|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:05:51 GMT -5
Edit: it is unnecessary for civilians to have guns. (is this better?) As long as you have non-law abiding citizens, there is no problem with citizens having guns...IMO What are you saying? (keep in mind I said that weapons do not need to be in the hands of civilians) I have no problem with the military or police officers (although if the civilians had no guns, the cops probably wouldnt need them either)
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 30, 2006 1:06:18 GMT -5
that was written a long time ago. there is no longer a need for "militias" like there was in the time of our country's infancy and instability. " 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 statement is no longer accurate... Ask Australia how well it went for them when they banned guns.... All the law abiding citizens turned theirs in.. and crime went up because now they were unarmed and the criminals knew it.
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:07:32 GMT -5
citizens with guns only enhance the group of "non-law abiding citizens" and make them more dangerous
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 30, 2006 1:07:48 GMT -5
As long as you have non-law abiding citizens, there is no problem with citizens having guns...IMO What are you saying? (keep in mind I said that weapons do not need to be in the hands of civilians) I have no problem with the military or police officers (although if the civilians had no guns, the cops probably wouldnt need them either) Thats the problem... you aren't going to stop guns among criminals, so guns become a necessity in the hands of cops and also for people who want to defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 30, 2006 1:09:39 GMT -5
citizens with guns only enhance the group of "non-law abiding citizens" and make them more dangerous That doesn't make sense to me... but if it does for you then thats your thought.
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:10:16 GMT -5
I am not saying that this is a feasible option (taking away guns that is), it's just me trying to express my opinion about the matter. BTW, the writers of the constitution didn't have assault rifles and automatic handguns in mind when they wrote the document
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:12:28 GMT -5
citizens with guns only enhance the group of "non-law abiding citizens" and make them more dangerous That doesn't make sense to me... but if it does for you then thats your thought. how could that not make sense? non law abiding citizens become more dangerous when they have guns. therefore, using logic, if the non-law abiding citizens did not have guns, they would be less dangerous and the law abiding citizen would not need a gun to protect himself from the non law abiding guy.
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:14:14 GMT -5
okay, that was my political discussion for the night! have a great night all! we will discuss some other emotionally charged political debate next time...
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 30, 2006 1:14:24 GMT -5
I don't know how you can prove that... but really, it doesn't matter, I don't own a gun, don't plan to, but if I wanted to, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 30, 2006 1:15:13 GMT -5
okay, that was my political discussion for the night! have a great night all! we will discuss some other emotionally charged political debate next time... HAHA, I was about to say the same thing... GO VALPO!
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 30, 2006 1:15:22 GMT -5
that was written a long time ago. there is no longer a need for "militias" like there was in the time of our country's infancy and instability. " 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 statement is no longer accurate... Many legal scholars disagree on this point. It's not surprising that most defense lawyer scholars think the way you do and most that have been prosecutors think the other way. It's also pretty much along party lines between liberals and conservatives. For myself, I like knowing that I can protect my family from a scumbag who might wish to do lethal harm. I have no problem with defending myself in a hot second. That's why I always pack when I go out. Some friend of ORUVoice was killed by a scumbag. Now his family doesn't have him anymore. If he was carrying heat, he might still be alive and his family wouldn't have to suffer so much for the rest of their lives. If what you say is true, there would not be anybody in the US allowed to carry concealed weapons, which is not the case except in cities where the crime rate is through the roof, i.e., Washington DC for one.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 30, 2006 1:17:13 GMT -5
That doesn't make sense to me... but if it does for you then thats your thought. how could that not make sense? non law abiding citizens become more dangerous when they have guns. therefore, using logic, if the non-law abiding citizens did not have guns, they would be less dangerous and the law abiding citizen would not need a gun to protect himself from the non law abiding guy. Non-law abiding citizens gets their hands on guns whether they are legal or not.
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:21:25 GMT -5
the only argument that one can make for having a gun is saying one must protect himself against the other guy with the gun. I am saying, if all guns were eliminated, neither guy would have a need for a gun and they could resort to throwing bricks at each other (or something?), which is a lot less deadly. Guns are just about the only weapon that reasonably ensures instant death and I think it is silly to put such a dangerous device into the hands of such an unstable organism (humans).
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:23:04 GMT -5
how could that not make sense? non law abiding citizens become more dangerous when they have guns. therefore, using logic, if the non-law abiding citizens did not have guns, they would be less dangerous and the law abiding citizen would not need a gun to protect himself from the non law abiding guy. Non-law abiding citizens gets their hands on guns whether they are legal or not. not if they are completely eliminated. I have already said that I know it is not feasible to rid our world of guns because of the situation we currently find ourselves in. this is me thinking idealogically.
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 30, 2006 1:23:51 GMT -5
good night rick, we can continue this later if we choose.
|
|