How Do You Feel About Gun Rights?

[Dachs]

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't apply in Australia, i.e. you cannot kill in self-defence,

...okay...I understood that before I posted...hence why I said it was American law...

but I'm more arguing over the morality of it. THOU SHALT NOT KILL!

Oh, so more in the spirit of the actual thread. I don't know if arguing personal morality will lead you anywhere though, especially if you're basing it off of a Judeo-Christian teaching in which most people in this subforum don't hold any stock.

 

[Camikaze]

...okay...I understood that before I posted...hence why I said it was American law...

'Twas for everyone's benefit.

Oh, so more in the spirit of the actual thread. I don't know if arguing personal morality will lead you anywhere though, especially if you're basing it off of a Judeo-Christian teaching in which most people in this subforum don't hold any stock.

What? Basing arguments on personal morality won't get me anywhere?

To play on stereotypes, I would assume that a higher than average percentage of the people I'm arguing against do take stock in this Judeo-Christian morality and belief system.

 

[classical_hero]

I am afraid but this is the level of most American gun owners.

@camikaze, do we really need to have explain what the verse is talking about? YOu have taken it way out of context.

 

[Camikaze]

@camikaze, do we really need to have explain what the verse is talking about? YOu have taken it way out of context.

What part of 'thou shalt not kill' is affected by context, exactly? Or are there circumstances in which we should, actually, kill others?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why bring up: "Thou shalt not kill (or murder)"?

Or: Why bring religion into this?

 

[CCRunner]

Or are there circumstances in which we should, actually, kill others?

Yep. Self Defense for one. Defense of the life of another too.

 

[Camikaze]

Why bring up: "Thou shalt not kill (or murder)"?

Or: Why bring religion into this?

I wasn't trying to bring religion into it, as such. I was just using a cliché to highlight the fact that I think, not unreasonably in my opinion, that it is wrong to kill people.

Yep. Self Defense for one. Defense of the life of another too.

Your intent is (or should be, hence the term self (you as a person) defence (protection from attack)) to defend yourself, not to kill others. Killing someone in self-defence is not right, it is just a bit less wrong.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Your intent is (or should be, hence the term self (you as a person) defence (protection from attack)) to defend yourself, not to kill others. Killing someone in self-defence is not right, it is just a bit less wrong.

AAH!!! Opinionated statements cannot determine when it is 'right,' if ever, to kill!!

 

[Death_Machine]

Owning as many damn guns as I want is my American birthright. This thread may be closed now.

 

[Camikaze]

AAH!!! Opinionated statements cannot determine when it is 'right,' if ever, to kill!!

My opinion determines for me what is right or wrong.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Owning as many damn guns as I want is my American birthright. This thread may be closed now.

Other people voicing differing opinions is just as much their right as you owning guns.

 

[Camikaze]

Other people voicing differing opinions is just as much their right as you owning guns.

What? I shouldn't be able to voice a different opinion?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What? I shouldn't be able to voice a different opinion?

Smartarse

 

[IglooDame]

Owning guns as deterrence to crimes only adds to the viscous cycle of societal mistrust resulting in even more crimes. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."

The logic of this escapes me. Show me some statistics where more guns = more crimes or less guns = less crimes.

Police are law enforcement officers. Their job is to enforce the law, and in their duties they may need a weapon to carry out this goal. Normal citizens are not law enforcement officers, nor should they be. The whole concept of justice would be violated if the law was taken into the hands of civilians.

So in what specific circumstances would they be okay firing their firearm at an 'attacker' where a private citizen would not be? Because by your earlier statement, someone is not a murderer until they've actually killed someone, merely displaying intent and capability is inadequate justification to fire on them.

You know what? Nevermind. We'll get into the weeds pretty quickly on this and I don't feel like going there.

Well, yeah, I think that this is true, but my argument is more (it mayn't not have been so far (I can't remember exactly what my argument is), but I'll realign)) that arming the general population creates more problems than it solves, not that it doesn't have uses in some situations. Here is an example.

Wow, that is a pretty good example - of how deaths by gunshot get consistent and wide media coverage, but firearms' use in defensive situations where a trigger doesn't get pulled rarely gets any coverage at all (unless it's a man-bites-dog sort of story). Heck, many times the 'averted crime' doesn't even get reported to police. There have been thirteen studies done in the US indicating that there are between a hundred thousand and three million defensive uses of a gun every year.

Your intent is (or should be, hence the term self (you as a person) defence (protection from attack)) to defend yourself, not to kill others. Killing someone in self-defence is not right, it is just a bit less wrong.

And here we agree. If I am shooting someone in self defense, I'm not shooting to kill them, I'm shooting in order to most effectively end the threat to my own life. That it means they'll probably be killed in the process is unfortunate circumstance. I will lose sleep over it, I'll almost certainly be traumatized over it, but at the same time I'll know that they shouldn't have forced me into a circumstance where I had to react that way.

Ah, but in this situation,

the possession of a firearm is equivalent to vigilante behaviour. You are not defending yourself, as such, and therefore, by virtue of technicality, you as a third party are adjudicating the lawful nature of an act which you are not an intrinsic element, and acting on that adjudication. i.e. you are taking the law into your own hands.

I am following the logic that if you buy a firearm for self-defence, you are going to use it. If you buy it for deterrence, that is a different story (in terms of vigilante behaviour). But I happen to believe that killing someone in self-defence is equivalent to taking the law into one's own hands.

Your belief is your belief and you're certainly entitled to it, but since the (US and New Hampshire) law explicitly allows me to use deadly force in certain circumstances to defend my own life, it seems that the law has transferred itself to my hands (or however that metaphor would go) where killing someone in self-defense is concerned. If that's not the case in Australia, well, it's a good thing your belief lives in Australia and I live in New Hampshire, eh?

 

[IglooDame]

Well, I didn't say repealed, did I?

You and I have had a long and positive give and take on this, so I needn't go into much detail, but I'll give it a quick take.

My view, is that the reasons for the 2nd Amendment as conceived in 1789 are no longer valid in 2008. That said, while I personally don't and most likely will never own guns, I recognize that this country has a long social history with firearms. I also recognize the de facto reality that there are 10s (100s?) of millions of guns in circulation and getting rid of all of them makes no sense what so ever.

That said, my biggest worry is not being killed by an intruder but by a family member or by some person who didn't follow gun safety.

That said, I would declare the 2nd Amendment null and void. I would replace it with a new amendment that recognizes the modern and traditional use of firearms in the US. One that then allows us to correctly deal w/ firearms issues without the lunacy of both fringes.

My amendment would allow private, personal firearms explicitly and only for self-defense and hunting. We would have to work out some loose ends... ie where does "self-defense" extend to? Is defining that an issue for each state?

Nice to see you post here ID. Always glad to discuss this with you.

TOBY KEITH AGREES!

For my part, I don't see (if one allows home defense, personal defense, and hunting as constitutionally protected firearm ownership justifications) why "defense against tyranny" adds more danger. When politicians that clearly know very little about guns talk about assault guns that shoot through police 'bulletproof' vests, I cringe - your average deer rifle will generally penetrate a bulletproof vest, nevermind rifles for hunting bigger game.

That said, I also don't see why hunting using firearms should be constitutionally protected. Hunting in and of itself is not. There's plenty of bowhunters, blackpowder shooters (technically firearms, but of the sort that even the Brady Bunch can ignore) and such that have been doing a good job of putting meat on the table since time immemorial - literally. You'll hear it again and again from pro-Second Amendment people: The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. Now, you know and I know that there are enough hunters in this country that if you proposed a law that would take away their 308s and 30-06s you'd have lower approval ratings than Rush Limbaugh and Rev. Wright put together.

And if you want to leave it to the states... ummm... Mine has an article in its state constitution protecting the right of armed rebellion:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

So yeah, there are issues with letting each state define things.

And it's always a pleasure to discuss these issues with you. Y'all know I can't resist a nice gun rights debate.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/25084-2/watermelon4399.jpg

Oh snap! He used the pregnant women trump card. Well, that's the end of this thread.

edit: love the imagename.

 

[mrt144]

Many served in the military overseas. IglooDude, Bronx Warlord right here on this forum.

Why don't you ask those gun owners what they have done for this country instead of trolling lil'ole me?

Gun ownership and advocacy and military service aren't the same thing especially when you're using government issued weapons in the service.

 

[Bill3000]

And if you want to leave it to the states... ummm... Mine has an article in its state constitution protecting the right of armed rebellion:

How exactly would that be put into practice, anyway? People who openly rebel in such a circumstance (which would most definitely be disputed at the time anyway) are constitutionally protected from going to jail? The federal government can't intervene to crush the rebellion? Whatever state troops are forbidden from attacking the rebels? What? Would it have any practical application other than the moral one (and perhaps the legal one in the very minute chance that a rebellion actually succeeds and a new constitution is created?)

 

[Agent327]

I recently had an argument with a friend of mine about guns and gun rights here in the United States. He insisted to me that "guns are evil" and that the 2nd amendment did not give an individual the right to own a gun.

The both of us are from New York, and around our part of it people don't get much exposure to guns. And what we do, all of it is associated with gun violence, crime, tragic accidents, and other such unsavoriness. I however do support gun rights and believe that they are among the most important of our constitutionally-protected freedoms, despite not living in a house with guns or even having ever fired a gun myself.

And well, this forum has different kinds of people from all over the world and we haven't had a gun rights discussion in a while, so lets hear what you think! Sock it to me.

As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, the right to bear arms should be seen in the perspective of the American Revolution and a frontier society; however, allowing individuals the right to bear arms - albeit with certain limitations - in the 21st century puts the US as concerns this more or less on the same level of civil rights as, say, Yemen.

 

[Dachs]

As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, the right to bear arms should be seen in the perspective of the American Revolution and a frontier society; however, allowing individuals the right to bear arms - albeit with certain limitations - in the 21st century puts the US as concerns this more or less on the same level of civil rights as, say, Yemen.

You used this phrase; I do not think you know what it means. (Unless you were making a really oblique point.)