Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should firearms be outlawed in the US?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should firearms be outlawed in the US?

    I decided to post a thread like this since the Brady Bill is running out of time and because Carolyn McCarthy is still moaning that guns killed her husband when it was Colin Furgeson. Anyways, do you think guns should be totally outlawed in the US? I think no, because violent crime has been proven to rise in "gunless" socities.

  • #2
    I am not sure that guns make crime anymore. There is something perculiar about US society that is leading to its runaway lead in the gun death leagues. From what i understand gun laws in Canada are not much more restrictive than the US and yet gun play is a lot lower. Other countries (UK, Germany etc) have more restrictive gun laws and lower gun deaths.

    Having said that, there are a stupid amount of guns in the US and something should be done. It might also help the police put away some bad people that they struggle to at the moment. A bit like taxes and Al Capone.
    at

    Comment


    • #3
      I am not sure that guns make crime anymore. There is something perculiar about US society that is leading to its runaway lead in the gun death leagues. From what i understand gun laws in Canada are not much more restrictive than the US and yet gun play is a lot lower. Other countries (UK, Germany etc) have more restrictive gun laws and lower gun deaths.

      Having said that, there are a stupid amount of guns in the US and something should be done. It might also help the police put away some bad people that they struggle to at the moment. A bit like taxes and Al Capone.
      Firearms are a right and if the Government were to subvert this right it would be met with much oposition in the US. If the Government try to take our guns a few people might get shot to say the least.

      The only way to stop tyranny from taking hold is for the people to have the ability to stop it and destroy it.

      "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
      -Thomas Jefferson

      ""God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." "
      -Thomas Jefferson

      "It has been a spectacle displaying to the highest advantage of republican government to behold the most and the least wealthy of our citizens standing in the same ranks as private soldiers, preeminently distinguished by being the army of the Constitution"
      -Thomas Jefferson
      Last edited by Praxus; 09 Dec 03,, 22:51.

      Comment


      • #4
        Its good to see the US hasn't advanced in the last 200 years. Always nice to know some people are stuck in the past.

        Last edited by Trooth; 09 Dec 03,, 23:23.
        at

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trooth
          Its good to see the US hasn't advanced in the last 200 years. Always nice to know some people are stuck in the past.
          If it's broke, don't fix it. And that sure beats a lot of Middle East, African, and Now European Countries reverting to the middle ages.

          Comment


          • #6
            Its good to see the US hasn't advanced in the last 200 years. Always nice to know some people are stuck in the past.
            What an unintelligent answer. It would be funny if you didn't mean it.
            Last edited by Praxus; 09 Dec 03,, 23:36.

            Comment


            • #7
              Isee, So if a the population of a country is killing each other at an escalating rate that is progress. I suppose it is, if we follow the sterotypes, there'll be less poverty. And the economy will improve from people building bigger gates on their communities.

              My point was, however, that Mr Jefferson's comments, and i believe the second amendment, where products of their time. The new nation had earned its independance by fighting a somewhat, though not entirely, guerilla war against the most powerful military machine of its time. However, as it happened, the weaponry available was in some cases more adept to this warfare then the Redcoats' (the hunting rifles for example). Therefore what with fear of "The Empire Strikes Back" it would be handy if the rebels maintained this state of alertness. As one govnerment had just been overthrown (the British) there was no guarantee that the new home grown one might not work out either.

              Fast forward 200 years. If the US government goes bad, are hand guns (and for that matter assault rifles) actually going to stop it? Planes, tanks ships etc etc (you lot all know this better than me).

              In my opinion the armed militia's of the US would be no more effective against the US military than the Iraqi forces have been.

              So, with that in mind, is it worth the side costs of having so many guns around?
              at

              Comment


              • #8
                Few, if any, of the gun owners want to overthrow the Government. The excess of Guns in America. May indeed help to pacify any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells.

                Or Hezbollah groups that are actually are in the U.S. Thier merely money making operations. And neither group is running amok here in the states. Lots of guns in the hands of Americans may very well be one reason why.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It is entirely possible. However normally things like that get tested by say a few Hezbollah getting held back by the shoppers at Wal-Mart and blow themselves up. But i don't remember that test happening and Hezbollah do not strike me as the people to be wary of such an unseen threat?

                  The same goes for Al-Qaeda? I have lost touch with the Anthrax scare so forgive me if i am mentioning that out of place. But even US Postal workers (notoriously well armed :)) didnt stop that. And we know of the horrendous events of 11/9/01.

                  11/9 aside my understanding of terrorist organisations' operation in the US had been more one of recruitment or fund raising rather than direct action. Perhaps this is skewed by the links of such activites to terrorism in my homeland. And again perhaps it is out of fear of the well armed populace, but again there is nornamally some sort of test.

                  I am only replying to your examples not trying to pick holes in American society although it may look that way.
                  at

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Fast forward 200 years. If the US government goes bad, are hand guns (and for that matter assault rifles) actually going to stop it? Planes, tanks ships etc etc (you lot all know this better than me).

                    In my opinion the armed militia's of the US would be no more effective against the US military than the Iraqi forces have been.
                    Oh yah and a large group of mostly southern rednecks(aka the US MILITARY) would support a tyrannical government.

                    If the people were against the Government a Rebellion would be in the Hundreds of Thousands if not Millions. Not tell me how could the US Military effectivly defend Washington against this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Praxus
                      Oh yah and a large group of mostly southern rednecks(aka the US MILITARY) would support a tyrannical government.

                      If the people were against the Government a Rebellion would be in the Hundreds of Thousands if not Millions. Not tell me how could they effectivly defend Washington against a force?
                      If the US military isn't supporting the tyrannical govnerment then there wouldn't be anyone defending washington?

                      If the US military is defending the tyrannical government then it will be unleashing its power on the US people and winning?

                      The tyrannical gonverment would be in nuclear bunkers i imagine well away from Washington, unless the US military didn't back them in which case they would be other less comfortable holes in the ground.

                      Either way i don't see where the civilians come into it.
                      at

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You fail to realize that the "embattled farmers that stood on the bridge that arched the flood and fired the shot heard round the world" early that morning on April 19th 1775, were mere farmers and townspeople.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ChrisF202
                          You fail to realize that the "embattled farmers that stood on the bridge that arched the flood and fired the shot heard round the world" early that morning on April 19th 1775, were mere farmers and townspeople.
                          Me? I mentioned that it was a guerilla war often conducted with hunting rifles.

                          But, today, my question is, could farmers take on the US military?
                          at

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's an arguement btw the haves and the havenots. Those who have guns and those who doesn't which basically comes down to rural and urban folks.

                            Farmers need guns. No ifs and nor buts. My neighbour at my hunt camp is a hobbist farmer. First couple of years, he refused to own guns but had to come to one of us to put down a few animals. $125 per vet visit or a $2 bullet. The math ain't hard to figure out. Or when the feral dogs get a hold of his calves or lambs.

                            City folks lack the understanding how necessary guns are to the folks to who need them.

                            Me? I prefer my .30-06 against anyone using an AK47 any day of the week.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The US government has already banned assault rifles and other automatic weapons. The fact is that these are the only weapons suitable for opposing a government hypothetically gone tyrannical.

                              Arms aren't just guns, guns are firearms and arms are basically any weapon an individual can arm himself with. I certainly cannot walk around in most places with an 8" bear knife on my side. I really can't walk anywhere with any type of gun.

                              So what does it mean to have the right to bear arms? Does the right to bear arms mean we can have certain types of guns locked up in our homes if we are licensed to do so and the guns are registered? Or does the right to bear arms mean I have the right to walk with a six-shooter in my holster?

                              It sure seems to me that the right to bear arms has been already been proscribed. The only people I see bearing arms on a regular basis are police officers on duty. For the rest of us, our right to bear arms has largely been limited to bearing arms at designated times of the year in designated areas for the purpose of hunting a designated number of designated animals.
                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X