Guns are bad mmmkay...

[munik]

The most logical way to invade america would be by land. If you were intent on invading, it's not like mexico or canada could stop you. Making a beachhead has got to be one of the most difficult ways to invade. Also, in the States the population on either coast is very large, and the military bases are plenty. If you enter from the south, there is plenty of empty desert to come through. From the north there isn't much for population, plus if you gain control of the st lawrence locks you have grabbed hold of the States by the balls, and given yourself a vital supply route.

 

Point is, we aren't immune to invasion...just cocky about it. 'Cause we got lots of guns.

[munik]

Another thing I wanted to expound upon is the protection against the government. The 2nd ammendment helps with that, as well as many others. An example: The U.S. has this plan to accept and store nuclear waste from foreign countries. This is some deal for having these countries use plutonium in their reactors, or to encourage the use of nuclear energy. This is good and all for foreign countries, and good for the federal government. But, what about the states that have to store it? Or those states on the coast who must accept it, and have it transported through their state? This is not good, as the dangers are high for these states. So, what are they to do? Senators can argue in the senate, and work it out amongst themselves. But what if you are the governor? What can you do for your people who do not want this?

 

This is a good conflict to point out that a problem where the state and federal government can't come to an agreement might come down to a show of force. Now, if there was no 2nd ammendment, the best a state could do is use it's police force. While formidable, a police force is no match for the federal military. The feds would just roll right through the state, and they could do nothing to stop it. Now considering the 2nd, a state could protect it's interests with it's police force, any militias, and any citizen with a firearm. That is something that would give the feds pause. True, the military would most likely defeat anything the state had, but now the situation is different. Before, with no guns, the feds do what they want and people are upset, but that's about as bad as it gets. Now, if the feds want to get their way, they have to take military action and kill or destroy. Something like that causes instability in the nation.

 

I think that people foreign to the States forget that this country is the United States of America. While you may see the foreign policy of the federal government and judge us for that, you must remember that we also have our state governments. To other countries we are Americans, and proudly so, but to a Virginian I am a New Yorker. If my way of life, and other New Yorkers is threatened by the federal government, we can take up arms and protect it. And that is what's at the heart of the 2nd ammendment, protection of the State.

[Darth Groovy]

Banning guns is futile, considering you can still buy them on the streets at a cheaper rate. Banning them would only make them move faster than merchandise at a Baghdad, post Saddam Hussein clearance sale.

[Homuncul]

Eagle:

No country that I know about has banned guns, although there probably are quite a few that have.

 

Russia. Till lately it was not even questioned. Slow development + 70 years of communism I guess.

 

munik:

Now considering the 2nd, a state could protect it's interests with it's police force, any militias, and any citizen with a firearm. That is something that would give the feds pause. True, the military would most likely defeat anything the state had, but now the situation is different. Before, with no guns, the feds do what they want and people are upset, but that's about as bad as it gets. Now, if the feds want to get their way, they have to take military action and kill or destroy. Something like that causes instability in the nation.

 

I guess it's a lil bit restricted where I live. You try it to resist the feds you'll probably won't live it. I don't even understand this situation. Do you have right to fire the feds? Will you do this if such situation comes?

[Breton]

Originally posted by Darth Groovy

Banning guns is futile, considering you can still buy them on the streets at a cheaper rate. Banning them would only make them move faster than merchandise at a Baghdad, post Saddam Hussein clearance sale.

 

Not if you ban them completely, puts much effort into taking all guns back and stop gun smuggling, and of course, stops all illegal sale of guns. It will be hard, but when you have 10,000 dying from it each year, something has to be done. And in most other countries, illegal gun sale is far from any large problem, so it should be well possible to do the same in the States.

[munik]

Originally posted by Homuncul

I guess it's a lil bit restricted where I live. You try it to resist the feds you'll probably won't live it. I don't even understand this situation. Do you have right to fire the feds? Will you do this if such situation comes?

I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking. If you are asking if the State has the right, then yes, it does, as per the 2nd ammendment. Will it be necessary? Who knows, there would have to be a serious problem between the State and federal governments for something like that to happen.

 

I don't agree with the idea that we should ban guns just because thousands of people get killed by them. That's what guns do, that is their sole purpose. Guns are a tool for killing. The problem is not guns, but those people who murder with them. Maybe if there were no guns, these people might not kill, as the ease and simplicity of a gun make murder easier. But that is the what if game. People can always resort to other weapons, but we can't argue to ban them. Knives have other uses then killing, explosives have other uses then killing, etc. Guns have no other use then killing, which makes them easier to demonize.

 

We can also argue that we need to be more peaceful, so the less guns the less violence. While this may be possible, I don't believe it to be practical. Our country needs the violence, we need the brutality. That is what we are, America wasn't born from diplomacy, it was birthed in blood. Our foreign policy consists of manipulation, and when that doesn't work we use violence. Who here not from the U.S., or living in the U.S., believe americans to be barbaric or brutal because we allow our citizens to carry weapons of death? Does that not help us as a nation, an image that we would be a formidable opponent? Is that something we want to give up? How many nations on this planet gained their power from peace and diplomacy?

 

I found this at the FBI's webpage. For every 100,000 citizens in the U.S., 5.6 are murdered (2001). There were 13,752 murders that year, 8,719 which were commited using firearms, a percentage of about %63.

 

In the UK, the population is approximately 58 million (2001). I found that 792 people were murdered. That figures to around 1.3 in every 100,000 citizens get murdered.

 

If you were to take away all the murders by firearms in the U.S., we still would have more then twice as many murders then the UK per capita. So, is the problem firearms? To me, the problem is murder, not the tool used to commit it.

[Wudan]

People need guns.

 

I'm not altogether 'down' with the idea of shooting at people, but I recognize the utility of guns.

 

But, hey, get rid of them altogether, and I'll be forced to learn more Kung Fu.

[Thrackan Solo]

Originally posted by Breton

Not if you ban them completely, puts much effort into taking all guns back and stop gun smuggling, and of course, stops all illegal sale of guns. It will be hard, but when you have 10,000 dying from it each year, something has to be done. And in most other countries, illegal gun sale is far from any large problem, so it should be well possible to do the same in the States.

 

And that my friends is a fantasy.

 

10,000 buddy isnt that much. People die in car wrecks mor ethan that so we should ban cars?

[Breton]

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo

And that my friends is a fantasy.

 

Why?

 

It's worked in other countries. Why shouldn't it work in US?

 

10,000 buddy isnt that much.

 

Isn't it? Sounds like much to me.

 

Well, if 10,000 isn't that much, then I guess 3,000 is irellevant.

 

People die in car wrecks mor ethan that so we should ban cars?

 

They do indeed. But cars are certainly not designed to kill people, and they are practically never used to actually kill someone. Guns, however, have no other use than killing. And, cars are more used than guns.

[munik]

So it doesn't matter how many people something kills, as long as it has a redeemable quality it is ok? If you eliminate one of the most efficient tools for killing, something designed solely for that, you are not going to eliminate killing itself. In this case, we can clearly see that the chicken came first, not the egg. Guns didn't bring about killing, killing brought about guns.

[Thrackan Solo]

Guns didn't bring about killing, killing brought about guns.

 

munikls right. It is are human nature to kill. Just like we are naturally greedy. Humans, are not naturally good. We think of ourselves before others. Killing will happen no matter what.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by munik

If you eliminate one of the most efficient tools for killing, something designed solely for that, you are not going to eliminate killing itself.

 

'Course not.

 

But as you eliminate one of the most efficient tools for killing, something designed solely for that, I bet you'll see a decrease in deaths - accidents, murders of passion, "self defense excercising", school shootings etc.

[El Sitherino]

too bad no gun bearing hill billy around here will give up his boom-stick. but i think it's a good idea but i doubt it will ever happen. too bad we can't go back to the days of swords. seeing your enemy as a rea human and not just some face in a gun sight, but as a real human upclose face to face. seeing the look in your foe's eyes.

[Jah Warrior]

I think the problem stems from the fact that the u.s is a very young country in global terms. When the pioneers were heading west there were bandits and marauding Indians and yes they needed to shoot animals to eat and in this situation I can see the logic in having a weapon.

 

Now, its the 21st and there are no marauding natives and virtually nobody has to go out and shoot things so they can eat anymore, so... why guns?

 

a point i wanna address is Muniks mentioning of protection against the government.

 

Are you serious? It sounds like total fantasy to me, the thought of the Hillbilly militia picking up arms and taking on the u.s. governement is a joke surely?!?!

 

The main problem here is that so many guns are already in circulation that banning them would have no effect on gun-crimerates. I'm, afraid the states has missed the boat in terms of controlling guns, I think it would take 50+ years for a ban in guns to make a real difference to the ammount of killings.

[SkinWalker]

Pity Munik can't reply..... let's hope his ban is only temporary..... But as they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Great post, Munik.

 

If one constitutional right is undermined, then that leaves the others open as well. We don't see it as the word of god, but it is part of the foundation of our country. If you can revoke one ammendment, why not others? Some of those ammendments we as americans feel are unalienable rights, things we never want to give up.

Hmmm.. with all due respect, what angers me is that you don't seem to speak up when the rights of minorities are run over. The civil rights movement of the 60's, for example, consisted mostly of dark-skinned people. Few wanted to help the darks get all the rights the light had. Same with people who want to marry someone of their own gender, and cannot, in complete violation of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion (and common sense). I don't see much of a public outrage about the rights of your fellow citizens being run over, to say it that way. Also, freedom of speech is violated. You should be able to say something against the war in Iraq, for example, without being fired from your news station.

 

I know a lot of Americans really care. I've even done community work with Americans, you're a great bunch. But really, your rights are already run over. And you've gotta face the facts that the constitution is 200 years old, and thus, what might have been unalienable rights back then are today outdated.

 

The 2nd ammendment was put there to help prevent the government from going bad, so to speak. Revolting against a corrupt government is much easier when you posses the firepower to do so. Also, the 2nd ammendment helps in defense of this country, as every citizen has the opportunity to be armed and partake in repelling any invasion.

That's what I learned in American History and World History class while staying in the States. Good point indeed. In fact, the Scandinavian nations, especially Finland, take pride in our guerillas, which are almost the same as militias. However, times change. If the Norwegian HV guerilla shot 11 000 innocents a year, I'd be against it too.

 

Now, you can say that the ammendment is outdated, not relevant, or harmful. But, how many times has the government turned on it's citizens? How many times has the country been invaded (disregard the crazy canucks)? So, wouldn't it appear that the ammendment is doing what it was put there for? Yes, we can play the "what if" game, and talk for endless hours about how invasion or government corruption could be prevented without the 2nd, but if we were to revoke that ammendment and then things did turn bad, we'd be up sh*t creek without a paddle. That's not a chance some americans want to take.

Well, you're the one playing the "what if"-game here, answering the question of "what if we restrict guns?"

The government isn't that unstable. I cannot for the life of me understand how Americans brag that your government is so great and weak and that you're so free, while you are still so paranoid about it turning evil on you. If the Republic is so kind and loving, why do some Americans seem afraid of it?

 

A seatbelt is uncomfortable and restricting, but I wear it all the time because when and if I do get in an accident, having it save my life will be worth the years of wearing it. For me, the negative aspect is worth it, even if the chance of me getting in an accident is slim to none. I believe the same goes for the 2nd. It sucks that people use firearms on each other, but when and if a crisis happens and we are invaded, we will be well equiped to defend the nation. Failing in that regard because we revoked the 2nd would be terrible, because once you lose to an invader, that's it. Game over.

The second irony is that the country with the biggest army in the world seems to be the country that's the most paranoid. You've got by far the world's biggest army. Face it, if some coalition was to take down the US Armed Forces and actually start capturing the USA, do you really think that some untrained civilians with guns could accomplish what a $200 billion armed forces couldn't accomplish?

 

Oh, and the current situation is unconstitutional. The constitution specifically states that the militia should be well-regulated. The current US "militia" certainly is not well-regulated. If we started regulating guns, we'd be following the constitution, despite every ignorant who says we're violating it by restricting guns.

[Brett]

Do you think guns ought to be banned

 

No. That would merely make the law-abiding community defenseless to anyone that wants to rob, kill, rape, torture, or do whatever to them. The police and justice system in the US is a complete joke. The community needs to be able to defend itself, because if they don't, no one will.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Taran'atar

No. That would merely make the law-abiding community defenseless to anyone that wants to rob, kill, rape, torture, or do whatever to them.

 

We never talked about removing guns from the police or the military. I think the police still should have access to them.

 

But know this: The police here (in Norway) practically never have to even carry their guns. You know why? Because guns are so bloody rare amongst the common people, so the police simply does not need to have their guns raised all the time.

 

The community needs to be able to defend itself, because if they don't, no one will.

 

Defend themselves against what? The only reason for why the need of protection is larger in the states is that you have guns so easily accessible at all! I find it strange that many American people does not trust the police in ensuring their safety. Bullets do not deflect bullets, a gun will not make you more safe, actually the opposite. A gun is little but false security, and the easy access of guns is why you have to "defend" your home and family at all.