PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Why do you need guns?
       A stupid guy is looking for answers.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello,
I´m a student at a German school, and along with two other people I work on a project, that is about guns in America.
As you may perhaps know, in Germany not everyone may have a gun - you either have to buy it illegally or you must have some kind of special license.

Although I don´t have a gun, I´m not too anxious, that I get killed, as soon as I leave the house. (Maybe that´s due to the fact, that actually there aren´t too many German people having guns?!)
And as you can see - I´m still alive, although I never touched a gun, and although I don´t intend to do so in the future.

My question to all of you is the following:
Why do you think, that you must own guns? Wouldn´t it be better, if you wouldn´t have to need them?

How do you think about the law - is it really so good, that everyone may possess a gun in America? Isn´t this making it easier for the criminals to shoot your brain? I mean - without guns they couldn´t shoot you, and you wouldn´t have to defend yourself.

How do you think about the many Germans/people in other countries, who are against the free distribution of guns like me? Do you think we´re kind of too courageous?

I´m looking forward to your responses.

Regards!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:15 AM on April 8, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Need?  I don't need to justify a need.  If I want one I get one.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:10 PM on April 11, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

let me say first that a country in which we would not need to defend ourselves would be excellent. Now let me say that is a stupid, idealistic view of the real world. I find more and more that Europe (in general) and Canada have a sickly deluded idea of what the real world is. If the criminal is already breaking laws, what would stop him from illegally owning a gun? This may seem harsh but let me share with you a quote from your german past.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."
                                       -Adolf Hitler, 1935

I mean no offense by bringing this up, I'm sure I don't have to remind you the terrible things that man did. I wouldn't follow his lead into the future just out of point. Guns to cause crime. Guns don't kill people. People cause crime and PEOPLE kill people. If a man wants to kill you and he can't have a gun, he'll use a knife. Should you outlaw knives? Ok, then he'll use a bat. I know let's outlaw baseball bats. Then he'll kill you with a two by four with a nail pounded into it. Which certainly means that both board lumber and metal nails are far too dangerous to allow citizens to have. Right? OF COURSE NOT. As is typical of European Policy, you're dealing with the symptoms and not the problem. If murder is too high, deal with the murders. I know alot of people, myself included, who simply enjoy target shooting. It's a fun and rewarding recreation when done responsibly. In america we're free to the persuit of happiness, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The fact of the matter is that cars have killed more people than guns each year, and no one outlaws cars do they?


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 10:13 PM on April 24, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Europe and Canada may have a sickly deluded idea of the world but a lot less people die there from murders.  So maybe we should adopt that idea to.  And just the fact that Adolph Hitler said gun regisration made streets safer doesn't mean its inherently wrong.  Hitler was a terrible person but if he said 2+2 equals 4 would that be wrong too.  And yes if you outlaw guns criminals will just use bats, but hey I don't know about you but I would definetly rather be hit with a bat than a bullet.
Which is not to say I think all guns should be outlawed, I happen to enjoy shooting as well.  But I don't need to own a gun to shoot I could go to club the type that they have in Britain.  And cars aren't outlawed because more people die from car accidents than guns, and cars are in fact regulated more so than guns are requiring driving tests and in some states mandantory drivers ed.  Whereas guns can be purchased by any 21-year-old without a criminal record.


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 02:08 AM on May 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I use my gun to protect myself against criminals who will get guns illegally and try to use them to take my property and possibly the lives of myself and loved ones.

Guns in the hands of law abiding Americans keeps a government from becoming tyrannical.

You could just open clubs for rich people to go shoot clay pigeons, but that doesn't take care of the self defense issue.. "but the cops are only a phonecall away.." and a five minute wait. My gun can be deployed in less than 30 seconds.




On a tangent, I'd rather get shot in the head with a slug flying so fast I can't even hear the hammer fall before my brains decorate the living room than to get slowly beat to death with a bat.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:32 PM on May 2, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Europe and Canada may have a sickly deluded idea of the world but a lot less people die there from murders.  So maybe we should adopt that idea to.

Sorry friend, here, you're wrong. Crime in countries who have gun bans, like britain, has skyrocketed. Murder, violent crime, assault, rape property damage, all up. I've seen the numbers. I'm not sure of the numbers in Canada, but my understanding is that it's the same thing.  

[/i] Hitler was a terrible person but if he said 2+2 equals 4 would that be wrong too[i]

yes....*sarcasm* of course not. But I bet there was around six million jews who wish they didn't have their guns taken away from them.

The fact of the matter is, guns don't cause crime. guns don't kill people. When guns become autonomous and stalk the streets at night of their own accord, killing people. Then we'll talk about gun bans. Again what you're forgetting is that criminals obviously don't get their guns though legal means anyways. Which means you're taking the guns away from people who DO obey the law, they being the ones who want guns for recreation and self defense.

Could we agree that instead of a ban, anyone who wants to purchase a gun should be required to obtain a liscence through gun education classes? I believe the state of Illinios already has such a program and I think it's a good idea.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 04:42 AM on May 5, 2003 | IP
pkreiner

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The United States has, without question, the highest murder rate and firearm-related death rate of a developed nation.  Of course non-gun-related crime will increase with a comprehensive ban on guns.  But the TOTAL NUMBER OF MURDERS, DEATHS, AND CRIMES dramatically decreases.  America has more guns per person than any other developed nation and it has more murders per person than any other developed nation.  These two things go hand-in-hand.

But hey, good example with Hitler and Nazi Germany.  You clearly have a solid grasp of the context of this debate.  

Also, like basically every other proponent of gun ownership, you've made the argument that "guns don't cause crim. guns don't kill people."  That's true.  We can never completely eliminate violence from society because it is a human trait - not an object.  But guns are tools of violence.  More than any other object, they provide people with the means to kill.  Hand guns are designed to make it easier for human beings to kill other human beings.  This is why they exist.  Thus, if you reduce the number of handguns in a society, you make it more difficult for people to kill each other, for children to accidently kill themselves, for people to commit deadly crimes of passion.  Does this make sense to you?

Also, it's somewhat difficult to understand your adamant support for the constitutional right to bear arms given your lack of concern for other constitutional rights.  Like speech and due process.  Aren't those just as important in keeping the "tyranical government" in line?  Or are these rights simply easier to dismiss since they don't come with a fun toy.

(Edited by pkreiner 9/7/2004 at 04:26 AM).[b][/b]

(Edited by pkreiner 9/7/2004 at 04:56 AM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:25 PM on May 10, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who's against the rights of freespeech or due process?

We live in a Democracy

That's funny, cause actually we live in a republic (at least according to every document in the founding of our country [ie, Constitution and Decleration of Independance]). The only goverment idea that ever included "democracy" was Karl Marx's Communist Mannifesto. A democracy was his interim government temporarily set up until the people no longer needed government rule. The idea of democracy is that there is no president, only a delegation of representives sent by regional districts.

Our point here is that if guns have been banned in Great Britain and other countries, is rising, why would we do it in america where we have a greater population. The other point your missing is that criminals are already criminals, they already get guns illegally, why would they stop because of a gun ban? They wouldn't would they? So what you're doing is taking the gun out of the hands of people who use it responsibly (recreational shooting, home defense, as collectibles, etc).

I wasn't saying that Anti gun people are like hittler, I'm saying that people without guns may end up like the Jews. I can bet there was about 6 million jews who were wishing they could "keep and bear arms" while they were rolling bolders from one end of the concentration camp to the other. I bet there was about 26million people who wished that Soviet Russia had the freedom to bear arms under Joseph Stallin. Our government may not be a dictatorship now...and it most likely never will be. But I'm sure the Jews didn't know what they were in for when the Nazi party came to power either.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 08:03 AM on May 13, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you missed the point of pkreiner's argument, he said a vote keeps the government in line who gives a shit about the semantics of whether we live in a democracy or repblic we still exercise control over our government by voting.
And one more thing.  Lets just say there was an idealized society, if it had been proven that it was possible to eliminate all guns, forget the fact that it is impossible for now, if it could happen would you be for it?  Lets say voting keeps the government in line perfectly well and criminals can't posses guns so you have no need to own one to protect yourself would you still want one? and I don't mean just for hunting or sports would you still want a gun? I echo what pkreiner said, "do you need a gun to feel safe?"


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:02 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that's kind of a rediculous post, if I dont' need a gun for war, self defense, sports or hunting would I want a gun. Well I guess you pretty much eliminated all the things a gun is used for, so no, i wouldn't. If you couldn't ever get a cavity, or have a tooth knocked out, and all your teeth came in perfectly straight would you ever go to a dentist? of course not. But let's be realistic. The world you discribed doesn't and most likely won't exist. Look at the world, it's not hard to see the trend of "things getting worse." Day to day, no you don't need a gun to feel safe, but that one time when a criminal breaks in, I promise you'll feel safer with a gun, whether or not you need to use it, than if you didn't have one. So I'd say yes.



-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 04:25 AM on May 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course I would want a gun...why NOT own one..it's an inanimate object with no life or soul.


CalDaves post is some sort of "pipedream".  If it were an idealized society like he suggests...why would you NEED to ban guns.  If it's such a nice world as he suggests then there is nothing wrong with walking around with a firearm.




What happens when the votes no longer keep the government in check?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:35 AM on May 16, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right it's entirely a pipe dream, that's why it's rediculous. In switzerland every home is REQUIRED to have at least one fully automatic weapon in their home. Strange how it's murder rate per capita is amongst the lowest in the world.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 12:35 AM on May 17, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course its a pipe dream, I was asking a question.  All I was asking is there something about the gun itself and not the protection it provides that makes it desireable?
So I might of phrased my question poorly, sorry.
Yeah and in Switzerland every 20 year old male is required to own a gun for purposes of training and service in the national militia, then when the leave service they are allowed (not required) to keep there gun as long as it is converted to semi-automatic.  In fact all other automatic weopons besides those liscensed to the militia and military are banned, kinda like us.  And in other ways Switzerland is a lot like us half their cantons have concealed cary lawys kinda like 33 of our states, 27% of their households have guns excluding militia owner ship, whereas 50% percent do here.  So now I'm wonder why their murder rate is so much lower than ours.
3 reasons one-
Shooting is their national past time-more people have guns for recreational use than protection
two-
they need their militia because of an incredibly weak military
three-
every man goes through a training regime before he can get his gun
And they stull have less handguns than we do
and considering hand guns make up the lion an other difference


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 12:54 AM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"All I was asking is there something about the gun itself and not the protection it provides that makes it desireable?
"

Yes, it could be a certain innovative design feature, maybe it was a certain type a relative carried in WW2.  It could be ANYTHING like that...why do people collect Corvettes?  I mean they are only good for going fast...lol!

I'm a collector and shooter and that's why I want the different firearms.  Protection is not my prime concern but when I go on long road trips or into areas that aren't exactly "safe" I will carry for my protection.

"In fact all other automatic weopons besides those liscensed to the militia and military are banned, kinda like us. "

You do know that there are over 750,000 legally owned machine guns in private citizens hands in the US don't you?  Are you aware of how many of them have been used in a crime?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:00 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 750,000 were around before the ban was passed, so of course they are legal.  Same thing in Switzerland, their ban was fairly recent too.  And no I'm not aware of how many were used in a crime and since you didn't tell me apparantly you aren't aware either.  But I do have a stat for you, after the 1989 ban was passed the crimes using the assault weopans banned dropped 45 percent in one year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18 percent fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.
So looks like the ban is working.


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 02:01 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Probably a stupid question, but did the % for other crimes involving firearms go up after the ban on assault weapons?
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 03:54 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I meant did the % for other crimes involving other types of firearms... sorry about the small mess up there...
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 03:56 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah it did, expecially hand gun murders,


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 04:21 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cal Dave- the more you talk the more I wonder if you listen to yourself. I don't have the exact percentage, but I can tell you that the percentage of crimes commited with an automatic weapon is alot closer to 0% than it is to 5%.

Yeah and in Switzerland every 20 year old male is required to own a gun for purposes of training and service in the national militia

but all of these guns are kept in the household. They COULD be easily used to commit crimes couldn't they? If you don't understand my point, let me help you. It isn't the guns that cause crime.

Shooting is their national past time-more people have guns for recreational use than protection

exactly. so how is me owning a gun for sports or recreation gonna lead to increases in crime? I want guns for the same reason the swiss have guns and you're telling me it's ok for them do have it  but not me. Listen to yourself!

they need their militia because of an incredibly weak military

exactly. the germans didn't invade switzerland in world war 2 because they calculated 9 german soldiers killed to ever swiss. Kinda like our right to keep and bear arms (which might i add, shall not be infringed).

every man goes through a training regime before he can get his gun
And they stull have less handguns than we do
and considering hand guns make up the lion an other difference


How does military training do anything to avoid gun crime? How the hell does this effect anything? If nothing else, teaching these people how to use the gun more efficiently would increase their success rate at killing people with these guns. When will you people learn that it's the person that's to blame. NOT the GUNS!!!!


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 04:51 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all I never once said we should ban all guns, all I want is to make it harder for criminals to get them.  Most importantly make it almost impossible for them to get hanguns.  Second of all, the fact that you own a gun for sport doesn't make you wanna kill someone its you owning a gun for protection, so that when you feel threatened you shoot.  And I'm not saying that you personally would do this, I'm talking about irresponsible gun owners whe can't tell the difference betweens whats protecting themeselves and whats hurting someone else.
Oh yeah, and Germany didn't attack switzerland also because it would be strategically useless and geographically unfeasible (Swiss have more than home guns protecting themeselves, they have the swiss alps).
And "given a well regulated militia" you can have guns.  Hmmm you notice that thats the only right our founding fathers attached a modifier too, gee I wonder why?
And how many times to I have to say that people still kill people with guns, if they have to go to knives instead of guns that so what?  More knife wounds (which are much more easily survivable) than gun wounds.  

So heres what I'm saying, it may be the person, but the gun is not vital enough to soceity thats its usefulness for protection outweighs the harm it causes.  You say that its protection is more important than the harm it causes.  Thats where we disagree.  But I think you can agree with me that there should be some sort of liscensing or training process before you're allowed to own a gun.


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 2:10 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly, its' already illegal for convicted fellons to get guns. They aquire them through illegal means. How can you make it any harder, unless you become like Canada who is still trying to round up all the illegal guns that poor into their country. It costs them billions of dollars every year to fund that, and it's failing.

How would you define protecting yourself? I would define it as, if someone broke into my house with a knife, I'm going to point my gun at their face and warn them once. If they don't leave, or if they continue to approach me, they'll get one between the eyes. Sure that hurts the criminal (kills em acutally). But the person IS a criminal, in the act of violent crime. Why would anyone try to protect him (aside from the liberals who he votes for). Here's some interesting numbers for you.

Since 1934 only one murder has ever been commited with a fully automatic weapon (of which more that 200,000 are registered)

according to the last statistics 76,000 instances of a gun being used in self defense by low end estimates which is still four times the annual murder rate of our country. another source ( Point Blank: Guns & Violence in America, Gary Kleck) that puts the defense number at 2.1 millions.

Switzerland does have the alps as a geographical advantage. But the swiss alps aren't going to kill the 9 germans.

So define a "well regulated militia." More than one of the founding fathers have written their ideas of it. One of them said that the well regulated militia is every able body male between 17 and 45. That being in contrast to the government militia (being the national guard). Ultimately, as was evident in the Revolutionary war, it is the duty and obligation of the citizens to maintain a free state, and to uphold the freedoms they've been given.

"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

Your point about knives is ridiculous. If you're stabbed in a vital you'll be just as dead as if you're shot in a vital. Name a place you can shoot with a hand gun to kill someone that you can't stab someone and do the same damage (being death).

The guns vitatlity to the society is more than just defense from crime. The entire pupose of the consitution is to keep the government in line and working for the people. It's laws were set forth to ensure that the government does not become oppressive or tyrannical. I know, you'll say, but this is the united states of america. The government won't become oppressive. We're the greastest amongst free nations. Firstly, let me say it only needs to happen once, and I tell you it already has begun.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 4:41 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before anyone says our government isn't becoming oppressive or Tyrannical, please read up on the USA Patriot Act and the upcoming sequal to this law, the USA Patriot Act II (Patriot II).  I think these two Acts explain fairly well the course our government is taking in regards to individual freedoms, and proves that our government is becoming corrupt...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:44 AM on May 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Darn... not sure why it didn't post my name up, but that was made by JoeCook529 (in case this one doesn't post up my username either).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:45 AM on May 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ea
Quote from CalDave1413 at 02:01 AM on May 19, 2003 :
The 750,000 were around before the ban was passed, so of course they are legal.  Same thing in Switzerland, their ban was fairly recent too.  And no I'm not aware of how many were used in a crime and since you didn't tell me apparantly you aren't aware either.  But I do have a stat for you, after the 1989 ban was passed the crimes using the assault weopans banned dropped 45 percent in one year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18 percent fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.
So looks like the ban is working.


Do you have a source for those stats of yours?



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:51 AM on May 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok I got the stat from the ACLU website, I know blah blah liberal bullshit, blah, blach left-wing bias whatever, the statistics go back and forth.  The reason there is no universal gun-control legislation or complete absence of any is the ambiguity of the evidence.  So I regret posting that statistic.

On another note, yes I have in fact read the patriot act and yes it is one of the worst infringements we've had on civil liberties since japanese interment camps (ok maybe a little exaggerated but you get the point).  But I prefer to fight it using first the systems (ie courts legislation etc) and then if it gets unbearable oppressive, then I would go to civil disobedience.  You guys would rather fight with guns.  Can't say I think that'll work all that well, it certainly didn't help david koresh.  But whatever you guys wanna do, go for it its your right.
To stormcrow, ok so a good portion of the founding fathers were thinking about semi-universal gun ownership that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment is well first second, and qualified as compared to the first.  I think this shows not that they were for gun control (obviously but I'm not for taking away all your guns either) but that they thought free speech, religion etc was more important.  Which in my opinion, it is.  
Next, there is no way a disorganized militia is a better defence than an organized and trained military.  If it was, more people would be using it, what a militia is good for is making it hard on the conquerers to stay in the area conquered.  Revolutionary war wasn't won until we had the help of france.  And yes the alps made the bigger deference, look at the soviet invasion of finland as an example, what with 17 russians for every fin or something like that, I promise you if france (well bad example, they couldn't have stood up to the germans with the atomoic bomb) if holland had the same familiarity with guns as switzerland they would have been conquered just as quickly.
Your point about assault weopans, whatever, I'm not going to go to HCI and pull up another counter statistic because its a: not going to convince you and b: your gonna go back to the national review.com and get another one.
And how can you possibly say that a knife is as dangerous as a gun.  I see someone with a knife I'm a lot less scared than if I see someone with a gun.  First, I can run away. Second, I stand a much better chance of surviving a fight with them because a knife causes less damage than a bullet (less force behind the impact).  And if a knife slices my heart I have a better chance of surviving than a gun because I don't have a bullet lodged in my body, which usually causes more fatal implications than clean slice.
And I'm not saying the united states is perfect, II fully admit that the reason the bill of rights was established is to protect ourself from an oppresive government.  But I would rather follow the example of Ghandi over the Hezbollah, of Martin Luther King over Malcom X.  I believe passive resistance works in a democratic society.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:22 AM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry, if you couldn't tell that was CalDave1413
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:24 AM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But I prefer to fight it using first the systems (ie courts legislation etc) and then if it gets unbearable oppressive, then I would go to civil disobedience.

   But free speech is failing. Liberals are proposing another gun ban that will take care of all guns not made illegal by their first attempt. More than once people have gone before the Supreme Court to see the assult rifle ban removed as unconsitutional. The liberals know that they can't take it all away at once so they do it a little at a time. We wouldn't rather fight with guns, but if they've already taken all our guns away, we couldn't fight if we wanted to.

ok so a good portion of the founding fathers were thinking about semi-universal gun ownership that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment is well first second,

Are you implying that the second ammendment is less important than the first, because it was written second? How would you explain then that the fourth ammendment pertains to illegal search and seizure. While the fifth pertains to the right to not incriminate one's self (which could serve as justification for search and seizure). Or what about the 10th ammendment that stipulates that all issues not covered in the constution are reserved for individual state decisions.

Next, there is no way a disorganized militia is a better defence than an organized and trained military

My point was that a federal military force is just that- federal. They would be controlled by the government, the "well organized" militia (being all able body males 17-35, or however old) are a way of keeping the federal military in check, as a deterent so to speak. You cannot deny the fact from a tactical standpoint that guerilla warfare even by "disorganized" forces is emmensly effective. For instance Vietnam war, the Soviets in Afganastan, even revolutionary war against the british.

And how can you possibly say that a knife is as dangerous as a gun.  I see someone with a knife I'm a lot less scared than if I see someone with a gun.

If you're less scared of getting stabbed, your just ignorant. If someone puts a knife in your heart, you'll bleed to death in about 4 seconds. If someone slices your jugular your dead in like 11 seconds, there's alot of major arteries that will bleed you to death just as quickly.

And if a knife slices my heart I have a better chance of surviving than a gun because I don't have a bullet lodged in my body, which usually causes more fatal implications than clean slice.


Again, the dumbassity of your statement is astounding! A clean cut? What the crap is that? You mean one that opens your stomach so your intestines fall on the floor? Survive that!

But I would rather follow the example of Ghandi over the Hezbollah, of Martin Luther King over Malcom X.  I believe passive resistance works in a democratic society.

Please re-read the first statements of my previous two responses. (I sense a pattern emerging). Gun owners cannot fairly be compared to the Hezbollah. Ghandi didn't live in a democratic (well republic) society. If you were truely being oppressed passive resistance would just get you a healthy serving of ass whoping for being neglegent and rebellious.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:24 PM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

above post is StormCrow
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:54 PM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I honestly can't beleive that you are saying that a knife is as dangerous as gun.  thats probably the most retarded thing I have ever heard.  if a knife is as dangerous as a gun why don't we equipt the army with it instead, its a lot cheaper than a gun.  and it took a "millitia" almost ten years to eject the foreign power in each case you mentioned with up to 5 times the casualties, an army will still do a lot better.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:10 PM on May 25, 2003 | IP
Dowter

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from StormCrow at 10:13 PM on April 24, 2003 :


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."
                                       -Adolf Hitler, 1935



That quote above is not true(an actual quote by Hitler).  Here is a web page  from "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" where they talk about it.  
http://www.jpfo.org/faq.htm#faq02

Use this actual quote by Hitler instead.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)



(Edited by Dowter 5/28/2003 at 9:12 PM).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:19 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually that quote is entirely true. and I'm not entirely sure why you'd dispute it, seeing as how you're quote is pretty much paraphrasing it. Both are spoken by hitler as to why oppressive governments favor gun bans and registration.

Cal Dave- Name for me a place where you can get shot and killed, where a knife wouldn't kill you? I highly doubt it's the most retarded thing you've ever heard, unless you really don't listen to yourself. You spew more retarded things in almost every post. We do equip the army with knives as well as guns. I'm not disputing the fact that a standing governement army isn't better against foreign powers. What I'm saying is that the constitution provides for a "well regulated militia" as a counter measure to a tyranical government using that standing army to repress the people. Kind like in the revolutionary war. Sure the british army would have defended us against the Native American attacks, but the british army doesn't help us when the british are oppressing us are they? Do you  honestly not see the good in a militia? I'm really getting sick of making the same points over and over again. You counter my points by giving your opinion, and it just doesn't hold up to facts or history. Not to mention the fact that I don't think you entirely understand what I'm telling you.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 10:45 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Dowter

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from StormCrow at 10:45 PM on May 27, 2003 :
actually that quote is entirely true. and I'm not entirely sure why you'd dispute it,

Because it's a hoax and it's not a good idea to use easily shot down arguments(no pun intended).  People have looked into it.  There's been no authenticated source of it.  Look at the links that I gave to you.


seeing as how you're quote is pretty much paraphrasing it.


So why not use the real quote if they're so close.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:08 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

because the authenticity of the quote isn't important, Hitler's veiw of gun control is the point I was making. I'd never heard your quote before so I'm quite obviously never gonna use it. We apparently  have pretty much the same view on gun control so why are you arguing with me? If you want to argue about what hitler did or didn't say, start your own thread about it. Stick to the topic.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 9:35 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Dowter

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from StormCrow at 9:35 PM on May 28, 2003 :
because the authenticity of the quote isn't important,


*blink* *blink*
Whaaat?


Hitler's veiw of gun control is the point I was making.

Yes, and your point is undermined by providing inaccurate information to support it.


I'd never heard your quote before so I'm quite obviously never gonna use it.

I have provided citations to the 1942 quote for its origin and authenticity in a previous post.  No one has ever provided origin information for the 1935 quote... so it's probably better to use the 1942 quote for the support of an argument.


We apparently  have pretty much the same view on gun control so why are you arguing with me?

I was trying to help a fellow Pro-2nd Amendment advocate better develop his arguments.  It's better to get the truth from me than to get humiliated in an argument with some anti-gun nut because he checked the facts and called you on using an inaccurate piece of information to support your position.

Yeah I know... an anti-gun nut that bothers to check facts. *lol* It's not likely to happen but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.


(Edited by Dowter 5/28/2003 at 10:07 PM).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:06 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It just has no sense how stupid citizen of the united states can be. As you can see, I didn't say "American" because you're not the only one on this continent or on this planet.

Just to reply to the guy that said that Adolph hitler was a moron. That guy must be crazy. The crime against the Jew is terrible but is as worst as your crazy government leader. They are killing peaple around the world for petroleum and economical interests and they say it's for freedom and peace. Germans were nationalits, you are patriotics. It means the same thing. That your mind is flexible enough to pay tax to finance a war in Palestin and Israel because Bush doesn't want to lose his (its) influence in this area ( rich in oil). So think twice before judging facts that you do!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:52 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow...I didn't know the US was killing people for oil...  learn something new on a gun-control forum everyday.  (LOL)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:31 PM on June 3, 2003 | IP
poo

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

i live in Germany and we dont have that much of a problem with firearms,though it is getting worse i must confess.
i dont see firearms as the root of the problem , its wot is in peoples' minds b4 they pull the trigger.but i personnaly dont need a firearm tbh , its a cowards way of dealin with problems.though im aware that violence will never vanish from society , people need money for drugs or they just like hurting others and a firearm is an easy way to achieve this.we will always b violent , it is in our human nature but we can overcome this through education etc
  i spent my teens in america(nyc s.c. and texas) and i found that its all ignorance that kills people and not the gun.america is a far out place , like a hollywood movie and im almost convinced most people there think they r livin in a movie.a load of john waynes runnin around killin indians etc. im glad i left for a more civalised europe.we think b4 we act here thank goodness

best regards
  poo

ps...i applaud any government who has the balls to stand up to the american government(france) and good ole germany.perhaps we germans r reluctant to wage war and use firearms because we have seen the bad side of violence through our own stupidity in the past, we have wisened because of this and lets hope at one point the americans will too

(Edited by poo 6/15/2003 at 6:34 PM).
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 6:33 PM on June 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

stormcrow this is caldave and I too am tired of arguing with you, I'm going to walk away after this because yes we are going over the same topics which is getting no one anywhere.  I understand what you are telling me I just don't happen to agree with it.  I think that having a millitia to protect yourself from a tyranical government worked 200 years ago but not now.   I also say that a knife is more dangerous than a gun, of course if you get stabbed or shot in the same place your dead.  But because a gun can reach you further away it has an increased capability and therefore is a more dangerous weapon.  
Of course my posts have been my opinions a debate should be about a clash of opinions not a clash of facts.  Facts can't clash they can only be manipulated and presented by people with opinions.  And I'm tired of you spouting facts that you picked up from the national review.  So peace, I'm out.  You can respond to this and have the parting shot I don't care, but I am done with this debate.
CalDave
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:00 PM on June 16, 2003 | IP
DHard3006

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Guest an American needs no reason to exercise a right.

As for your militia statement. There is no requirement to be in a militia to bear arms.

The 2nd amend is an individual right, not a collective right. Why is this? Simple the same words are used to describe it " the right of the people".

As for other countries attacking the rights of Americans. When the other countries reach the level of civilization as America, they may then try to fix America!


-------
A gun hater is a person that defends gun control laws.

There is no requirement to be in a militia to bear arms!
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:30 AM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quick lesson from history:  Why did Admiral Yokohama not want to invade the coast of the US?  Because he knew that not only would he face the American military, but every citizen with a gun, like me, who would shoot at his ass from behind every tree and rock, thereby making his problems much greater.  

No, I dont need to feel the weight of a Glock in my pocket to feel safe, a Makarov works fine.  It's lighter.  

*"Your bat against my gun.  We'll see who wins"  Sammy Gravano.*
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:14 PM on September 26, 2003 | IP
queerdan

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from StormCrow at 11:13 PM on April 24, 2003 :
let me say first that a country in which we would not need to defend ourselves would be excellent. Now let me say that is a stupid, idealistic view of the real world. I find more and more that Europe (in general) and Canada have a sickly deluded idea of what the real world is.


europe and canada also don't have people dieing because they don't have health insurance.

Daniel S. Wright



-------
Check out my homepage at http://www.angelfire.com/nj4/danwright/
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 1:49 PM on March 11, 2004 | IP
deadeye08

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, or poliuc more efficient, and the world will follow out lead into the future!"

                                 -Adolf Hitler,     1935



the fact that u live in Germany is irrelivant, i didnt mean that in a dirogitory way

unfortunately here in america, we have different ethnicities and cultures mixing and butting heads.... and althoughth guns do take part in the butting of the heads, so do baseball bats and knives...

i dont know if they have this in germany, but here...where i live there are perpitrators, and burgalars...but when the robber was robbing my father's store he took a hostage with his knife...if it wasnt for my fathers 357 magnum, and his marksmanship the hostage would have died...
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:59 PM on August 4, 2004 | IP
Bassman

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like I missed all the fun.  Darn.  Well, for all you anti-gun people out there...we now have more guns in America than ever before and since 1994 the crime rate has gone down. Yet, in the U.K.  since they have enacted much tougher gun laws thier violent crime rate hase gone up more than 200%.  The same is happening in Austraila.  And something you probably have not considered  New York city and Washington D.C. have the toughest gun laws in th U.S.   yet their  violent crime rate is among the highest in the country.
There is not a country in the world that has


-------
MX510
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 7:49 PM on August 20, 2004 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from kelvin90703 at 10:10 PM on April 11, 2003 :
Need?  I don't need to justify a need.  If I want one I get one.  



well said.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 12:47 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By all means, let's not require "necessity" or "justification".  Let's just do whatever we want.

"What was your justification for killing him?  Why did you feel you needed to do it?"

"Need?  Justification?  I just wanted to do it."

"Oh, ok.  Case dismissed."

Brilliant.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:36 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 08:36 AM on April 25, 2006 :
By all means, let's not require "necessity" or "justification".  Let's just do whatever we want.

"What was your justification for killing him?  Why did you feel you needed to do it?"

"Need?  Justification?  I just wanted to do it."

"Oh, ok.  Case dismissed."

Brilliant.


There is a difference between owning an inanimate object and killing someone without justification.

The law of this country requires a "need" and a "justification."  You can't go out and shoot people who are egging houses, it has to be necessary for your self defense otherwise it is called "MURDER."

You sir, are BRILLIANT.



 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:39 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My remarks were to the guy who said he didn't need to justify a need, he simply wanted.  I thought that was obvious.  My point is that we don't get to do whatever we want.  If justification is no longer necessary, we can do whatever we want.  Plain and simple.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:46 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:46 AM on April 25, 2006 :
My remarks were to the guy who said he didn't need to justify a need, he simply wanted.  I thought that was obvious.  My point is that we don't get to do whatever we want.  If justification is no longer necessary, we can do whatever we want.  Plain and simple.



That is BRILLIANT!!  

I agree that justification is necessary, only you have it backwards.  You need to have justification before you restrict the liberty of law abiding citizens.  Justifying your need to own a gun, or your need to freedom of speech, or your need for protection against unreasonable search and seizure is the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:51 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, you're saying that everyone needs to have justification except you?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:06 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:06 AM on April 25, 2006 :
So, you're saying that everyone needs to have justification except you?



Its a commonly excepted practice in every court in the country.  The plaintiff has the burden of proof, or the prosecution in a criminal case.  If you want to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens, you are the one who has to justify your case.  
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 5:59 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.