Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Guns, who should be able to own them?
EmeraldKnight
post May 19 2004, 11:11 PM
Post #26


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



But the thing is.. what if you check out alright, but other members of your household abuse the usage or something? I dont know.. its risky either way.. a weapon poses a risk to all
 
strice
post May 19 2004, 11:41 PM
Post #27


The Return of Sathington Willoughby.
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 14,724



dude, screw guns. guns are only fun in video games or as airsoft guns. the only time i would need a gun is for a zombie outbreak.
 
EmeraldKnight
post May 19 2004, 11:55 PM
Post #28


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



QUOTE
dude, screw guns. guns are only fun in video games or as airsoft guns. the only time i would need a gun is for a zombie outbreak. 

hahaha, i actually agree with that
 
strice
post May 20 2004, 12:39 AM
Post #29


The Return of Sathington Willoughby.
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Apr 2004
Member No: 14,724



anyways i'd be too chickenshit to shoot a guy in the face for "self defense"
 
tkproduce
post May 20 2004, 02:09 AM
Post #30


rookie
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 723
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 2,291



A lot of people seem to support the illegalisation of guns in countries such as the United States, but how come I've never heard of people supporting the legalisation of guns in countries where gun possession is illegal, such as Western Europe?
 
EmeraldKnight
post May 20 2004, 02:16 AM
Post #31


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



QUOTE
A lot of people seem to support the illegalisation of guns in countries such as the United States, but how come I've never heard of people supporting the legalisation of guns in countries where gun possession is illegal, such as Western Europe?

because guns are bad and they kill, the less guns in this world, the better
 
tkproduce
post May 20 2004, 11:22 AM
Post #32


rookie
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 723
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 2,291



QUOTE(EmeraldKnight @ May 20 2004, 7:16 AM)
because guns are bad and they kill, the less guns in this world, the better

sorry, I wasn't posing the question to anti-gun people.
 
Jiggapin0
post May 20 2004, 11:47 AM
Post #33


703 Represent!
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2004
Member No: 4,032



Guns should only be held by law enforcement and military. Yes, I know that getting rid of guns would not get rid of violence all together, but it would lessen the amount of violence.
 
immersion31
post May 20 2004, 12:29 PM
Post #34


Senior Member
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 943
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 1,007



QUOTE
Guns should only be held by law enforcement and military. Yes, I know that getting rid of guns would not get rid of violence all together, but it would lessen the amount of violence.
i say that would help lessen violance
 
ComradeRed
post May 20 2004, 12:52 PM
Post #35


Dark Lord of McCandless
******

Group: Member
Posts: 2,226
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,761



QUOTE(RiddleMeWonders @ May 19 2004, 9:27 PM)
Okay, this thought has been pending inside me and finally I'm just going to utter it.
It may have been suggested already though. I don't know.

To me, the problem isn't people owning guns.
I think that if you are going to own any weapon, you should take an "awareness class"
Become trained, and have your motives and personality anylzed.
It doesnt matter if you've never had a criminal record. If you're sanity is questionable, if you are an unstable person you shouldnt be allowed to own a gun.

And who decides the criteria? The government.

The point of the right to bear arms is totally destroyed when you have the government using arbitrary criteria to determine who can and who can't.
 
RiddleMeWonders
post May 20 2004, 12:57 PM
Post #36


fell in love with a boy
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 523
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,965



Those people are only there because "we" put them there.
If we don't like it, We'll change it.
There is alot of rebellion amoung our youth.
Something will happen. Things might change.
Because in the future, who is the government?
Who?

Us.
 
ComradeRed
post May 20 2004, 01:15 PM
Post #37


Dark Lord of McCandless
******

Group: Member
Posts: 2,226
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,761



QUOTE(RiddleMeWonders @ May 20 2004, 12:57 PM)
Those people are only there because "we" put them there.
If we don't like it, We'll change it.
There is alot of rebellion amoung our youth.
Something will happen. Things might change.
Because in the future, who is the government?
Who?

Us.

I highly doubt any of us will have much political clout in the future.

People have to beware of collective nouns like "us". The only real individual power lies in the individual, not in "us".
 
*krnxswat*
post May 20 2004, 02:00 PM
Post #38





Guest






I have guns.
One on my right arm, and the other on my left arm. shifty.gif
 
*kryogenix*
post May 20 2004, 02:14 PM
Post #39





Guest






QUOTE(krnxswat @ May 20 2004, 2:00 PM)
I have guns.
One on my right arm, and the other on my left arm. shifty.gif

guns as in pea shooters?

nah, just kidding
 
RiddleMeWonders
post May 20 2004, 02:48 PM
Post #40


fell in love with a boy
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 523
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,965



QUOTE
People have to beware of collective nouns like "us". The only real individual power lies in the individual, not in "us".


Okay, I agree with that part, and yeah. Sometimes I get dramatic.
But let me rephrase.
There is no one else.
The people born from 1984-2004 are our nation's future at the moment.
I wouldn't put a damn thing past those numbers.

Besides.
It's your choice who the "individual" is.
Us, Kids, Have the Power.
 
EmeraldKnight
post May 20 2004, 04:52 PM
Post #41


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



QUOTE
Besides.
It's your choice who the "individual" is.
Us, Kids, Have the Power.

I see what you're saying, that we have the power to choose the ppl in the government.. but people are easily swayed by false claims as well.. and taking this topic back to guns..
QUOTE
The point of the right to bear arms is totally destroyed when you have the government using arbitrary criteria to determine who can and who can't.

Minda, what do you mean by arbitrary criteria?
 
*Kathleen*
post May 20 2004, 05:32 PM
Post #42





Guest






Okay, let's think about this scenario: say we have this continuing war with some country, and eventually, they unexpectedly attack our civilians. Us civilians have nothing to do; nothing to protect ourselves from their guns. Would you want a gun then? Or just simply when someone breaks into your house, wanting to kill your wife/child/husband...you don't know how to fight; they have a gun...would you want one then? Granted, you're not planning to kill the other person, but just...self defend. Why should the government be involved in this? They set down the amendment, saying we have the right to bear arms. Nothing more to it.

QUOTE
A lot of people seem to support the illegalisation of guns in countries such as the United States, but how come I've never heard of people supporting the legalisation of guns in countries where gun possession is illegal, such as Western Europe?

How do you know that? Also, they're not in great danger as we are at the moment, seeing as we're in a war. Furthermore, because no one's allowed to have guns, criminals break in using other weapons. We, on the other hand, have people that break in with guns. You need to fight gun with gun, right? Opposed to Western Europe's knife/knife or fist/fist. Haha that sounded really stupid, but oh well. laugh.gif Anywho, you like bringing up Western Europe, don't you?
 
EmeraldKnight
post May 20 2004, 05:42 PM
Post #43


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



QUOTE
Okay, let's think about this scenario: say we have this continuing war with some country, and eventually, they unexpectedly attack our civilians. Us civilians have nothing to do; nothing to protect ourselves from their guns. Would you want a gun then? Or just simply when someone breaks into your house, wanting to kill your wife/child/husband...you don't know how to fight; they have a gun...would you want one then? Granted, you're not planning to kill the other person, but just...self defend. Why should the government be involved in this? They set down the amendment, saying we have the right to bear arms. Nothing more to it.

Ok, I'd agree with you in that scenario, but its simply not realistic.. i mean.. what are the chances of some country invading our territory and attacking our citizens, we have the strongest military in the world, not very likely.. since you mentioned the amendment, i assume you're focusing on the US, and so I did the same.. i mean.. sure, in that scenario you'd want guns, but its simply not realistic.. civilians owning guns in the US presents so many other problems and opportunities for abuse.. and those outweigh the hypothetical threat outlined in your scenario
 
ComradeRed
post May 20 2004, 05:44 PM
Post #44


Dark Lord of McCandless
******

Group: Member
Posts: 2,226
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,761



QUOTE(EmeraldKnight @ May 20 2004, 4:52 PM)
I see what you're saying, that we have the power to choose the ppl in the government.. but people are easily swayed by false claims as well.. and taking this topic back to guns..

Minda, what do you mean by arbitrary criteria?

Arbitrary Criteria = Criteria that a group of beaucrats decide on without due process of law, for example "competency" to use guns.

Fact: Civilian gun ownership is the BEST proven deterrent to foreign invasion, and also to oppressive government.

The Nazis overran every country in Northern Mainland Europe during WWII, except Switzerland. Why? Because of guns. (also because of Swiss foreign policy, but mainly guns) Every Swiss household had guns. Swiss youths were taught to shoot at 300 yards, while Germans were taught to shoot at 100 yards. Hitler learned from the fact that the Red Army suffered massive casulaties trying to inavde tiny little Finland, and Switzerland was spared Nazi invasion.

QUOTE(jiggapin0)
Guns should only be held by law enforcement and military. Yes, I know that getting rid of guns would not get rid of violence all together, but it would lessen the amount of violence.


John Locke said: "Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away or destroy the property of the people, and reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, it puts itself at a STATE OF WAR with the people, who are henceforth release from any further obligation to obedience and left to the common refuge that God has provided for all men against force and fraud (revolution)."

For those of you who don't know John Locke, he is the person who inspired the democratic Enlightenment. Our own Declaration of Independence and to some extent our Constitution reflect his ideas.

Clearly, our Congress takes away our property all the time, and you could argue that measures such as the draft reduce the people to slavery under governemnt power. The Social Contract sees that the Government, whenever possible, will ALWAYS try to break the law, i.e. the Constitution.

Long story short, in a Republic, we ARE the law enforcement. We, the citizen body, must do our best to ENFORCE THE LAWS UPON THE GOVERNMENT, and defend the Constitution. To do so, sometimes, the ballot box isn't enough. We need guns.
 
EmeraldKnight
post May 20 2004, 05:50 PM
Post #45


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



QUOTE
Arbitrary Criteria = Criteria that a group of beaucrats decide on without due process of law, for example "competency" to use guns.

well.. why cant they decide on the "competency" with due process of law?

QUOTE
Fact: Civilian gun ownership is the BEST proven deterrent to foreign invasion, and also to oppressive government.

The Nazis overran every country in Northern Mainland Europe during WWII, except Switzerland. Why? Because of guns. (also because of Swiss foreign policy, but mainly guns) Every Swiss household had guns. Swiss youths were taught to shoot at 300 yards, while Germans were taught to shoot at 100 yards. Hitler learned from the fact that the Red Army suffered massive casulaties trying to inavde tiny little Finland, and Switzerland was spared Nazi invasion.


Yes, but consider the chances that a foreign army will invade our soil, its not very likely.. so you're saying that if we ban gun ownership, our government will start to oppress us and foreign armies will invade?


Erm.. i didnt realli follow most of it (not much into politics) but:
QUOTE
Long story short, in a Republic, we ARE the law enforcement. We, the citizen body, must do our best to ENFORCE THE LAWS UPON THE GOVERNMENT, and defend the Constitution. To do so, sometimes, the ballot box isn't enough. We need guns.

We need guns? what exactly do our guns do for us?
 
*Kathleen*
post May 20 2004, 05:51 PM
Post #46





Guest






QUOTE
Ok, I'd agree with you in that scenario, but its simply not realistic.. i mean.. what are the chances of some country invading our territory and attacking our citizens, we have the strongest military in the world, not very likely.. since you mentioned the amendment, i assume you're focusing on the US, and so I did the same.. i mean.. sure, in that scenario you'd want guns, but its simply not realistic.. civilians owning guns in the US presents so many other problems and opportunities for abuse.. and those outweigh the hypothetical threat outlined in your scenario

No matter what, the chances are still there.

So, Minda, what exactly are you trying to say?
 
EmeraldKnight
post May 20 2004, 05:55 PM
Post #47


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



QUOTE
No matter what, the chances are still there.

So? there's the chance of anything happening at any given time.. I dont see how this is a plausible argument..
 
ComradeRed
post May 20 2004, 06:00 PM
Post #48


Dark Lord of McCandless
******

Group: Member
Posts: 2,226
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,761



QUOTE(EmeraldKnight @ May 20 2004, 5:50 PM)
well.. why cant they decide on the "competency" with due process of law?


In the context of the USA, due process implies one of two things: An Objective Standard, or a Jury Trial. Neither exist in this situation.

QUOTE(EmeraldKnight @ May 20 2004, 5:50 PM)
Yes, but consider the chances that a foreign army will invade our soil, its not very likely.. so you're saying that if we ban gun ownership, our government will start to oppress us and foreign armies will invade?


No I'm saying our government is ALREADY starting to oppress us, and people should have guns if it comes down to that. No foreign armies will invade the USA. Historically, the biggest threat to any country, and definitely to ours, is their own government.

QUOTE(EmeraldKnight @ May 20 2004, 5:50 PM)
Erm.. i didnt realli follow most of it (not much into politics) but:

We need guns? what exactly do our guns do for us?


Guns protect us. Guns enforce the laws. America was FOUNDED by gun nuts. In the Colonial Period, every male over 12 was socially expected to own a rifle AND a pistol. This is how we were able to overthrow the British when they became oppressive and when they began to abandon the Rule of Law.

It is generally accepted that Law Enforcement should have guns. Law Enforcement means the police officers, not just the Courts. The Courts can hand down as many rulings as they want, but it's up to the police to enforce them, right? The police enforce the laws upon the PEOPLE.

But then, who is left to enforce the laws upon the GOVERNMENT? We have the Supreme Court... but what if the government decides not to obey the Supreme Court? Then we need a police force to keep the government in check. This police force is the Population of the United States.

If you want only law enforcement to have guns, then every American should have guns. When it comes down to the worst case, we are the ones who are left to enforce the Constitution, which is, after all, the HIGHEST law of the land.


This isn't about chances, Emerald. There's a 100% Chance the govenrment will break the law (Constitution): THEY ALREADY HAVE. MANY, MANY TIMES.

We can be sure that criminals will break teh law, so we need police to have guns. And we can be sure that the govenrment will, so we need the people to have guns.
 
*Kathleen*
post May 20 2004, 06:02 PM
Post #49





Guest






Ack, but the thing is...you have to consider the future...if you ban them forever, that obviously means that the future wars between us and other countries will leave us civilians without guns. You shouldn't be so confident that we'll always have the best military in the world. You can't be certain that we won't need it.
 
EmeraldKnight
post May 20 2004, 06:05 PM
Post #50


Senior Member
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,795
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,421



QUOTE
Ack, but the thing is...you have to consider the future...if you ban them forever, that obviously means that the future wars between us and other countries will leave us civilians without guns. You shouldn't be so confident that we'll always have the best military in the world. You can't be certain that we won't need it

Well when we do need it, we can lift the ban
QUOTE
In the context of the USA, due process implies one of two things: An Objective Standard, or a Jury Trial. Neither exist in this situation.

I'm still not sure what you mean..
QUOTE
No I'm saying our government is ALREADY starting to oppress us, and people should have guns if it comes down to that. No foreign armies will invade the USA. Historically, the biggest threat to any country, and definitely to ours, is their own government.

How are they starting to oppress us? So what you're basically stating is that its important for us to have guns so that we can revolt against the government if it comes down to it?
QUOTE
This isn't about chances, Emerald. There's a 100% Chance the govenrment will break the law (Constitution): THEY ALREADY HAVE. MANY, MANY TIMES

Where are you getting this?
 

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: