Arms Control

Uh, wasn't the second ammendment made to stop the british from invading america? (so if the british did invade, you have an armed population, which is rather hard to placidate (looks at iraq).

What surprises me is that its still here so long afterwards... (i mean really, who'se going to invade america?)

Arms should be left to the police and the army. (and if the police can't keep order, then you need more police, don't you?)

From,
Nice coder

Doesn't the term "Arms Control" generally pertain to military weapons and international relations? Why don't you change the title of your rant to be "Gun Control" so that people know right off what you're about.

Oh, and I don't think you have the right to own any weapon of war and I think you're a nutjob for believing that you do.

I don't really agree with the OP, I find his stance to be a little to extreme for my tastes. With that said, I do support the Second Amendment and adherance to the Constitution.

Quote:

Original post by Nice Coder Uh, wasn't the second ammendment made to stop the british from invading america? (so if the british did invade, you have an armed population, which is rather hard to placidate (looks at iraq). What surprises me is that its still here so long afterwards... (i mean really, who'se going to invade america?) Arms should be left to the police and the army. (and if the police can't keep order, then you need more police, don't you?) From, Nice coder

I hear this argument a lot, and it doesn't really make any sense to me. The Bill of Rights was ratified after we won our independence from Britain.

Quote:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the subject. The Second Amendment was not intended to fight of a British invasion, it was instead meant to keep America from becoming like Britain as far as politics were concerned. (Britain at the time that is, currently it's a different matter; no offense to the British intended)

Now, do Americans have cause to be upset over the laws of Congress? You tell me.

2nd Amemendment:

Quote:

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.

Since it is stated that a militia needs to be well regulated, arms control is actually advised in the constitution. Then again, it might not. However, a formal dictionary was not available at the time along with the fact that the right to bear arms was not guaranteed until sometimes in the late 1800's. Previously, it was ruled that the constitution did not apply to the states. It allowed states to take property without compensation. Therefore, we can have no final authorative decision on what "well regulated" meant. Additionally, we do not know if the founding fathers would have placed such an amendment in modern times. In the 1700/early 1800's, it took a minute just to load a single bullet hence the term "minute-men". Even more important, one minute to load and shoot was considered fast. Now with automatic weapons, we can fire multiple shots in a mere second. We can destroy multiple buildings with one rocket.

On the subject of preventing crime, arms control did not exist in any strong national form until the 1990's, and it was allowed to expire last year. Has crime ended yet? Why? Most crimes are crimes of passion. They are incited by anger, desperation, etc. It doesn't excuse the criminal, but it does mean that no amount of arms will prevent the crime from happening.

Let me give you a theoretical example. We are allowed to own any weapon. A guy purchases an explosive capable of destroying a small but fairly decent sized weapon. One day, he discovers his significant other has been having relations with another person. He becomes enraged and decides that if he can't his significant other no one will. (Yes, it is cliched) He also believes he cannot live without his significant other. So, he assembles his explosive and sets a timed detonation to go off sometime at night when he and his significant other are sleeping. Later on, he cools down, but he forgets about the bomb. (We often forget somethings we say or do in anger.) Now, the bomb will go off. He and his significant other die. If they're living in a suburban or urban area, a few of his neighbors will die as well.

Arms control does not detract at all from the american ideal.

Quote:

Original post by Drewish Quote: What surprises me is that its still here so long afterwards... (i mean really, who'se going to invade america?) I hear this argument a lot, and it doesn't really make any sense to me. The Bill of Rights was ratified after we won our independence from Britain.

um, because a country can only invade you if you are not officially par tof it?

anyway, i disagree with the OP. living in ireland, where guns are few and far between (our police force doesnt have guns), i find it quite incredible that you could justify owning military style weapons. why would you want to own an anti-aircraft device? you're going to be in a lot more trouble than you think if you believe that this will help you if your country gets attacked...

would you like to think that some random nutjob could buy explosives etc and then set them off if he went a bit postal...

how often have you (any of you) had to use a firearm to defend yourself or your property?

Quote:

Original post by avidlinuxuser 2nd Amemendment: Quote: 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. Since it is stated that a militia needs to be well regulated, arms control is actually advised in the constitution. Then again, it might not. However, a formal dictionary was not available at the time along with the fact that the right to bear arms was not guaranteed until sometimes in the late 1800's. Previously, it was ruled that the constitution did not apply to the states. It allowed states to take property without compensation. Therefore, we can have no final authorative decision on what "well regulated" meant. Additionally, we do not know if the founding fathers would have placed such an amendment in modern times. In the 1700/early 1800's, it took a minute just to load a single bullet hence the term "minute-men". Even more important, one minute to load and shoot was considered fast. Now with automatic weapons, we can fire multiple shots in a mere second. We can destroy multiple buildings with one rocket. On the subject of preventing crime, arms control did not exist in any strong national form until the 1990's, and it was allowed to expire last year. Has crime ended yet? Why? Most crimes are crimes of passion. They are incited by anger, desperation, etc. It doesn't excuse the criminal, but it does mean that no amount of arms will prevent the crime from happening. Let me give you a theoretical example. We are allowed to own any weapon. A guy purchases an explosive capable of destroying a small but fairly decent sized weapon. One day, he discovers his significant other has been having relations with another person. He becomes enraged and decides that if he can't his significant other no one will. (Yes, it is cliched) He also believes he cannot live without his significant other. So, he assembles his explosive and sets a timed detonation to go off sometime at night when he and his significant other are sleeping. Later on, he cools down, but he forgets about the bomb. (We often forget somethings we say or do in anger.) Now, the bomb will go off. He and his significant other die. If they're living in a suburban or urban area, a few of his neighbors will die as well. Arms control does not detract at all from the american ideal.

A well regulated militia is a descriptive clause. Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ill give you my own theoretical example. Suppose we allow the current trend of arms control. The government decides that it is going to infringe the 1st Amendment. The government is empowered on the fact that the majoirty of the police will enforce some new "anti terrorist law" that bans political lobbying. Congress passes a law and people lose their ability to openly discuss politics because it could incite terrorism/hatred since someone started a bombing campaign on the basis of their political beleifs. What do we have? We have what Britain was before the revolution for freedom.

If there was no arms control you probably WOULD have isolated incidents of people setting off bombs but I would rather have sporadic hostilities then for my children to be conformed into a beleif other then what the country was founded on. I know better to beleive that if you take away arms there will be enough responsibility to adhere to what the country is now.

Politics is for stupid people and I beleive debating it is really pointless. I dont pretend to live in fairy land where I am immortal and that war and lack of freedom is some nightmare that could never exist.

Id rather suck it up then sacrifice my rights. "Those willing to sacrifice a little freedom for some temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security". Benjamin Franklin said that, and I think he was right.

It kind of angers me that those in the 1930's were scared of the mob and couldnt handle organized crime, it is pathetic that in the 1970's they had to ban most major implements of war instead of dealing with it another way. It is pathetic that in 1986 they banned the manufacture of machine guns for sale to civilians. I take it as an insult to my freedoms. And really the whole structure of society and humanity in general is pretty disgusting. But hey at least I can own a rifle and post here on gamedev.

[Edited by - JTWatters on December 19, 2005 9:24:36 PM]

Quote:

Original post by rip-off how often have you (any of you) had to use a firearm to defend yourself or your property?

Three times. Yup. Three. And all three times the damn coyote died before taking down one of our sheep.

Quote:

Original post by H_o_p_s Quote: Original post by rip-off how often have you (any of you) had to use a firearm to defend yourself or your property? Three times. Yup. Three. And all three times the damn coyote died before taking down one of our sheep.

I think he meant using the weapon against people...

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Doesn't the term "Arms Control" generally pertain to military weapons and international relations? Why don't you change the title of your rant to be "Gun Control" so that people know right off what you're about. Oh, and I don't think you have the right to own any weapon of war and I think you're a nutjob for believing that you do.

Arms control pertains to guns, missiles, rockets, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, armor, etc.

Arent you my enemy for thinking you have the right to say I dont have the right to own weapons? Its like saying your better then me or that you have control over my life. The only conclusion of that debate would be won by force?Realistically I dont think I could persuade your opinion with words alone... It affirms my beleif that the 2nd Amendment is probably the most important right that we have as Americans (at least supposed to have).

I dont think it is unreasonable to have laws against murder, rape, theft, and terrorism/fascism but I beleive morals are universal and you would not be able to argue why you think I dont have the right to setup a SAM site on my property.

I take it as an attack on my character if you think I am not responsible enough to do so.

I beleive that if we think people cant own weapons, then they probably are our enemy/inferior on some level. Which means we should declare war, not infringe freedom. Especially when infringing freedom isnt targeted against certain people, but against those whom we dont think are our enemies/inferiors. I dont support that kind of thinking.

Quote:

Original post by Oberon_Command I think he meant using the weapon against people...

And my point is that there are different reasons for owning firearms. The ability to defend my sheep should not be taken away because someone is afraid of guns.

Quote:

A well regulated militia is a descriptive clause. Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

how is it necessary. a police and army combination do quite nicely

Quote:

Politics is for stupid people and I beleive debating it is really pointless.

why are you posting your thoughts and feelings here, if only to debate them...

Quote:

I dont pretend to live in fairy land where I am immortal and that war and people without freedom is some nightmare that could never exist.

i dont get your references to a "fairy land". are you saying that peaceful living for all is impossible?

Quote:

Original post by rip-off why are you posting your thoughts and feelings here, if only to debate them...

Because trying to intimidate people through violence is called "terrorism" and highly illegal, lol. Im left with no choice ;)

Quote:

i dont get your references to a "fairy land". are you saying that peaceful living for all is impossible?

In our lifetime, yes. I would say that is a 100% fact.

Quote:

Orignial post by JTwatters I take it as an attack on my character if you think I am not responsible enough to do so.

Whether or not you are responsible enough is not relavent to this discussion. We need to make laws for the entire population, not individuals. Weapons that can cause lots of damage I believe should be regulated. Not denied, but regulated. This means that things like chemical weapons, AA missles, etc.. should not be allowed into just anyone's hands, but only people that are responsible enough.

Quote:

Original post by rip-off i dont get your references to a "fairy land". are you saying that peaceful living for all is impossible?

no, but a good number of us see it as a sign of the apocolypse :)

Personally, I don't believe that a world without violence is possible. People are too violent and abusive for there to be peace on Earth. I believe that violence is deeply a part of us as a species. Look at our methods of pleasure (NOT sexual pleasure, though this too can be violent): violent video games, violent sports, bullying (yes, that's a form of pleasure - for the bully), etc. It's all just an expression of our violent inner selves.

In other words, violence is so deeply inbedded into us that no matter how much we try to breed it out, we will never be completely able to breed it out.

I think people should have every liberty that does not directly end life or physicly lower the quality of anothers life (while not in persuit of delivering justice) open to them BUT the punishment for breaching this one simple law is execution.

Basicly I should be able to walk around tooting heroin with an AK47 in my arms, no trousers and singing a merry yet highly racist song while sporting a raging hard-on.. Thats freedom.

But if I shoot a granny to steal her heroin becuase im desperate for a fix I should be killed in a heartbeat.
If I drink drive and kill some one... I'm exectued.
If I steal form some one.. exectution.
If I punch some one.. execution.

OK it would start out like chaos but as the "weeds" where "pruned" by my elite army of snipers or "Judges" we would soon have a beautiful and peacefull society where we are all free to wander round, high as kites with military grade fire arms and explosives as long as we're all cool to each other.

Quote:

Original post by H_o_p_s Quote: Orignial post by JTwatters I take it as an attack on my character if you think I am not responsible enough to do so. Whether or not you are responsible enough is not relavent to this discussion. Weapons that can cause lots of damage I believe should be regulated. Not denied, but regulated. This means that things like chemical weapons, AA missles, etc.. should not be allowed into just anyone's hands, but only people that are responsible enough.

Not all criminals are really bad people though. What would dictate "responsible enough"? Can you blame a guy for killing a guy for raping his daughter or wife? Can you blame somebody for getting into a fight he didnt start? Can you blame a guy for threatening to kill his wife because she turned into a crazy loon who was mean and trashed his emotions? Are you going to say all college graduates are smarter then those without degrees? I dont think that.

Last I checked we didnt revoke citizenship if you commit felonies or misdemeanors so technically they have the same constitutional freedoms that I do.

If we think people arent responsible enough then they shouldnt be called US citizens.

I wouldnt want to live on a planet that thought it had the right to hold me to a lower standard then themselves. I beleive in do unto others that you want done unto thee.

i dont agree.

the reason i think everyone is better off without guns is that one wrong person with a gun can ruin so much, while if no-one had a gun no-one would have need of one.

that is my belief.

EDIT: im not ruling out a small armed police group, but for the general populace yes.

Quote:

Original post by JDUK ... But if I shoot a granny to steal her heroin becuase im desperate for a fix I should be killed in a heartbeat. If I drink drive and kill some one... I'm exectued. If I steal form some one.. exectution. If I punch some one.. execution. ...

I don't agree with a zero-tolerant society for a couple of reasons. The first is that it leads to excessive authoritive figures. It becomes easy for people in charge to just execute someone for reasons other than the public ones. It leads to the government being all-powerfull. When governments become all-powerfull they become corrupt. Another argument against this idea comes from my belief that not all crimes are equal. If I'm walking down the street and call someone an asshole I believe that is a less of an offense than raping and murdering someone.

My two cents...