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
     OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICANS
       this topic is about the absurd and unconstitutional

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
constitution

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This paper is about the overly absurd gun control laws in America; this is a wide topic so I will address the basic “problem” and then I will address a few more specific points such as the CIFTA treaty and also how in most areas (and I mean small cities, Large cities, rural, and suburban), the gun homicide rate is actually surprisingly less than what most people claim.

First off the constitution was made by our founding fathers after the Revolutionary War to protect the people and thier rights from any government greed or corruption. The second amendment (the right to bear arms) is one of the most important because it gives the civilian population the means to protect itself, go hunting for food, but also revolt against the government if it tries to take too much power or if it is taking away our rights.

For instance, in Massachusetts you must have your firearm unloaded, locked up and disassembled or it must have a trigger lock: that law completely defeats the purpose of self-defense. We shouldn’t have gun control but we should have a good system in place to deal with those that abuse guns. Right now we live in a fear based society and so we say the government should control this and they should control that but you can't have a government of the people by the people for the people unless the “people” are willing to take responsibility for their actions. If you stop being responsible and you want the easy life and you say to the government, “I want you to deal with this” then that’s what they will do and then they will keep dealing with your problems and then they will tell you what to do. So gun control isn’t what’s needed, what’s needed is self-control. Here is a source that talks about how those strict gun control laws are also considered unconstitutional: http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?r  ecID=466970

Also consider this, if in the 1800s there were gun control laws like this the Revolutionary War wouldn’t have been able to happen and we would all be British.
Did you know 80% of all guns used in crimes committed in the U.S. are illegal? That means if you make strict laws all that is going to do is take guns away from the people who already abide by the law and it will make them defenseless, but the criminals will still have their guns because they get them illegally anyway. So gun control isn’t helping anything, it is arguably making things worse. Also, history has shown that when a government tries to take more power than it should it starts by disarming the masses and making it impossible to fight back like in the Revolutionary War. Also gun control laws infringe upon our second amendment rights, there shouldn’t have to be big discussions about what’s constitutional and what’s not, gun control shouldn’t exist.
This brings me to my next point the CIFTA treaty. CIFTA stands for Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials. THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROM A FORUM CALLED “Obama demands CIFTA in the Senate INTERNATIONAL GUN OWNER DATABASE +”

“Obama after promising to leave our guns alone has decided to ask the Senate to ratify a 12 year old Clinton treaty that was partly written by one Alcee Hastings who is one of 6 federal judges in US history to be IMPEACHED for taking bribes. This treaty known as CIFTA will create an INTERNATIONAL gun owner database and regulate things such as RELOADING AMMO. Obama is pushing this hard after a meeting with CALDERON regarding the Mexican Drug Wars.


Obama claims to have spent 10 years teaching Constitutional and regarding the 2nd Amendment he does not understand the meaning of the NON INFRINGMENT CLAUSE. As the President he swore to protect, defend and uphold the US Constitution as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. So now he wants every American gun owner and their inventory of guns and related gun stuff to be collected and available to the other 30 something countries that are adopting this treaty.


Foreign governments will have direct access to individual American Citizens' personal information. Hitler used the lists of legal gun owners in every country he invaded to have those persons rounded up and that is the exact sort of information all of these other nations would have. He wants us limited to 50 rounds of numbered ammo per shopping session. No reloading since that will defeat the serial #ed ammo policy”.
THIS LAST PARAGRAPH WAS ON A FORUM AND IT WAS COPIED AND PASTED FROM http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message788529/pg1
Now you maybe wondering about what I had said in the beginning about how the gun homicide rate is actually surprisingly less than what most people claim. Well, look at these statistics:
Homicide Type by Urbanicity, 1976-2005         Percent of all homicides
   
                      Large city    Small city    Suburban    Rural
All homicides 57.3% 11.5% 21.0% 10.2%
Victim/offender relationship    
 Intimate 40.7% 14.5% 28.0% 16.8%
 Family 38.7% 13.2% 29.1% 19.0%
 Infanticide 47.9% 15.0% 25.5% 11.6%
 Eldercide 46.9% 13.5% 24.2% 15.3%
Circumstance    
 Felony murder 61.0% 11.1% 20.3% 7.7%
 Sex related 48.4% 12.2% 27.2% 12.2%
 Drug related 67.4% 9.9% 18.1% 4.5%
 Gang related 69.3% 13.1% 16.9% 0.7%
 Argument 53.4% 12.7% 21.0% 12.9%
 Workplace 31.4% 13.4% 37.2% 17.9%
Weapon    
 Gun homicide 59.3% 10.6%   19.8%   10.4%
 Arson 54.8% 13.1% 21.7% 10.4%
 Poison 38.9% 15.7% 29.3% 16.0%
Multiple victims or offenders    
  Multiple victims 47.4% 11.9% 27.0% 13.7%
  Multiple offenders 61.7% 10.2% 19.1% 8.9%Found at
http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm
As you can see in all but large cities there are more people lighting each other on fire then there are shooting each other. So why not ban fire? Because it’s not about how people kill people, it's about the government disarming the masses, most likely for their own agenda, because if they really cared they would ban the use of fire NOT guns.
You have all heard the saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” well it's true. Before guns people killed each other and even if all guns are taken away people will still kill each other.
So are guns really the problem? I would say “No It's society”.


(Edited by constitution 5/28/2009 at 09:17 AM).

(Edited by constitution 5/28/2009 at 09:38 AM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 09:27 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
Mariel60

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the Constitution allows for an armed "militia"--- not for individuals to be stockpiling automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  
While I could understand a person wanting to own a hand-gun, or a rifle, or shot-gun - things like that, there is absolutely no excuse for citizens to arm themselves with better weapons than our police have!
"People can kill alot more people with guns than they can with any other weapon!"  The logic of the NRA is ridiculous.  Manufacturers should be made responsible for only supplying guns to people that are part of our military or law enforcement, and not selling machine guns at "gun fairs" etc.  It's ridiculous.  Children are afraid to walk to school in some areas of our country because they get killed in "drive bys".  I'm sorry.  Our founding fathers could never have anticipated the types of weapons we have now.  Why would any citizen need automatic or even semi-automatic weapons?  It's absurd.
The gun manufacturers and the NRA are part of the problem.  
Without so many guns on the street, perhaps our police officers could do their jobs.  Other countries, where citizens do not carry guns, seem to enjoy more peace than we do here.
You obviously haven't been to any funerals of young children shot to death as innocent bystanders.  


-------
Mariel
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 11:50 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
constitution

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no I have not been to the funerals of children that have been shot to death as bystanders and it is terrible to see children being killed like that BUT if you are getting your information from government statistics please be aware that people 25 and younger are considered children on those statistics to add more numbers to the stats. also be aware that in Switzerland  just about every one owns a gun and they have the lowest crime rate in the world. The reason is that every time someone goes to rob a bank they remember that every one else in line is also armed so they turn around and leave  
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:36 PM on May 27, 2009 | IP
constitution

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

also for the children that  accidentally kill them selves, there parents are responsible for educating them. for instance when i was younger my dad taught me that guns are tools not toys and to treat every gun as if it were loaded and to handle them carefully he also taught me how to check if the gun was loaded and also how to shoot a gun properly he also taught me general safety like point the barrel at the ground and don't shoot if someone is in front of the line of fire. Now i am safe around guns. i am living proof that education on guns work.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:46 PM on May 27, 2009 | IP
constitution

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh and he taught me to keep the safety on until I was ready to fire
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 09:03 AM on May 28, 2009 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have heard people argue in the past that if the teachers and/or fellow students of the gunmen involved in the various school/college shootings that have occurred in the US over the years had been armed themselves with guns, such situations wouldn't have occurred/wouldn't have been so bad.

I've heard this argument more than that which says that guns in the US should be limited in their availability so the gunmen themselves wouldn't have had such easy access to them in the first place.

I'm curious - does anyone actually believe that such events wouldn't occur/would be less serious if teachers/students could be armed themselves?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:04 AM on June 1, 2009 | IP
hopnpop

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gosh, where to start...
I'm curious - does anyone actually believe that such events wouldn't occur/would be less serious if teachers/students could be armed themselves?
---
Whole-heartedly.  In fact, it's my belief that the majority of the firearm-friendly community, particularly those like myself who carry firearms on a daily or at least regular basis, believe that.  Speaking for those of us who carry, we do so for reasons; one of the first reasons being to protect ourselves and innocent 3rd parties, a.k.a. bystanders, public.  For instance, if I were in a mall and some nimrod came in and opened fire; if I were to see a chance to end it, I would certainly do so.  A perfect case-in-point would be the gunman who walked into a church, began shooting people, and was shot and stopped by that security guard.  But what TV didn't make much mention of was that she wasn't working at the time, she was not acting as an armed security guard - she was acting as an armed civilian, just like the rest of us.  I don't know how one could think that having more armed "good guys" would NOT lessen the severity of some senseless shooting like VT or Columbine, the church, or the mall...  Which brings me to a different but related note: VT, Columbine, churches, and most malls - what do they have in common?  They are pistol-free zones.  These shootings have consistently been in places where it's unlawful to carry a gun, thus making it safe for the gunmen to do what they will, knowing that no one around them is armed to stop them.  And along with shrinking police forces goes, normally, slower response times.  It seems to me that pistol-free zones are problematic.
---
Actually, the Constitution allows for an armed "militia"--- not for individuals to be stockpiling automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  
While I could understand a person wanting to own a hand-gun, or a rifle, or shot-gun - things like that, there is absolutely no excuse for citizens to arm themselves with better weapons than our police have!
Our founding fathers could never have anticipated the types of weapons we have now.  Why would any citizen need automatic or even semi-automatic weapons?
---
FIRST OFF: if we've got better arms than the police, the police need better arms.  As far as interpreting what our founding fathers meant by the word "militia" - I would believe that they meant whatever weapons would be sufficient to hold one's ground against the opposition.  If the opposition has autos, you'd need autos to hold them off.  If they had written it to mean that you can be armed only with a 6-shooter, even if the other side has cannons...I think they would have worded it differently.  Considering the time it was written, I would think that they worded it that way to include the private ownership of CANNONS.  If the word "militia" is open to interpretation, interpretation must be allowed from both sides.  
As far as people owning even semi-automatic guns - we want weapons comparable to or better than the "bad guys".  Again, a 6-shooter doesn't do much if the other team has a Gatling gun.  There's no reason for police to have sufficient weapons to protect themselves from an attack and have me not be able to protect myself just as well.  I can't stress this enough - it's NOT the lawfully armed citizen you should be afraid of - it's the illegally armed thugs you should fear.  Lawfully armed citizens would like for those criminals to be off the streets just as badly as you.[color=red][/color][/i][i]

(Edited by hopnpop 6/5/2009 at 2:00 PM).


-------
If it has to come down to either him or me - I'll send flowers.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 11:13 AM on June 5, 2009 | IP
hopnpop

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from constitution at 12:46 PM on May 27, 2009 :
also for the children that  accidentally kill them selves, there parents are responsible for educating them.
---
Agreed - but not only educating them, but they are also responsible for keeping the firearms inaccessible.  I've got 3 kids at home and I also have at least 1 loaded firearm at the ready; easily and quickly accessible by me, inaccessible by my kids.  There are plenty of great security devices on the market today that enable you to keep a firearm at the ready without it being accessible by whomever.
But yes, ultimately it does come down to parents and parenting.  With gun ownership comes resposibilites; and I, as well as the vast majority of lawful gun owners, am all for responsible gun ownership.  

(Edited by hopnpop 6/5/2009 at 2:18 PM).


-------
If it has to come down to either him or me - I'll send flowers.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 2:17 PM on June 5, 2009 | IP
frank

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

most americans need a extension.
th ephallus symbol (either on their hip or in hand) shows their 'manlyness'.
what th eusa needs is a strung federal gun law.
it should include
-safe storage and handling training,
-licensing of buyer
-registration of firearm
-prohibition of short barreld (under 4 inches)
 handguns,
 14 inches for rifles & shotguns,

-prohibition of handguns in .25 and 32 calibre
-prohibition of assault rifles (buy, sale, posession?
-restriction on hunting rifles for caliber,
make, design,
(e.g. no pump or automatic shot guns for
  bird hunting, only civilian design semit auto
 rifles for hunting,
-magazine cap for handguns and rifles/shotguns (10 handgun, 3 shotgun, 5 rifle)
-tightening of permits for carreing.
-more lawenforcement on the streets,
-war on crime and criminals
-search and seasure for illegal guns
-tough laws for gun crimes.

 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 09:56 AM on July 13, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do find it terribly amusing when gun advocates cite Switzerland as an example of lots of Guns = safety.

Are they advocating a Swiss model then? Perhaps they would not use Switzerland if they were aware of the following:

-Switzerland has universal conscription, when everyone is trained to fire a weapon, use it and store it safely. Only when that lengthy government controlled training process is complete are they allowed to take their firearm home.

-Every firearm in Switzerland is registered with the government (So much for the NRA argument 'registration = confiscation'), and to own one you must have a government gun licence which must be renewed frequently.

-Purchasing a gun requires your government gun licence and proof that you have kept it up to date, and the newly purchased gun must instantly be registered.

-By law the gun must be stored in a locked case or room, WITH an additional trigger guard, and kept seperate from ammunition, which must also be locked up.

-Guns cannot be carried, openly or concealed, without being double locked, unless the owner has a special gun carrying permit issued only to security forces.

-Purchase of ammunition can only be done by those with a gun liscence and a firearm registered to support that particular kind of ammunition.


So in other words, full gun registration, compulsory firearms training and safety courses before you can get a gun licence, and incredible restrictions on purchase requiring an up-to-date government gun liscence. Actually, the Swiss model sounds good to me. I wonder how many Gun advocates would say so if they bothered to educate themselves on the reality of gun laws in Switzerland?

(Edited by Gaunt 7/14/2010 at 10:25 AM).


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 07:29 AM on July 14, 2010 | IP
frank

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gaunt,
many gunowner in the USA lack basic education, never mind them reading up on foreign issues (such as the Swiss model).
AS I wrote already in another post:
phallus symbol and extension!
YES to mendatory training and registraton!
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:15 AM on July 14, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.