Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The 2nd Amendment was about the citizen being on technically equal terms to any military or social threat, it doesn't specify muskets or hunting rifles, or semiauto pistols, it's about arms that give the regular person clout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 When the constitution was written giving the right to bear arms, what kind of arms were available? Muskets which were taller than you so concealment was a problem, at best 4 shots in a minute with only a 50/50 chance of hitting anything over 20 yards away, or if you were well off a set of single shot dueling pistols, no 4000 round a minute assault rifles designed to take out an infantry platoon, no uzis that could fit in a lunch box, no automatic handguns that hold 20 shots in the clip. The weaponry and the world have changed since it was written, and BTW, the British are NOT coming back, that is one of the prime reasons for that amendment, the notion that MORE guns makes things safer is ludicrous. By your reasoning, the US with 10 times Canada's population should have less than 10X the death rate from firearms, but instead it is 100X MORE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 So when can we expect the equally cloutful U.S. militia Airforce and Navy to keep the U.S military and other threats in check? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 So by that measure because you suggest the right to bear arms in the US is archaic so too must be the first amendment because freedom of speech, religion, and assembly were almost non-existent when "the constitution was written". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the 18th century argument is terrible. So let me get this straight, I point out the obvious that Americans aren't that opposed to reasonable limits to the right to bear arms (gun bans in entirety obviously don't work either, given how many shootings there were in SF with said gun ban in place), read: assault rifle bans, and you reiterate the same thing I do, with some nice fancy images of hyperbole, then tell me I'm living in fantasy land while agreeing with me? I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Agreed, Americans don't need/want the ability to carry around rpg's or 50 cal machine guns, but pistols and huting rifles should be available for people to defend themselves with and to go hunting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 So let me get this straight, I point out the obvious that Americans aren't that opposed to reasonable limits to the right to bear arms (gun bans in entirety obviously don't work either, given how many shootings there were in SF with said gun ban in place), read: assault rifle bans, and you reiterate the same thing I do, with some nice fancy images of hyperbole, then tell me I'm living in fantasy land while agreeing with me? I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 People think that they can defend themselves with a gun, but the odds are that they're going to shoot themselves or one of their family members with that gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 One would't need to be need to be proportionately powerful in every aspect, especially when the U.S. military has shown itself time and time again to be largely ineffective against assymetric, insurgent and internal threats using mostly portable handheld weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 People think that they can defend themselves with a gun, but the odds are that they're going to shoot themselves or one of their family members with that gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Interesting view, guns shoot where you point, so just point it at the burglar in your house and tell him to leave. Its the threat of getting shot that will deter most people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Interesting view, guns shoot where you point, so just point it at the burglar in your house and tell him to leave. Its the threat of getting shot that will deter most people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Again, you seemed to have responded to me whilst residing in your aforementioned fantasy world where you think I was replying to because of some disagreement I was having with you about U.S. citizens NOT wanting restrictions, when in fact I didn't reply with that in mind at all. I replied because YOU clearly didn't seem to want "reasonable limits to the right to bear arms", as I quoted you saying which you justified by saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 http://ajph.aphapubl...JPH.2008.143099 On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a surefire defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I agree its not a sure fire way, but if you buy a gun, and go to a range often enough to be competent with it, I feel it would be a solid deterrence to a home invasion. Most people though would just buy it and think they are safe, I'll agree with you on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Agreed, Americans don't need/want the ability to carry around rpg's or 50 cal machine guns, but pistols and huting rifles should be available for people to defend themselves with and to go hunting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 And for them to accidently shoot people and for other people to grab their guns and shoot them or other people.... What I hear a lot is not "I need a gun for a particular purpose" but "it's my right to carry one so I will". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I'm surprised you bothered responding to the straw man of "sure fire defence". No idea what person would think that simply buying a gun and not learning how to use it would qualify as a deterrent or even be in any logical sense.. useful. Nonetheless, I'm sure there are some stupid people with this line of thinking around, but I doubt it's any amount of population to be overly concerned about since it's their own livelihood they would be failing to protect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 And for them to accidently shoot people and for other people to grab their guns and shoot them or other people.... What I hear a lot is not "I need a gun for a particular purpose" but "it's my right to carry one so I will". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 That was a direct quote from a peer-reviewed paper written by some 'stupid' PhDs. If you bothered to click the link that I provided: http://ajph.aphapubl...JPH.2008.143099 You should read the entire paper, don't worry it's only a couple pages long. Although you probably won't like reading it, as it validates what I think and not what you think, and that will make you angry and defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Oh no, a PHD wrote a peer-reviewed paper, should I find one that suggests that a house with knives in it has a higher likelihood of some type of stabbing than one that doesn't? Glad to see your definition of angry and defensive is just as hyperbolised as your hysteria and troll attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.