The American Constitution

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Several thoughts 'en vrac' ... If it is for your personal defense that you think you need a range weapon, why not shoot tranquilizer darts instead of regular bullets ? Thus you would be perfectly protected without harming anyone. Or is it that you make a confusion between justice and revenge ?

I was gonna leave this thread alone, I swear I was. But I just KNEW that someone would bring up the silly "dart gun" arguement against guns. I'm sorry Moraine, but I have to tell you, this is a truly ridiculous arguement. In the wrong hands sedatives are almost always 100% lethal. Think about this for a minute...Regardless of what people are led to believe from movies, sleepy darts are not 100% effective. They also take at least a minute or two for full effectiveness. And different people have different tolerances. And the dose that only puts a 200 pound man into slumber man only annoy a 300 pound man, and can easily KILL a 150 pound man. I've worked with people that have had to dose large animals and drugs are strictly measured, based on weight, past history, and a host of other factors. Ask a doctor about how reluctant they are to just give humans drugs willy nilly.

Imagine this conversation:

ATTACKER: Hah! Freeze citizen, I'm about to rob/mug/murder/rape you! What are you going to do about it?

THREATENED PARTY: OK...Umm, first, can you tell me how much you weigh? I need to get the dose right on my dart gun. Do you drink or smoke alot? That can affect the dosage too. How about allergies...wouldn't want you to go into anaphlactic shock and die. Or, I suppose I could always use a TAZER...but we'll have to be careful with that too. It can cause severe burns, and if I get it too close to your heart it can kill you. You know what? On second thought...I think I'll just beat you to death. It'll save time, hassle, and mess.

Freedom, you say ... freedom to what ? There is a saying that goes "Freedom stops where others' freedom starts", or something like that, I'm translating it from French. How do you plan to ensure the freedom of children not to be killed by guns owned by a member of their family or a neighbour ? Seems to me it is one fundamental of living in society, one major difference between jungle and civilization, that individual freedom be restricted in exchange for the benefits of living together. :pondering:

"My Freedom ends where your's begins." Is the quote I believe you're referring to Moraine.

Speaking of quotes, I refer you to a previous post: To whit..."Those who are willing to give up Freedom for Security deserve neither Freedom nor Security."

Those of you who are Christians and advocate gun bearing, how do you reconcile your conviction with what your God told you through Jesus, that a life is sacred, that no man is fit to judge, and that retaliation is never never the good answer ?

Not a Christian, so I guess this doesn't apply to me. I'll leave it to the Christians among us to reply to this. Cerek? Magik?

Also, I'm sorry to tell you, but you are not protected against a lunie owning nuclear bombs. You should really allow people to own nuclear bombs too. In the sake of safety, of course. In order to get real. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oohhh...Good sarcasm Claude. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Hunter of Jahanna, how can you say that the fact that American children are 12 times more likely to die from a firearm injury than children in other industrialized countries tells you that guns do more good than harm ??? Oh, and about quoting George Washington. He supposedly said "The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related.". Get real : buy a prairie wagon !

Erm...do you know where one can order a Prarie Wagon? I think E-Bay might have a few.

Seriously...Just so you know, I wasn't ranting at you. I was just making a point about the un-feasability of trying to use non-lethal weapons for self-defense.

PS: Humorous example from RPing...a friend of mine was playing a character who was against killing. She carried around a dart gun loaded with sleepy darts. On at least 4 seperate occasions, whilst trying to shoot a guard/bad guy/whatever she accidently hit them in either the eye or the throat. Kind of removes the non-lethality of the whole thing.

[Arnabas]

That RP story with the dart made me think of my Physical Adept in Shadowrun. He kept trying to knock people out, but his hands did so much damage his opponent's heads kept caving in.
Sorry to interupt the topic.

[Timber Loftis]

Interesting 2nd Amendment article found here:
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pub...n_const.php#c8

Hunter of Jahanna: I'm not so sure you got your constitutional amendment rules right. See here:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...e05/index.html
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...le05/02.html#3
It's not easy, and isn't intended to be.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Yorick: [QB}A buyback scheme. People got paid to hand in their gun. Then they were made illegal. You'd get fined or imprisoned if you had one. So there was an amnesty for a while where people who for whatever reason missed the buyback, could still hand in their gun. So, be a realist. Don't suggest something CAN'T be done when it already has been, for all intents and purposes, successfully done. [/QB]

The fact is Yorrick, that Buy Back Schemes has been tried here before. It was a center peice in the Clinton Justice Department. Our Police Department had a Buy Back Program here in Knoxville, but very few firearms were brought in. The ones that were, for the most part were old and didn't function or were of the pellet/BB varity (not really a firearm). Of course, the police were only giving out about $50 per firearm.

The only way that I ever see this country banning all firearms is if it's either defeated in battle or we have another Civil War and gun owners lose.

You stated earlier that a marjority of citizens are in favor of tighter gun control and you might be right, but they are not for get rid of them all together.

I think that it was said that if they banned them all together, then fully half of the gun owning population would end up in jail. I'd agree with that statement. I know that here in the south, it'd be most of the male population.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: quote: In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.(SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).) What do these figures tell you?

Tbut according to this statistic 62% of murders in that year WERE NOT caused by guns!! .[/QUOTE]That's not what it says at all. Check it out again. The 38% is the number of gun deaths that were homicides. It's not a percentage of murders. The rest were mostly suicides. Suicide is more effective with a gun.

What is that saying about society? Two problems linked together. Suicide and a gun.

Originally posted by Yorick: To those who cherish freedom: It seems your desire for freedom is selective. What about freedom from fear? Freedom from being shot? Freedom from losing your possessions through theft? You are not free. You are held to ransom by the threat of violence, you are imprisoned by the past, you are chained to paying for home insurance, and medical insurance. Debt is the slavery of the West, and fear is a chain of greater strength than iron. To gain freedoms for society at all, you have to restrict an individuals freedom. That is what LAW is. Restrictions on an individuals behaviour so society can live with some freedom from fear. I see chants of freedom, which are in reality cries for imprisonment. Free yourselves. Ban the gun. Allow cameras on highways and in plazas. Restrict the freedoms of those who would harm so those who are innocent may live freely.

Oh go blow it out your ear. I live right here in the middle of all this and Im not afraid. Whats more I think you are one seriously rude guest and would be just as happy if you took your sorry rude butt somewhere else and protested the way they live.

EDIT: Sorry everyone but enough is enough. There comes a time when a guest should be told to stuff it.

[ 10-22-2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Careful, y'all, MagicK's hyperventalating again.

Sorry to pick on you MagicK, but I didn't find Yorick to be rude. Clearly, Yorick is frustrated regarding his inability to understand a viewpoint other than his own (we've seen that before ). But, there wasn't anything rude about the posts.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: The only way that I ever see this country banning all firearms is if it's either defeated in battle or we have another Civil War and gun owners lose. You stated earlier that a marjority of citizens are in favor of tighter gun control and you might be right, but they are not for get rid of them all together. I think that it was said that if they banned them all together, then fully half of the gun owning population would end up in jail. I'd agree with that statement. I know that here in the south, it'd be most of the male population.

The only time in my life I've fired guns were when I was in the south.

I enjoyed it.

I felt powerful with the gun. It's a lot of power in your possession.

I do understand the sense of vulnerability, violation and disempowerment that would occur if people had to hand in their guns. This wouldn't be easy for people who've been shooting them all their lives.

It should be noted that I regard a couple of gun users as friends I respect.

Giving up the right to carry guns is a SACRIFICE. It does involve a loss of choice and a loss of power. No-one is denying this.

But what does it gain? Does what you gain from that sacrifice counterbalance what you lose?

When you enter in a relationship witrh someone, you have to make yourself vulnerable for it to work. You can't be carrying all your defenses. You have to let them go. What do you gain? Love?

When you have a child you lose certain freedoms of spontaneous action, and carefree obligationless behaviour. What do you gain? Every father who's had a daughter look in their eyes and say they love them, would tell you that what you gain more than makes up for what you lose.

When you take a job working for someone, you lose the freedom to be wherever you want, whenever you want doing whatever you want. In return you get money to feed, house and clothe yourself. What you gain can make up for what you lose.

Look at guns in a similar fashion. Yes you will lose power. Yes you will lose the ability to theoretically defend yourself from a tyrranical American governement. Yes you will lose the freedom to kill small animals on saturday.

But you will gain much more freedoms as a result. The freedom to send your son to school without worrying that a classmate will blow his brains out. The freedom to walk into a bank without getting held up at gunpoint. The freedom to flash your lights at a driver who's forgotten to turn his lights on without worrying it's a gang initiation to kill the first person that does it. The freedom to get gas at a gas station without worrying, if you live in D.C.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: It says the right to bear ARMS, not neccessarrily guns in particular. We may as well be happy with swords, so we can look our victims in the eye when we inflict violence upon them, and we wouldn't have drive-by shootings or snipers unless they chucked knives at people. Chewie, George Washington himself described in a speach on why firearms in particular are important to this nation here is a link to a quote. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/q109672.html And here is more of the same quote: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, First President of the United States, in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790 I think George and the rest of the founding fathers knew exactly what they were talking about. Our problem is that we as a society have allowed the weak and timid to rule the roost for too long, now the criminals know that there are few true men out there to stand up to them. If you want to know what they ment byt he second ammendment look at what they had to say out side the confines of the constitution Any hoo, its always been open to interpretation as well as amendedment. Remember our great freedom doesn't even apply to the basic liberty of smoking pot, so we still have alot to learn.

[ 10-22-2002, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: Oh go blow it out your ear. I live right here in the middle of all this and Im not afraid. Whats more I think you are one seriously rude guest and would be just as happy if you took your sorry rude butt somewhere else and protested the way they live. EDIT: Sorry everyone but enough is enough. There comes a time when a guest should be told to stuff it.

And I suppose your Polish ancestors should have been told the same thing? Or the original British Immigrants? This country is founded on immigration and the ideas which they brought with them. Your request is hypocrisy.

Although I'm sure the Amerindians would agree with you about rude 'guests'.

Regardless, there are people contributing to this thread who are internationals and haven't stepped foot here. Are they to 'stuff it' as well?

American policy affects the world MagiK, it's only fair that the world in return affects American policy.