International Gun Control - do you favor it?

[Technosoul]

The NRA has one of the biggest lobby groups here in the USA because most people in the USA are proud of our Consitutional right to bear arms.

Would such a consitutional policy work on a global scale? Should all peoples of all countries have such freedoms?

As you know both our military and many private companies in the USA produce and sell arms overseas, as does China, Russia, England, and other industrial countries. It is one of our main export items.

The Blackwater Firm, which was providing security for us in Iraq is under intestigation for importing arms into Iraq.

We are now trying to prevent Iran and others from having nuclear weapons and other such powerful arms. Called WMDs.

We do not wish to ban, or control those rights here in the USA according to gun fans, so should we (or the U.N.) ban or control the freedoms of other countries to be like us? Are people in other countries really and different then us?

[Enlightenee]

freedom to bear weapons in Australia would be dangerous. As far as i can tell the only country to have numerous V.Tech incidents is America. Somehow we can't just buy a gun of the street and yet we are safe. So in that respect, no it is not needed, nor should it be encouraged.

[Contumacious]

Quote by: Technosoul The NRA has one of the biggest lobby groups here in the USA because most people in the USA are proud of our Consitutional right to bear arms.?

Again, it is not a "Constitutional right to bear arms" ; it is an inherent natural right to bear arms which is specifically secured by our Constitution.

But the right would exist even if it wasn't secured by the same. Since the right is universal it exists worldwide including Australia.

The right is unalienable even if statistics show that there are numerous accidental deaths, even if it is true that the US has more deaths than the UK or Australia. My right to bear arms is unalienable even if students were killed at Columbine and Virginia or even if my neighbor decides tomorrow to kill his entirely family using a handgun.

Capisce?

[Thanatos]

I personally believe they should ban concealed weapons entirely. If it really honestly is for self defense, by all means, wear your pistol in a hip holster. Even if you want to walk around with a MP5 on your shoulder I'd be OK with it; the constitution does say we have a right to bear arms and it says so with good reason. A nonconcealed weapon is implied if you are planning on being part of a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state, while a concealed one implies that you're probably up to no good.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

In europe private armies with any guns are considered terrorists.

Likewise individuals carrying weapons without a valid permit would be equaly treated as unwanted aggressors.

The world should not uphold what works in the USA.

[Osborn F Enready]

I support, and will defend until my death the right to bear arms.

If you want my guns, you better pack a lunch, and bring a lot of body bags.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Thanatos I personally believe they should ban concealed weapons entirely. If it really honestly is for self defense, by all means, wear your pistol in a hip holster. Even if you want to walk around with a MP5 on your shoulder I'd be OK with it; the constitution does say we have a right to bear arms and it says so with good reason. A nonconcealed weapon is implied if you are planning on being part of a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state, while a concealed one implies that you're probably up to no good.

I don't know the statistics off hand but I'd wager that the number of people with concealed carry permits who commits robberies and the like are significantly less than those who do not have one. If your intent is to use a gun in a crime you're not going to make sure you are following lesser laws after deeming the more important ones inapplicable to yourself.

[SoylentGreen]

Contumacious; Again, it is not a "Constitutional right to bear arms" ; it is an inherent natural right to bear arms which is specifically secured by our Constitution.

An inherent natural right!!!! Were you born with a gun?

But the right would exist even if it wasn't secured by the same. Since the right is universal it exists worldwide including Australia.

No it doesn't, many countries control the use of firearms via licencing.

The right is unalienable even if statistics show that there are numerous accidental deaths, even if it is true that the US has more deaths than the UK or Australia. My right to bear arms is unalienable even if students were killed at Columbine and Virginia or even if my neighbor decides tomorrow to kill his entirely family using a handgun

.

Just because it is written in the constitution that you have the right ( not unalienable really because that piece of writing could be changed if desired) is not a valid reason for having guns.
Its a bit like quoting gospel and saying god said you could only this time your saying a bunch of guys told you you could.

Capisce?

no

[Contumacious]

Quote by: SoylentGreen An inherent natural right!!!! Were you born with a gun?

I was born with an ABSOLUTE right to life and to defend the same.

Now sing with me:

This my rifle , this my gun......

No it doesn't, many countries control the use of firearms via licencing.

True.

There are a lot of criminals out there which is the reason we can not allow the right to be infringed.

Just because it is written in the constitution that you have the right ( not unalienable really because that piece of writing could be changed if desired) is not a valid reason for having guns. Its a bit like quoting gospel and saying god said you could only this time your saying a bunch of guys told you you could.

I I spoke with God Almighty Last night, he said that he will never allow the right to be transgress upon.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel In europe private armies with any guns are considered terrorists. Likewise individuals carrying weapons without a valid permit would be equaly treated as unwanted aggressors. The world should not uphold what works in the USA.

And conversely, the US should not bend to the whims of those with no voting power within our borders.


Global governement is tyranny, any way you look at it.


That's why it's OK to dismiss one world government proponents out of hand, it's not really a topic worthy of discussion.


Only the brainwashed have to be saved from those that would enslave them. If not for them, I doubt I'd even comment on this subject.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen An inherent natural right!!!! Were you born with a gun?

I was. I was also born f'n ready, oh wait, that might be Copyright infringement.

[SoylentGreen]

Contumacious I was born with an ABSOLUTE right to life and to defend the same.

No you were just born, the rights are something either given to you or you took by force.

There are a lot of criminals out there which is the reason we can not allow the right to be infringed.

So then you would on that theory agree with Iran's right to stockpile nuclear weapons. After all they think Americans are all crooks.

I I spoke with God Almighty Last night, he said that he will never allow the right to be transgress upon

.

Being able to speak to invisible, non existent people not only brings up the question of whether people with mental problems should have guns but also emphasises the fact that you cannot come up with a reasonable rebuttal to my point.

[Contumacious]

Quote by: SoylentGreen No you were just born, the rights are something either given to you or you took by force.

The rights to life and to defend the same were "given" to me by whom? Or I took from whom?

So then you would on that theory agree with Iran's right to stockpile nuclear weapons. After all they think Americans are all crooks.

Of course they do.

[SoylentGreen]

Contumacious The rights to life and to defend the same were "given" to me by whom? Or I took from whom?

By the laws that protect you, by the morality of your society.
Had you been born an unwanted child in roman society your parents could have legally thrown your body into the garbage pits.
Rights are not biological, we are not born with them.

[Contumacious]

Quote by: SoylentGreen By the laws that protect you, by the morality of your society. Had you been born an unwanted child in roman society your parents could have legally thrown your body into the garbage pits. Rights are not biological, we are not born with them.

I see,

so if I was born in NAZI Germany from Jewish Parents I would have no rights;

if I was black and born in South Carolina in the late 1700's I would have no rights;

if I was born female in Afghanistan I would have no rights. etc


No sir, my rights are natural by virtue of the fact that I am a human being. They do not depend on society, the tribe, the gang. I was not born a slave therefore I will not crawl on the floor begging that you be kind enough to recognize that we are equal . Your choices are simple live and let live. Leave me alone or I will be forced to use my .357 magnum.

Simple.

Over and out.

[grandpa]

Quote by: SoylentGreen By the laws that protect you, by the morality of your society. Had you been born an unwanted child in roman society your parents could have legally thrown your body into the garbage pits.

Thank you.

I basically agree with you. I'd even suggest it's a little off-base to say anyone is born with an understanding of rights. Rights are significantly based on perception, what we're taught and by whom. That's not "inherent" in any conventional sense.
People have to convince others of what their rights are.

Certainly, people may try to fend off instant death or starvation, but rights can be more complicated than basic survival instinct.
For example, the garbage pits of Tijuana needn't be a ledaing source of food for Indian scavengers, but certain conceptions of rights allow such conditions (if not encourage them).

Grandpa h.

[SoylentGreen]

Contumacious;I see, so if I was born in NAZI Germany from Jewish Parents I would have no rights; if I was black and born in South Carolina in the late 1700's I would have no rights; if I was born female in Afghanistan I would have no rights. etc

Well, seeing as it was a fact that they did not have rights then the answer to all 3 is yes, you would have no rights.

No sir, my rights are natural by virtue of the fact that I am a human being. They do not depend on society, the tribe, the gang. I was not born a slave therefore I will not crawl on the floor begging that you be kind enough to recognize that we are equal . Your choices are simple live and let live. Leave me alone or I will be forced to use my .357 magnum.

Would that be the same .357 magnum you came out of the womb with?
Or would it be the one that your society, tribe or gang that created a constitution that GIVES YOU THE RIGHT to carry that gun.
You take your rights for granted when you start to believe they are natural. People fought and died so that you can have those rights and to ignore that fact is to disrespect there sacrifices.

Simple. Over and out.

Simple, no, not even adequate.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Contumacious I see, so if I was born in NAZI Germany from Jewish Parents I would have no rights; if I was black and born in South Carolina in the late 1700's I would have no rights; if I was born female in Afghanistan I would have no rights. No sir, my rights are natural by virtue of the fact that I am a human being.

Actually, your conception of rights, and the very language you speak, heavily depend on other people who came before you. In fact, you wouldn't be where you are were it not for decisions made by whoever your ancestors were.

Obviously, if everyone had equal "inherent" rights there simply could not have been a Nazi Germany (or any other system of hatred, superiority or even nationalism).

In fact, Nazi Germany had lots of concepts about "inherent rights," though they belonged to Germans.

And yes, blacks in the 1700s didn't have inherent rights, either. Neither did whites. Rights have to be determined through experience, perceived over time and fought for when necessary (and if circumstances allow us to do so). Nothing about that says "inherent."

I am not saying people have no perceived right to be alive, either, just that this right is not inherent in any individual. One's perceptions of rights are conditional and can be overcome by others with different perceptions.

Grandpa h.

[Contumacious]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Well, seeing as it was a fact that they did not have rights then the answer to all 3 is yes, you would have no rights.

And of course that is not acceptable to me or mine.

There are others who enjoy being slaves , who would be lost without a bureaucrat's fingers up their nostrils.To those I say enjoy but don't even think about including me.

Would that be the same .357 magnum you came out of the womb with?

Again I have a right to life and to defend the same.

[Milton Bradley]

It's rather simple in my mind.


How would I go about exercising my right to life if I cannot defend that life?


Isn't this the very point that my "right to life" mention in that document protects?


By the same principle that I have the right to protect my property, I have the right to protect my life. With all the force I can muster.