Second Amendment

[LT Sandpaw]

I wouldn't trust my own brother with a gun. I don't want to be around guns that aren't ornamental. I don't want to own a gun, I don't want to be around people who own guns. Their only function is to kill. That's the point of them. The same way I don't want to hang around people who carry knives. They're weapons, they belong on a wall or in the hands of the military and nowhere else.

I'm not against people owning weapons, I just don't want them to carry them around me.

Well, you can't argue against an opinion, especially one that's rooted in the belief that weapons = killing = bad. Except that's all that is, an opinion. Though I do find your objection to knives rather foolish. Kitchen knives, and flip knives have a massive variety of uses, and they aren't solely designed to kill, in fact most knives aren't even designed as weapons but as useful, and sometimes necessary tools. But that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that you, (I'm assuming anyway), are perfectly okay with people keeping butter knives, bread knives, even ornamental knives, but if your carrying a knife you consider that bad?

Anyway.

On the flipside we have guns, whose purpose is to put a deadly projectile downrange. They are made to kill. That's their purpose as a weapon. Your statement, as it can hardly be called an argument, is kind of like saying you dislike hammers because they are made to bang on nails and only trained, government workers should use them. Its your opinion sure, but hardly an amazing argument, and if your hypothetical goal was to remove hammers from the hands of citizens, and make sure only governmentally trained professionals use them it wouldn't convince very many people.

Which brings us in a full circle. Guns are weapons, true, weapons are made to kill, true, but that doesn't make them fundamentally bad. What makes a weapon bad is who uses it. Which is probably why you are okay with soldiers carrying weapons. But even if they are in the hands of say, "Your brother," does that make the weapon bad? No. Just like the swastika isn't fundamentally something bad, its just a picture on a red flag. But it becomes a mark of evil when Nazi's carry it.

The argument shouldn't be about whether you or anyone is comfortable around guns or not, but whether its necessary, and practical for civilians to carry them. Comfort and feelings have very little to do with it. Luckily you live in a pseudo free nation, so you don't have to worry about it.

Personally I think there is enough evidence, and base practicality to prove without a doubt that law abiding citizens should carry any weapon they deem necessary to provide domestic defense and assurance against possible tyranny and threat of attack. Which is why I support the continuation of the second amendment, and the abolishment of foolish restrictions.
Its a right that needs to be exercised, and its a right that American's boasts of almost independently.

......

What I'm saying is that a few police officers who used their weapons to hurt or kill an innocent shouldn't affect how we treat the rest.

A few?! Sage, police killings and beatings have been going up steadily, many more than have been reported on the news I'm sure. Giving the police even more leeway isn't the answer.

This is untrue, and has been proved false on multiple occasions. As for giving police more leeway, well that's an argument that should be developed state by state, as their individual governments have a better understanding of what each state needs. Besides that doesn't really have anything to do with the second amendment.

[Jetthebinturong]

I wouldn't trust my own brother with a gun. I don't want to be around guns that aren't ornamental. I don't want to own a gun, I don't want to be around people who own guns. Their only function is to kill. That's the point of them. The same way I don't want to hang around people who carry knives. They're weapons, they belong on a wall or in the hands of the military and nowhere else.

I'm not against people owning weapons, I just don't want them to carry them around me.

Well, you can't argue against an opinion, especially one that's rooted in the belief that weapons = killing = bad. Except that's all that is, an opinion. Though I do find your objection to knives rather foolish. Kitchen knives, and flip knives have a massive variety of uses, and they aren't solely designed to kill, in fact most knives aren't even designed as weapons but as useful, and sometimes necessary tools. But that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that you, (I'm assuming anyway), are perfectly okay with people keeping butter knives, bread knives, even ornamental knives, but if your carrying a knife you consider that bad? Depends what kind of knife, but essentially, yes. There's no practical purpose to carrying around a hunting knife or a switchblade, for example.

Anyway.

On the flipside we have guns, whose purpose is to put a deadly projectile downrange. They are made to kill. That's their purpose as a weapon. Your statement, as it can hardly be called an argument, is kind of like saying you dislike hammers because they are made to bang on nails and only trained, government workers should use them. Its your opinion sure, but hardly an amazing argument, and if your hypothetical goal was to remove hammers from the hands of citizens, and make sure only governmentally trained professionals use them it wouldn't convince very many people. Except no one is trying to get guns banned outright. That's what "second amendment defenders" just don't get. We're not trying to take away your guns unless you fail to pass some very reasonable background checks. That's all. I'm not against people owning guns, but having no gun control at all is just ridiculous.

Which brings us in a full circle. Guns are weapons, true, weapons are made to kill, true, but that doesn't make them fundamentally bad. What makes a weapon bad is who uses it. Which is probably why you are okay with soldiers carrying weapons. But even if they are in the hands of say, "Your brother," does that make the weapon bad? No. Just like the swastika isn't fundamentally something bad, its just a picture on a red flag. But it becomes a mark of evil when Nazi's carry it. About the Swastika, correct, in fact it used to be a symbol of peace before Hitler decided to appropriate it - it is, in fact, fundamentally good. However an object designed to kill is fundamentally bad. Doesn't mean it can't be used by good people for good reasons, but it is an object created to do wrong. A picture is just a picture. A gun is something which is fundamentally for evil acts.

The argument shouldn't be about whether you or anyone is comfortable around guns or not, but whether its necessary, and practical for civilians to carry them. Comfort and feelings have very little to do with it. Luckily you live in a pseudo free nation, so you don't have to worry about it.

Personally I think there is enough evidence, and base practicality to prove without a doubt that law abiding citizens should carry any weapon they deem necessary to provide domestic defense and assurance against possible tyranny and threat of attack. Which is why I support the continuation of the second amendment, and the abolishment of foolish restrictions.
Its a right that needs to be exercised, and its a right that American's boasts of almost independently.

To close reiterate: No one wants to ban guns. It's not even illegal to own one here in the UK, providing you have a license. But in America, your gun control is incredibly lax. Almost every shooting carried out on American soil in the past - let's say decade - has been by someone who has purchased a gun completely legally. And if you're willing to shoot someone for no reason, there's clearly something wrong with your mental state - something which should prevent you from being able to own a gun.

[LT Sandpaw]

I don't want to quote that whole thing, so I'll address each statement in turn.

1: There are practical purposes of carrying around such knives. Cutting wires, removing splinters, slicing cardboard, and many more. The practicality only stops when your imagination stops. But whatever, your opinion, your opinion.

2: Except there are people trying to get guns banned outright. Saying otherwise is like saying there aren't racist people in the world. Its simply not true. (On a side note the Supreme Court agreed, that it would only make sense to abolish all of the Second Amendment, and that banning only some guns would be unconstitutional. Its either amend the amendment, or leave it as is.) And its also not true that there is no gun control or background checks. To purchase an automatic weapon of any kind requires a strict federal background check. Most legal dealers require you to fill out information, and sometimes they even preform background checks before they sell weapons. And I'm not against background checks, very few people are. I'm against foolish bans of certain weapon types, and ridiculous restrictions. I think as its our constitutional right, these bans shouldn't be allowed.

3: No, that's not true. There is nothing in swords, spears, or any other weapon, of any kind that's fundamentally bad. They are designed to kill, sure, but that doesn't make them evil. There is nothing demonic or magical about a gun or sword or any other weapon that makes it bad. That's opinionated nonsense.

4: This is where I just don't understand pro- gun control arguments, because the US already has some 2000 laws regarding guns, and particular restrictions.
Now first off I think that if someone is mentally unstable, they shouldn't own a firearm. Easy decision.

But you also made the claim that most would-be criminals usually get their guns legally. Okay just so you know, this isn't true, this argument is inflated by the fact that the number one gun related death in the US is suicide, and suicide is usually done with a legally obtained weapon. Second, those who want to kill others, and do get their guns legally aren't criminals yet. Buying a gun with the intent to kill isn't a criminal act, until the deed is done.
Besides its not so cut and dry to pick out someone who wants to kill people. They don't go around with a tag over their heads saying, "I'm here to commit murder." Unless they are really, really stupid, in which case they get caught.

So to reiterate, there are people to want to ban all guns, most amendment defenders do agree with the "idea" of background checks, even if they don't think they'd work. And no, an object designed to kill isn't fundamentally bad. That's your opinion, not actual fact.

[Jetthebinturong]

If we accept that killing is bad, then we must also accept that something designed to kill is bad. That doesn't mean that using them is always bad, just that they were created for evil purposes. The first person to invent a gun obviously didn't go "oh this is going to be great for helping old ladies into carriages" he thought "this will give me an edge over my enemies."

The second amendment was drafted in a time when guns were single-shot only, and therefore much less dangerous. Laws must evolve with the times; allowing someone to buy an assault rifle is a recipe for disaster. You can't even buy a Kinder egg in America, but assault rifles? Nope they're perfectly fine. It's like drinking laws. You can join the army with parental consent at sixteen, smoke and drive at eighteen, but you can't buy alcohol (which is much less dangerous than all of those things) until you're twenty-one? Ridiculous.

Pulse Nightclub shooter - acquired his gun legally.
The most recent school shooter I've heard of also acquired his gun legally.
That guy who shot up that black church too.

And anyway, should suicides not also be prevented? You're not going to commit suicide without some serious mental issues - issues that, again, should prevent you from being able to buy a gun.

If someone has a mental illness that has even a one percent chance of turning them suicidal or violent, they should not be able to own guns.

And I know that there are already gun control laws in effect, it's just that they are rarely properly practiced or enforced.

[LT Sandpaw]

So? You're arguing something absolutely asinine Jet. And whether you think weapons are inherently bad or not is your own position, and has nothing to do with gun control.



Yeah, you know back in the good old days when guns only shot one bullet, those real smart guys decided the right to bear arms was a human right, and had no idea that guns may never get any better then that.

Seriously? You realize that there were guns that could shoot up to twenty times relatively swiftly without reloading, and the founding fathers knew about them, and tried to purchase some for the Continental Militia? You realize that the writers of the constitution were aware of cannons, and agreed that they could be used by civilians to defend their ships from pirates? You really think that they were so blind, as to not realize that men are constantly trying to find better ways to kill each other? Were you aware George Washington himself fought against several rebellions, who were armed thanks to the Second Amendment?

No, they realized all of this, but they defined it as a human right anyway. Because they realized that as a human right it isn't up the government to regulate or control this, but up to the individual. Kinder eggs, cars, heath insurance aren't human rights. Owning a weapon is. But here you are arguing against all guns, I thought you were just for reasonable background checks?

As for these last points, Jet, you mentioned three cases, and a wish to stop suicide, as I already said, you don't become a criminal for buying a gun, you become a criminal, for using it irresponsibly. Laws don't stop criminals, laws exist to deter law abiding citizens from doing something that is considered wrong. Buying a gun isn't wrong.

And I know that there are already gun control laws in effect, it's just that they are rarely properly practiced or enforced.

Are you serious dude? Are you seriously saying that? Not only is it false, but it completely counteracts your argument, for more gun laws!
A more legitimate statement on your part would be more to the order of: "Gun control laws exist, but are inadequate for what I think is reasonable restriction of firearms."

This is a debatable phrase, which I can understand and perhaps even agree with, if you could provide examples and evidence to back this case up. Whatever you said is just, bad.

[Jetthebinturong]

What we can conclude from these last few posts is that I can't debate well when I'm tired and sick. Plus I've made so many spelling mistakes today my backspace got stuck. I even missed one. I can't even remember what that "close" in my first post was supposed to be about.

And since you won't change my position and I won't change yours, it's pointless to continue.

[LT Sandpaw]

I disagree -Oddly enough- I think it is imperative that these kind of debates continue, it is important to hear the ideas and arguments from the other side. Often you can concrete your own beliefs or be forced to reconsider or rationalize what you believe in. It helps provide material for future arguers, even if it doesn't sway someone initially.

Also it helps build wit and argument ability. But whatever, I cant force you to debate me.

You got destroyed bro!

[Eulaliaaa!]

I go to school for one day and look what happens...

I agree completely with Sand. It is our right to own guns. We fought for that freedom long ago and no one should be able to take that away. The fact that anyone would try and take away our ability to own guns is infuriating.

[The Skarzs]

An argument can never be won.

"A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still."

[Søren]

I carry a pocket knife because sometimes I need it at work, to screw in a screw quickly when I don't have a screwdriver, to pry things apart, or even when taking lunch and I want to cut my sandwich in half.

Do you wash it in between the screwing and the sandwich cutting?

[Groddil]

1: There are practical purposes of carrying around such knives. Cutting wires, removing splinters, slicing cardboard, and many more. The practicality only stops when your imagination stops. But whatever, your opinion, your opinion.

Not really. Switchblades are concealed weapons with no practical purposes that something like a multitool can't accomplish. Hunting knives should only really come in handy if... well... you're hunting.

2: Except there are people trying to get guns banned outright. Saying otherwise is like saying there aren't racist people in the world. Its simply not true. (On a side note the Supreme Court agreed, that it would only make sense to abolish all of the Second Amendment, and that banning only some guns would be unconstitutional. Its either amend the amendment, or leave it as is.) I'm against foolish bans of certain weapon types, and ridiculous restrictions. I think as its our constitutional right, these bans shouldn't be allowed.

Y'see, the problem with this statement is that there's a big difference between, say, your uncle's old .22 and an AK-47. The entire reason fully automatic rifles and suchlike are banned in Australia, compared to semi-automatics which require a license, is because of how much greater the destructive capability is. Automatic guns are typically more powerful, and can fire faster (obviously). In other words, if somebody with the intent to commit mass murder is going to get their hands on a firearm, its better that they aren't getting ahold of an assault rifle, or something along those lines.

[Ashleg]

Just out of curiosity, Ash, why wouldn't you feel safe? You really think your teachers would shoot you?

What Jet said.

[Wylder Treejumper]

Actually, automatic weapons are mostly banned, except for a few, very outdated weapons. In fact, the clamor is over semi-automatic weapons, such as the AR-15. I can find of no shooting in the U.S. using automatic weapons in the past 10 years.

Furthermore, while more or stricter background checks could help, only about 30% of former shooters would have been disqualified by them, with 11% (of all shooters) by mental disability (the rest by convicted felony etc.). Complicating the problem, 70% of all mass shootings are domestic violence incidents and don't take place in public places at all, but in homes.

In short, I disagree with banning weapons, and stricter licensing can only do so much, so I'd love for people to stop proclaiming it as a compromise panacea. What we need is something different, but what it is I can't figure out yet.

And I really do disagree with that idea about knives. I've found innumerable uses for knives of all sizes and shapes.

(Useful resources: Detailed Analysis and Infographic)