Guns in America

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Some years back, there was a rash of robberies and car jackings of foreign tourists in Florida. A local reporter interviewed a prisoner who was convicted of several such crimes and asked why the new focus on tourists. The answer was that Florida had recently adopted a much more liberal policy of allowing citizens to carry guns, and the crooks knew that foreign tourists could not be armed.

[/ QUOTE ]
come on now, you don't really think the pro-gun people really care what happens to foreigners?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't see a hint of that idea there. I read it to say that people who are more likely to be armed are less likely to be victims of crime.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
On top of this, unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to states and municipalities, although that might be changing. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you mean by this quote. I assure you that neither the Supreme Court, nor any federal appellate court, has never ruled that states are allowed to pass laws that infringe upon a right protected under the Second Amendment. You may disagree with their interpretation of the scope of the protections afforded under the Second Amendment, but that is an entirely different issue.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
the right to bear arms (or defend oneself) is not granted by the constitution or the government. It is the natural right of man to do so. The Bill of Rights only serves to remind us of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the right to bear arms a "natural right"? Because Paul Philips says it is?

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that link offers any brilliant revelations, and I'm surprised that that argument can change anyone's mind. If it changed your mind, I guess you just hadn't given it enough thought. So, while I agree with most of it in principle, I do question the effectiveness of an individual's right to bear arms.

When the constitution was written, sure, a well armed populace would have just about been on an even keel with the government in terms of fighting power. But, today, if it ever came to a point where citizens were forced to defend themselves against the governement with weapons,I think firearms would be little more than an impedance. Paul says, "Mass exterminations are not possible against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first." I don't know if I agree with this. I think a more accurate statement might be, "Mass exterminations are much more difficult against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Paul needs to get his head in the twenty first century. An armed populace might have been a significant deterrent to tyranny in 1880, and maybe even in 1935, but not in the modern world.

[The Bus Driver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that link offers any brilliant revelations, and I'm surprised that that argument can change anyone's mind. If it changed your mind, I guess you just hadn't given it enough thought. So, while I agree with most of it in principle, I do question the effectiveness of an individual's right to bear arms.

When the constitution was written, sure, a well armed populace would have just about been on an even keel with the government in terms of fighting power. But, today, if it ever came to a point where citizens were forced to defend themselves against the governement with weapons,I think firearms would be little more than an impedance. Paul says, "Mass exterminations are not possible against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first." I don't know if I agree with this. I think a more accurate statement might be, "Mass exterminations are much more difficult against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Paul needs to get his head in the twenty first century. An armed populace might have been a significant deterrent to tyranny in 1880, and maybe even in 1935, but not in the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]

[cfb1739]

[ QUOTE ]

To me, these are just startling numbers. I've always felt a little uneasy about how easy it is to attain firearms in the U.S. and all "guns don't kill people, people kill people" arguments aside i truly believe most people aren't responsible enough to own one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no basis for assuming people aren't responsible enough to own one. The average law abiding citizens is quite responsible. Exactly what do u mean by "not responsible enough"?

Do you think they are going to go on some sort of shooting spree? IT'S NOT THAT [censored] HARD TO USE A GUN RESPONIBLY. Get over it. FYI, i've stared down the barrel of guns multiple times in my life. I will always carry a gun on me for the rest of my life. And I am quite capable of using it responsibly. When you get robbed at gun point multiple times in your life, you'll change your attidude, guaranfuckingteed.

Just curious, what would u consider irresponble use?

Your fear is so unwarranted. Those that use guns irresponsible can EASILY aquire guns on the black market.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the right to bear arms (or defend oneself) is not granted by the constitution or the government. It is the natural right of man to do so. The Bill of Rights only serves to remind us of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the right to bear arms a "natural right"? Because Paul Philips says it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural rights are rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. Obviously, this is subject to debate.

The founders of our country assumed that certain rights were a part of human nature, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After writing and adopting the Constitution, they came to the conclusion that certain other rights, which should be obvious to rational people, might better be enumerated. These rights were specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The right to bear arms may or may not be a natural right, inherent to being a human, but the founders of our country assumed that it was, and enumerated it in the Bill of Rights.

[cfb1739]

Deleted by cfb1739. That post was valium induced nonsense.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that link offers any brilliant revelations, and I'm surprised that that argument can change anyone's mind. If it changed your mind, I guess you just hadn't given it enough thought. So, while I agree with most of it in principle, I do question the effectiveness of an individual's right to bear arms.

When the constitution was written, sure, a well armed populace would have just about been on an even keel with the government in terms of fighting power. But, today, if it ever came to a point where citizens were forced to defend themselves against the governement with weapons,I think firearms would be little more than an impedance. Paul says, "Mass exterminations are not possible against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first." I don't know if I agree with this. I think a more accurate statement might be, "Mass exterminations are much more difficult against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Paul needs to get his head in the twenty first century. An armed populace might have been a significant deterrent to tyranny in 1880, and maybe even in 1935, but not in the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you understand modern warfare as well as you seem to think you do. See Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet primarily), Iraq, and other examples of how a well armed population can be an absolute bitch to forcibly coerce even in the face of very modern armies.

Funny thing is I had a recent conversation on the subject of the issues a foreign nation would have in trying to occupy the US during a drive through West VA. God, dealing with an underdeveloped and heavily forested space infested with heavily armed and highly experienced marksman? Forget Vietnam, that would be a quagmire. We couldn't see a way to effectively control the region without extreme numbers.

I'm quite curious how many of the respondents are familiar with the American south and the more rural regions of our country because I see a disconnect understanding the stats and the reality of those places.

J

[ncpokeresq]

While it is true that WMD's have made it possible to kill an armed populace, occupying or controlling them is an entirely different matter. The Grandmaster, who believed in an armed populace said it very well:

"No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein