not collide with the Second Amendment'').
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,411 Posts
not that big: GDP by sector- agriculture (0.9%), industry (20.4%), services (78.6%)
and military spending as part of GDP is only 4.06%
lol, not that big??? I'm sure that 4% might be, at least, 30 or 40% in the world.

And I'm not talking only about production, I'm talking about the whole mechanism behind belic industry wich includes Scientific Researchs, transport of weapons, marketing, etc. Look at your statistics, you're considering "Military Spending" different than Industry.

If you want to aim, play basketball :p

This is not a matter of banning weapons so people can't buy them. It's just a step trying to remove them from people conscience. This is a "short-term" moving for a "very-long-term" topic.

For those who said "If I want to kill I can do it with a knife", of course, If I want to kill I can do it with my own hands, but it's easier to kill 20 guys with a machine-gun than with a knife. And the existence and easiness of getting them, promotes this massive murders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,411 Posts
From Wikipedia:

Region 1984 1994 2004
North America 25.0% 57.2% 63.2%
Western Europe 26.5% 26.3% —
Eastern Europe 39.3% 8.6% —
Europe — — 30.5%

The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, with a sales volume that exceeds the next 14 countries combined. Military sales equate to about 18 percent of the Federal budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation.
John Ralston Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP.

Arms Sales Statistics by SIPRI: http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/aprod/graphs/world_aprod.html
http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/aprod/graphs/GDP.html

The value of their arms sales exceed the gross domestic product (GDP) of most poor countries and their total sales compare to the GDP of medium-sized developed or industrializing countries.

Zicofirol statistics are a joke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with private citizens owning guns to protect themselves, and everyone knows it! Unfortunately, guns and ammo are big business here in the States, and those big corporations will always spending billions lobbying to get their way. :sad:

Guns should be totally banned in the US. The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
For a start, the kind that was used at Virginia Tech.
A glock 19. I've seen people hunt with pistols. What kind of "non-hunting" gun are you alluding to? Are you talking about shooting game--a single bolt action rifle? A gun that shoots imaginary bullets of plasma? This argument holds no water here...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,626 Posts
I think it would "only" cut down the crimes done in an emotional act by the average civilian. But that would be already something. But like others said above, it won't be helpful for all of those people who plan it or who have made up a criminal intend.

In some shootings you have a guy who is sure about what to do and thought of it long time in advance and planned it, in others you have somebody who is unstable and who decides on one incident to do such a crime because a certain level was reached he could not bear anymore. The latter category has the hope to cool down again if they don't have the gun ready at hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
I think you are getting lost in your own bad logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not make any sense of this at all.
I was responding to chris that if we are to make gun policy based on the crime rates of other countries then the UK should copy switzerland as they have a lower crime rate then them, this would mean that guns could be legally purchased...

NyGeL said:
lol, not that big??? I'm sure that 4% might be, at least, 30 or 40% in the world.

And I'm not talking only about production, I'm talking about the whole mechanism behind belic industry wich includes Scientific Researchs, transport of weapons, marketing, etc. Look at your statistics, you're considering "Military Spending" different than Industry.
I stand corrected then, but the stats I showed are what military industry is as part of the GDP, I guess that might not include exports, anyway a ban on guns would not prohibit the manufacture of weapons, I am sure in England you still have handguns being made, just a guess though...

tennisace said:
The legal arguments why the 2nd is not absolute
Thos are all in the later half of the 1900's , the earliest commentary on the 2nd amendmend by professionals who studied the constitution is in the early 1800's where it is interpreted as being about self defense, if it was not intended that way, dont you think they would of made laws to prohibit gun ownership?
also an earlier court case than the one's you mentioned:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (the "Dred Scott Decision"),[30] the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Also the bill of rights was a document specifically set to protect individuals from the government, the wording "the people" is also used in the 1st and 4th amendment, and it clearly is intended to mean individuals...

LoveFifteen said:
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with private citizens owning guns to protect themselves, and everyone knows it! Unfortunately, guns and ammo are big business here in the States, and those big corporations will always spending billions lobbying to get their way.

Guns should be totally banned in the US. The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous.
everyone knows about it? ha, so much so that the earliest interpretations in court decision indicated the right of citizens to carry guns, even if its intended to be to protect us from government then you can still buy guns...

As for your last statement, I actually laughed out loud at that one "The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous." :retard: :retard: :retard: off course, as we know demand of a good can be ended by government law, just like alcohol, drugs etc... Just the whole drug black market would be interested in buying guns aside from many other people...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
"Those are all in the later half of the 1900's , the earliest commentary on the 2nd amendmend by professionals who studied the constitution is in the early 1800's where it is interpreted as being about self defense, if it was not intended that way, dont you think they would of made laws to prohibit gun ownership?
also an earlier court case than the one's you mentioned:"

Miller is precedent. It doesn't matter what an earlier court said(or what was said about the interpretation before) once new case law is made. Take the cases of separate but equal. Plessy had precedent until overturned by Brown v Board of Ed. Just because Plessy was once "law" doesn't mean it it remains law in perpetuity or that because other iinterpretions of the 14th Amendment before Brown said separate but equal was constitutional.


There have been attempts to place stricter rules on guns ownership but they haven't gotten out of Congress - due primarily to the choke hold the NRA and other gun lobbies have on politicians. A law has to be passed first before it can be reviewed through the judicial process for constitutionality. And even then one must have "standing" to challenge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
I was responding to chris that if we are to make gun policy based on the crime rates of other countries then the UK should copy switzerland as they have a lower crime rate then them, this would mean that guns could be legally purchased...

I stand corrected then, but the stats I showed are what military industry is as part of the GDP, I guess that might not include exports, anyway a ban on guns would not prohibit the manufacture of weapons, I am sure in England you still have handguns being made, just a guess though...


Thos are all in the later half of the 1900's , the earliest commentary on the 2nd amendmend by professionals who studied the constitution is in the early 1800's where it is interpreted as being about self defense, if it was not intended that way, dont you think they would of made laws to prohibit gun ownership?
also an earlier court case than the one's you mentioned:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (the "Dred Scott Decision"),[30] the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Also the bill of rights was a document specifically set to protect individuals from the government, the wording "the people" is also used in the 1st and 4th amendment, and it clearly is intended to mean individuals...


everyone knows about it? ha, so much so that the earliest interpretations in court decision indicated the right of citizens to carry guns, even if its intended to be to protect us from government then you can still buy guns...

As for your last statement, I actually laughed out loud at that one "The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous." :retard: :retard: :retard: off course, as we know demand of a good can be ended by government law, just like alcohol, drugs etc... Just the whole drug black market would be interested in buying guns aside from many other people...
"To see the Second Amendment as primarily concerned with an individual right to hunt or protect one's home is like viewing the heart of the speech and assembly clauses as the right of persons to meet to play bridge or to have sex" (Akhil Reed Amar, Professor of Yale Law School)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.
Why cant you have a gun for protection? You are in essence saying an individual has no right to defend himself and is at the mercy of their attacker...

If you look at the amount of guns in the US you would think it's chaos, but its not, and I would say most murders occur because of the drug prohibition and the violence it creates...

Really think about the amount of guns in the USA, by the scaremongers estimates the US should look more like Iraq...

Oh and a ban on guns would only prohibit lawful citizens from buying them, criminals will always get them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.
what tests are you talking about.... SAT's? :lol:
Cho would have surely passed the test as would many people. Also should victims who were robbed or ****d not be allowed to buy weapons? Also in many European nations it is easy to buy guns. In Switzerland all males have their weapon from military service. My remains in my closet and I won't be getting rid of it even though I am done with the army.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
what tests are you talking about.... SAT's? :lol:
Cho would have surely passed the test as would many people. Also should victims who were robbed or ****d not be allowed to buy weapons? Also in many European nations it is easy to buy guns. In Switzerland all males have their weapon from military service. My remains in my closet and I won't be getting rid of it even though I am done with the army.

You should learn to read. At the end, I said that the problem is much deeper, it's not only about guns. The American society has a problem, if not, this kind of things wouldn't happen so often.
I'm talking about psychological tests. That's quite obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
"The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous." :retard: :retard: :retard: off course, as we know demand of a good can be ended by government law, just like alcohol, drugs etc... Just the whole drug black market would be interested in buying guns aside from many other people...
Why is there no gigantic "black market for firearms" in Western Europe, Iceland, Scandinavia, Australia, or New Zealand then?
 

·
Gugaholic
Joined
·
84,779 Posts
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.
A few months ago, a 19 years old was killed by her date. The guy is an ex-convict with a long list of personal assault charges. She was killed by a gun which was legally purchased by a woman who gave it to the ex-convict. And even without that woman purchased a gun for him, there are still many many ways he could obtain a gun.

And when you say 'except those to hunt', everyone has the right to hunt and you need not be a professional hunter so that's moot.
 
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
Top