Justices agree on right to own guns

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 You will never be able to remove all guns from a society such as America. Even if you allowed police to do a door to door sweep through every home in the Country, criminals would still be able to get guns and use them. This is reality. Iraq is not nearly as big as the U.S., but still, five years after we started looking, with far fewer restrictions than American law enforcement have under the Constitution, and far more resources than American police, there are still illegal weapons out there, and they are still being used to kill the innocent.

Not really an analogous situation. The guns in Iraq are there because of the geopolitics involved in the situation. No matter what our government says about the success of the surge, the rival parties involved there have a vested interest in being armed to the teeth in preparation for the day we leave. Sooner or later, whether it is because the American public demands it, or some faction there reaches a level of power and control and we can walk away claiming victory, in the end those guns are there because powerful elements on all sides want them there. The Sunnis, the Shites, the Kurds and every other faction with a vested interest and powerful government ministers, are getting ready for the day when they can take power by force. Claiming that that situation is in any way duplicated here is unrealistic.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Not really an analogous situation. The guns in Iraq are there because of the geopolitics involved in the situation. No matter what our government says about the success of the surge, the rival parties involved there have a vested interest in being armed to the teeth in preparation for the day we leave. Sooner or later, whether it is because the American public demands it, or some faction there reaches a level of power and control and we can walk away claiming victory, in the end those guns are there because powerful elements on all sides want them there. The Sunnis, the Shites, the Kurds and every other faction with a vested interest and powerful government ministers, are getting ready for the day when they can take power by force. Claiming that that situation is in any way duplicated here is unrealistic.

The success or failure of the surge is totally irrellevant to this discussion.

I never said it was duplicated, because it certainly isnt. However, I assert that it is quite comperable. Bad people that use guns to do violence against the innocent (to whatever end) have a vested interest in having guns for the purpose. This doesnt change because of geopolitics. Determined Bank robbers, organized crime syndicates, drug cartels, major street gangs, terrorist organizations, private miltitias controlled by fruit cake preachers (specific religeous affiliation not withstanding), etc. will always be able to find the weapons they want because there are simply too many of them out there.

The only way to prevent violence is to convince the perpetrators ahead of time that they have something better to do.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BugsBunny The only way to prevent violence is to convince the perpetrators ahead of time that they have something better to do.

Right... because it's worked so well here in the USA, the most violent, murderous advanced democratic nation on earth, and the one with the most firearms and least gun control.

.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Sonart . Right... because it's worked so well here in the USA, the most violent, murderous advanced democratic nation on earth, and the one with the most firearms and least gun control. .

I never said it was working in the United States. In fact, at times I see the news and think that it might be failing miserably. Take, for example, the Virginia Tech shooting. That our culture produced someone capable and inclined to do such a thing is the root of the problem, that he had access to the tools he used were merely a symptom.

violent and murderous--->most firearms and least gun control.

you percieve a cause and effect relationship. but proving that the real problem isnt a cultural one, to which those things have an equal symptomatic relationship has not been done. as long as our society produces people with tendency to perpetrate violence and murder, violence and murder will take place.

I really dont know how to make society stop producing such people, thus curing the disease. Until someone finds a cure, I will continue to carry my own treatment for the symptoms.

[Milton Bradley]

Well, since this killed the other thread, I'll try to kill this one as well...


Gun Control reducing crime is a myth.....

The truth about Right to Carry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXT...re=related

20/20 Investigation:
YouTube - John Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime Rates

Compiled videos on the value of individual carry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3EdeH5PB...re=related

History of Gun Control facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_1r6aUJo...re=related

NRA on the untold story of gun confiscation after Katrina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26w...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79...re=related

NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd...re=related

NRA: The great gun debate at the UN. (4 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQE...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZ...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1YmYuRt...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ...re=related

The Clinton GUN BAN story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxBJaAioX...re=related


The facts are in, the lies exposed, the agendas revealed.


I would say it has become all to clear that the anti-gun people just want you disarmed under any pretense.


I suspect they must have plans for us that require us to be disarmed.


You can see just from the people that post here that many of them would run your life for you if they had the opportunity.


Fear authoritarians, or suffer later.

[Halofan48]

um, what vids? All of them were deleted. Maybe the user who made them all was doing something he shouldn't.

[Halofan48]

Many don't want to completely control your lives. We just don't want people to die. I have a question for every gun owner here. Have you ever had to use your gun to protect yourself? If yes, and be honest, do you think you could of protected yourself using something else?

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Halofan48 Many don't want to completely control your lives. We just don't want people to die. I have a question for every gun owner here. Have you ever had to use your gun to protect yourself? If yes, and be honest, do you think you could of protected yourself using something else?

Yes, I have. A proper theoretician could suppose I might have used something else. Stronger doors and bars on the windows I'm sure would have been adequate to keep me safe for the three hours it has taken police to find that address (its out on a dirt road and back in the trees). On the other hand, why should I be a prisoner in my own home, especially when I'm only being held by numbers. Why should I be at the mercy of teenagers with baseball bats, just because there are four of them and I'm by myself? Why should I be dependent on someone else to for me what is naturally my job to do for myself? Sheep depend on shepherds and dogs to protect them from wolves. I'm not a sheep.

[Halofan48]

Ok, now, please explain what happened in the situation

As for the sheep and shepherd comment, the shepherds would likely be the police then. They protect us from harm.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Halofan48 Many don't want to completely control your lives. We just don't want people to die. I have a question for every gun owner here. Have you ever had to use your gun to protect yourself? If yes, and be honest, do you think you could of protected yourself using something else?

Not if the other peson has a gun, which is the whole point so often overlooked by the anti-gun lobby.


This nation was conquered with guns, the land stolen from those who had none. Well, none in the begining, and few in the later stages. However the point remains valid.


To remove guns from society would just set the stage for another round of empire building at the constituents expense. Somebody will eventually want the real estate you have now, for whatever reason. They predict the next war will be over water recources after global warming changes the current face of the globe.


Not the ideal time to attempt to remove arms from the populace, unless you're on the other side that is.

[Halofan48]

Not if the other peson has a gun, which is the whole point so often overlooked by the anti-gun lobby. This nation was conquered with guns, the land stolen from those who had none. Well, none in the begining, and few in the later stages. However the point remains valid. To remove guns from society would just set the stage for another round of empire building at the constituents expense. Somebody will eventually want the real estate you have now, for whatever reason. They predict the next war will be over water recources after global warming changes the current face of the globe. Not the ideal time to attempt to remove arms from the populace, unless you're on the other side that is.

I take it you mean the native americans. Well, their military didn't have guns. Ours does. that's the key difference. And look, if someone invaded us, your little hand gun or shotgun isn't going to do much against an armed squad of trained soldiers with body armor. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. I don't think your going to take down a helicopter with a few rounds from your gun. Also, if someone tried invading us (and as long as we don't make our allies hate us), we would likely get some help from our allies.

Also, you can take out someone with a gun. It all depends on how you do it. if you go walking up loudly toward the assailant, even with a gun, your likely going to get shot, cause they're gonna see you. Hey, you simply grab something that can work as a club and wait by a door. The second they walk in, you can nail em in the face.

[Milton Bradley]

Sure, my lone gun will not stop an invading army, but it's not just my lone gun your after, is it?


I wonder how hard 300,000,000 guns inthe hands of citizens would make it on that invading army?


The Defense rests.

[Halofan48]

If a larger group of people with guns started to organize, they'd likely bomb the area or send in a few tanks. If somehow all of them somehow gathered, they'd likely just bomb the area a few times and probably send in armor to wipe out the remainder. With technology the way it is, an armed community will do little or no damage.

Besides, we have a military, and a very advanced one at that. If for some reason we do need help, our allies will probably provide us with support. Unless, of course, we decide to have it so they hate us.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ok, now, please explain what happened in the situation As for the sheep and shepherd comment, the shepherds would likely be the police then. They protect us from harm.

Basically I pissed some kid off (hell, I was a kid too, just 16, as was he) on the bus and he decided to come to my house with his "homies" later that afternoon with bats and encourage me to "be more respectful, yo". Fortunately the little pieces of wannabe gangster shit decided bats were inadequate for a gun fight, and that I was the wrong person to get in a pissing match with.

Your view of police represent a great ideal, but leaves a gap in reality. The police cant be everywhere. They cant do anything until a crime is commited or in progress. What about when the police cant get there fast enough, or even find out a crime took place until after the fact? Are the victims just shit out of luck, and the community left to hope the police have better luck in the future?

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Halofan48 If a larger group of people with guns started to organize, they'd likely bomb the area or send in a few tanks. If somehow all of them somehow gathered, they'd likely just bomb the area a few times and probably send in armor to wipe out the remainder. With technology the way it is, an armed community will do little or no damage. Besides, we have a military, and a very advanced one at that. If for some reason we do need help, our allies will probably provide us with support. Unless, of course, we decide to have it so they hate us.

Wow, since apparently you know so much about insurgency, maybe you can help me understand why an insugency just such as the one you describe as being so easily wiped out, has caused thousands of casualties including about three thousand dead (which, with the initial invasion and all the accidental deaths added exceeds four thousand). It has done so against the most advanced military in the world, and even after five years, still has not been totally defeated. All this in a country with less than a tenth the population of the US. WTF, mate?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BugsBunny WTF, mate?

Here's what the fck, Mate. Our troops in Iraq are fighting a foreign enemy in a foreign land. If Americans decide they don't like the way things are going, we can simply pull out and go home.

In Vietnam we fought for almost 10 years, losing 58,000 troops. The Vietnamese, fighting for their homeland, lost a million combatants and 4 million civilians dead. Americans eventually tired of the war, so we pulled out and went home.

In Afghanistan, the Soviets fought for another 10 years, losing 15,000. The Afghanis, fighting for their homeland, lost over a million dead and two million displaced.

Troops fighting here will be fighting for their own country on their own turf. They can't simply pull out and go home. They are home. During the American Civil War as a base, 600,000 died out of a U.S. population of 30 million. So out of our current 300 million Americans, that would be about 6 million casualties... not including civilian non-combatants.

The Lebanese fought their civil war for 15 years, and out of a population of 2 million, 100,000 died and a million displaced. Almost 5% of the Lebanese population dead.

5% of Americans 300 million is 15 million dead.

Take your pick.

.

[leegao]

First of all, fighting at home gives you loads more advantage then fighting in a foreign country. Unlimited supply lines, ability to subject your enemy to an attritious war, and increased morales in the soldiers.

Secondly, I still don't see how this has anything to do with the right to own firearms. If you mean that by having firearms, the likely-hood of a civil war to break out is increased, then I'm just going to say that that's the most absurd thing that I have ever heard in my life.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Sure, my lone gun will not stop an invading army, but it's not just my lone gun your after, is it? I wonder how hard 300,000,000 guns inthe hands of citizens would make it on that invading army? The Defense rests.

Good God. I bet you fantasize about just that situation, where you can be the great one of many hero's using your right to bear a gun and protect your free republic from the socialists of Europe or wherever else....

If that invading army has any amount of technology the citizens lose. Additionally not everyone single one of american's 300,000,000 people could even carry much less shoots. In such an event it'd amount to mass slaughter of those who opposed the invading army. Any army that could undo the US armed forces would pretty much waltz right over a bunch of private citizens.

Better those people volunteer to join the military, using guns in the only acceptable role. Under an organized command.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Troops fighting here will be fighting for their own country on their own turf. They can't simply pull out and go home. They are home. During the American Civil War as a base, 600,000 died out of a U.S. population of 30 million. So out of our current 300 million Americans, that would be about 6 million casualties... not including civilian non-combatants. 5% of Americans 300 million is 15 million dead. Take your pick.

You say that like it's a justification to disarm, but that same arguement can be turned against you, in that that same ugly picture you paint doesn't seem to deter you from attempting to subvert the Constitution.


So if you are willing to continue on your path, I am more than willing to continue on mine.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime Good God. I bet you fantasize about just that situation, where you can be the great one of many hero's using your right to bear a gun and protect your free republic from the socialists of Europe or wherever else....

Actually it's probably my biggest nightmare. But at the same time, I'm not going to shy away from it, since they seem to be bringing the fight to me.