Gun Control Harms Children

[JupiterJones]

Of course I'm sure John Ashcroft would agree with you while he's busy shelling out $80,000.00 of Taxpayers money to cover up the Breasts of the statue of justice.

What possible connection is there between that, and the ideas expressed by Thomas Jefferson?

 

[Elledan]

<<
In my discussion with Elledan, I would say that the government of the Netherlands is exceeding the limits of their sovereignty by outlawing the possession of arms. It is up to the people to reclaim that right if they are to be free. If they choose not to do so, then they are not citizens, but rather vassals of the state. Elledans atheistic beliefs would say that morals/rights are due to a consensus of the masses and therefore change over time. He doesn't currently need a gun, so why shouldn't the state ban them. >>

Wow.... just wow....

I hereby invite you to come to The Netherlands and ask some random invididuals what they think about the restrictions on gun-possession. You'll find that everyone finds things just fine the way they are.

Point is that no one here needs a gun. Not for 'self-protection', not to 'feel safe'.

In a way countries like The Netherlands have progressed much further than the US has.

 

[JupiterJones]

Point is that no one here needs a gun. Not for 'self-protection', not to 'feel safe'.

The Neatherlands tops the list in victimization rates. If you don't need some way to defend yourself, what do you need?

1998 British Home Office report that showed England and Wales as having the second highest victimization rate for all crimes (the Netherlands leads the list, the U.S. came in seventh)

 

[Lucky]

Elledan


You have ignored PastorDon's statistics showing that the netherlands have the highest victimization rate of all countries, which seems to contradict your claim that gun control is a huge success over there. Please respond to his points.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

<< The big liberal kick right now is to get all guns out of homes with children in them. Naturally, this is just for the good of the kids. But it also removes the ability of parents to protect their children. >>



This thread, like our politicians, has greatly oversimplified the issue of gun control.

I have just quoted PastorDon, but many posts have indicated that the issue of gun safety is black and white, with no in between.

I remind all of you that compromise is the LIFEBLOOD of democracy.

If you want to take one side of an issue and refuse to hear the other side, especially when there are significant numbers of people that disagree with you, then you are short circuiting the true vision that our founding fathers had for HOW this country is to rule itself.

Seems to me, that too many children are harmed by guns, either intentionally or in accidents. I for one, believe that our "right to bear fire arms" doesn't have to paid in blood of innocent children. Lets get serious here and agree on somethings rather than labelling each other as liberals and conservatives; subjects and citizens; or us and them.

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan


You have ignored PastorDon's statistics showing that the netherlands have the highest victimization rate of all countries, which seems to contradict your claim that gun control is a huge success over there. Please respond to his points. >>

We've a larger number of so-called 'small crimes'.

I wouldn't consider this worse than a larger number of murders and similar 'big' crimes.

And I didn't ignore his statistics. It's just that this forum is dreadfully slow for me, so that I can't read everything.

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually I don't want guns outlawed for the reason I stated before. I just get bugged when idiots say that it's a God Given Right (like God would give us the right to slaughter our brother) or that because we own guns we are a better society for it. That's bullsh!t. We need guns because to protect us agianst those who own guns.

 

[Elledan]

<< Actually I don't want guns outlawed for the reason I stated before. I just get bugged when idiots say that it's a God Given Right (like God would give us the right to slaughter our brother) or that because we own guns we are a better society for it. That's bullsh!t. We need guns because to protect us agianst those who own guns. >>

Yup, we also need dynamite and machineguns to protect us against those who own dynamite and machineguns.

Same logic.

 

[Red Dawn]

We also need termites to protect us from stoned freaks in wooded shoes with their fingers in Dykes. Maybe if you guys had weapons the Nazis wouldn't have rolled over you like ugly whores in the night.

 

[JupiterJones]

We also need termites to protect us from stoned freaks in wooded shoes with their fingers in Dykes. Maybe if you guys had weapons the Nazis wouldn't have rolled over you like ugly whores in the night.

You DO have a way with words

 

[Novgrod]

I would humbly submit you might want to read this:

MADD: Mothers against Data and Deduction

While it may be true that all these numbers are going to be biased, I've only heard one convincing argument against guns: that they lead to a more violent society.

Well so does tv by the same token

It is true that the second ammendment requires a *well regulated* militia, which isn't the case. That being said, the founders were obviously and overwhelmingly in favor of an armed society.

While countries are free to do as they will, I'd just as soon see an America that still triumphs freedoms, including the right to bear arms.

 

[JupiterJones]

Yup, we also need dynamite and machineguns to protect us against those who own dynamite and machineguns.

This reminds me. You claim to be logical. Why is Netherlands gun control superior to Swiss gun proliferation? (a better comparison than to the US)

 

[BDawg]

<< In The Declaration of Independence (of the united States) there are certain principles presented as reasons we dissolved our ties to Great Britain. These principles are universal. The Rights of Man are bestowed upon us by our Creator and transcend the state. The people must, therefore, hold the state accountable and jealously guard our liberties. >>



A: The decleration has absolutely NO bearing on the rights and freedoms of US citizens

B: The decleartion uses an unnamed creator who is not necessarily the God of Jewish/Christian/Puritan/Mormon/Baptist belief

C: Nowhere does it say that this "Creator" bestows upon us the unalienable right to own guns

 

[JupiterJones]

A: The decleration has absolutely NO bearing on the rights and freedoms of US citizens

B: The decleartion uses an unnamed creator who is not necessarily the God of Jewish/Christian/Puritan/Mormon/Baptist belief

C: Nowhere does it say that this "Creator" bestows upon us the unalienable right to own guns

A: Wrong. Our entire system of Law is based on a government restricted to powers bestowed on it by the people. The Declaration of Independence establishes that ALL rights come from God. This idea not only bears on US citizens, but any Person.

B: True. Who said it did? The point is that our rights transcends the state and the state doesn't have valid authority to infringe on those rights.

c: There is no way to list every right a person possesses. The right to keep and bear arms is assumed by the framers of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment doesn't bestow that right, it recognizes it and protects it. The right came from God.

As an aside, the 2nd amendment is about arms usable in a Militia (US vs. Miller, 1939).

 

[BDawg]

<< a: Wrong. Our entire system of Law is based on a government restricted to powers bestowed on it by the people. The Declaration of Independence establishes that ALL rights come from God. This idea not only bears on US citizens, but any Person.

B: True. Who said it did? The point is that our rights transcends the state and the state doesn't have valid authority to infringe on those rights.

c: There is no way to list every right a person possesses. The right to keep and bear arms is assumed by the framers of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment doesn't bestow that right, it recognizes it and protects it. The right came from God. >>



You're missing the point...the Decleration has no standing in courts. There are not freedoms guaranteed by the Decleration, that's the Constitution's job. The Decleration has no bearing on the legal system, it was a memo to England re: we're out.

Of course the 2nd amendment bestows that right. Nowhere in the preamble (below) does it suggest that the rights that follow are bestowed by God. You cannot relate the text in the Decleration to the Constistution, as much as you want to tie God to everything.



<< THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. >>



And just so you know what Ammendment 2 says,



<< 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. >>



NOWHERE does it say God grants this freedom. It mearly says that this right will not be infringed.

The reason I brought up point B is your throwing around of God given rights. Nowhere does it address God.

 

[Mookow]

<< Anyone remembers the child which was shot by a stray bullet fired by some wacko practising with a hunting rifle within city boundaries?

That guy should never have received the rifle in the first place.

Gun control:

- Only those who need a firearm can get a license (self-defense is NOT a good reason).
- Before receiving a license, the crime record of the individual is checked and a test is carried out to test the mental state of that person.
- A crime committed by someone who owns a license, regardless of a firearm was involved in the crime, can be enough to withdraw the license.

etc.

Gun control is merely a case of common sense. >>



What is a good reason? Why is self defense not a good reason? I always considered my personal protection my own business. My uncle carries a gun damn near 24/7. Never had to pull it yet outside going to the range (excluding boar hunting when his 30/30 stovepiped), but if he needs it, it is there. Now, my uncles friend has pulled his weapon out more than once (one story involving him and my uncle was pretty funny), but he isnt as physically imposing as my uncle, so it figures (who is going to try to mug a 6'0" 315lbs guy, who carries quite alot of that in the shoulders?).

BTW, the worse school massacre in US history was not Columbine HS, it was a school in Bath MI in either the 1920's or 30's, when the former janitor came in with a truck full of explosives. 42 dead. Unless we want to ban a lot of household cleaners, there isnt much of a way to stop something like that.

"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon ? so long as there is no answer to it ? gives claws to the weak." ? George Orwell

I forget where I came across that quote, and it might have been on this forum. Anyway, it makes a lot of sense, IMO.

 

[SSP]

<< We also need termites to protect us from stoned freaks in wooded shoes with their fingers in Dykes. Maybe if you guys had weapons the Nazis wouldn't have rolled over you like ugly whores in the night. >>



Buahaha! That?s the funniest thing I?ve heard all day. It'd be on my sig if it wasn?t already full of mindless dribble.

 

[JupiterJones]

Of course the 2nd amendment bestows that right.

And here is the problem with your argument. If our rights are bestowed on us by the Constitution, then our rights can be revoked. The Declaration of Independence has bearing, as do all our founding documents. You will find many instances of the Federalist Papers being quoted to support an opinion of original intent.

In fact, I am sure you have no problem with the fact that a letter by Thomas Jefferson was used to establish the seperation of Church and State. That seperation doesn't exist in the constitution outside of barring Congress to pass laws.

(I understand that original intent went out in 1968, but it is within our power to bring it back).

The 2nd amendment recognizes and protects a right that already exists. It does not bestow that right on me. If the 2nd amendment is abolished, I still have my right to keep and bear arms -- Because my rights transcend the state.

The entirety of the Bill of Rights was passed to protect existing rights that the founders feared a Federal government would try to abolish. The long forgotten 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

[TAsunder]

Well the constitution doesn't mention anything about my right to murder my neighbor for being more handsome than I am, I guess it means I have that right. Who wants to break the news to him?

If a new amendment were passed which said that pastordon did not have the right to bear arms, then maybe you still have that right, but nonetheless you would go to jail for exercising it.

 

[JupiterJones]

Well the constitution doesn't mention anything about my right to murder my neighbor for being more handsome than I am, I guess it means I have that right. Who wants to break the news to him?

Great point, and this is exactly why we have to keep in mind the Christian Worldview that produced our form of government. You have rights given to you by your Creator. Once this truth is realized, the discussion becomes about what rights are granted by God. Murder obviously isn't, so your parallel fails.

 

[Red Dawn]

Tqake the Christian Worldview and set it aside as niether Thomas Paine nor Thomas Jefferson (Authors of the Constitution) were what you would call pious Christians. The Christian Viewpoint back in those days would burn Witches at the stakes and sew scarlet letters on Adultresses.

 

[Novgrod]

Yeah, the drafters of the Constitution and Declaration were all deists (that is, old school agnostics really) so don't take to heart too much their christian viewpoint.

The idea stems from Locke, particularly his second treatise, (also areligious) that cites the social contract.

Beyond that, Montesquieu (sp) and Russeau were big players in thought at the time.

I have much more information and suggested readings if anybody cares

 

[classy]

<<

<< Gun Control Harms Children >>



I also heard that smoking around children helps them to breathe since it builds up their resistance to bad air. >>



Yea thats right. I got my 18 month old up to a pack of Newports a day. I think P@sstor Don will next post that doing drugs is really beneficial. Cause its obvious he smoked a doobie before make this stupid support thread for guns.

 

[kami]

<< Spongebog,
I agree. Just gave my son his first .22. He's well on his way to becoming a citizen.
>>


lol...I'm glad I never had a parent poisoning my mind with this nonsense. So you teach your kid that he needs to carry a gun to become a "citizen."

This whole thread just makes me

:disgust:

 

[StageLeft]

<< Rosie O'Donnell, one of the most outspoken leaders in this anti-gun movement, has hired an armed bodyguard for her kid. She can protect her children. But she fights to prevent the average American from doing it. >>

To the best of my knowledge she is NOT against gun ownership, merely against the PATHETICALLY lax ways in which guns can be obtained.

Crossing into different cultures (albeit england is not that different from the US) it is tough to make comparisons. Your burgalry statistics are interesting. Flip side is also the fact that per capita school shootings by kids are monumentally higher than in England. If shooting kids at school isn't bad I don't know what it.

I don't really have much of a problem in a lot of people carrying guns at home (or hell with them if they like), but what so many gun advocates fail to realize is that nobody has ANY problem with allowing guns in the hands of non-criminals (what point could you have?) - the problem is that just because somebody isn't a criminal today doesn't mean they won't be tomorrow, and furthermore the easier it is for law-abiding people to get them the easier it is for criminals to get them.

Argue semantics and theory all you like but when it really comes down to it the US has a high level of crime across the country, and a high level of gun related crime. While so many people are arguing their constitutional rights so many others are getting shot to death.