[QUOTE="tylea002"][QUOTE="orionwolf"]Tylea's quote - "You can defend yourself in other ways, having a phone near to call the police, instead of a gun. Getting a security system, not going down back alleys in the night, that is still defending yourself, just by not killing someone, something which is MORALLY WRONG.
I dissagree with your last statement, you belive in america, I would feel MORE SAFE if everyone carried guns? You are misguided."
Carrying guns, and the right to own a gun are two very different things. The way that it stands right now, there are only a few states in the US that allow the lawful right to carry a weapon in public - Arizona being one of them. Most states won't allow it without a permit. These conditions aren't detrimental to our right to bear arms. They are placing a safety on the system. Sure, you can apply and mostlikely get a concealed weapons permit if you aren't a criminal or have a criminal background.
Banning weapons because of a few morons only leads to more idiotic laws and regulations. That is misguided and along with it, and you are too my friend.
Oh and don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER EVER said that everyone should carry guns. I said that each and every person (and I now amend that to LAW ABIDING CITIZEN) of the United States should have the right to bear arms and to defend him/herself against criminals and tyranny. Period. You argue against that, you assume, you make false claims?!
Yah, I'm the misguided one. Taking away the right to bear arms doesn't answer the problem, it adds more problems to the cause. Stupid people (and the US has plenty of those) should not be the lowest common denominator in solving one of the largest debated topics in US history.
Learn from that, my misguided child.
Wolf-
orionwolf
Well thanks for calling me stupid. Anyway, what problems could you possibly cause by taking away the right to bear arms, because most of the gun crime in the UK, is with people who get involved with gangs, gang wars, not people being shot in "self defence" when there are plenty of other options. Taking away guns does not make things perfect, but it does help.
You're welcome. You earned it - by assuming my viewpoint, being wrong about it, and calling me misguided. Learn from that.
It may help in some areas, statistically speaking, but it does more damage than it heals. Human rights are foundational and fundamental to the free world. Taking those away would be denying a fundamental right to the people - to protect who?
Scenario: two people have weapons. Person A is a criminal and has illegal weapons, person B is a law abiding citizen and has registered weapons. You would take away person B's weapons saying that it would make them safer? Taking away person B's weapon doesn't make the police's job of taking away the illegal weapon that person A has any easier.
If you have a flat in one tire, you change the tire, you don't make the rest of them flat and drive away.
Wolf-
If more people have weapons, more people will be scared, more people will use weapons, more people will buy weapons etc etc.
It is not a basic human right, its a right in the AMERICAN constitution, human rights are food, shelter and the right NOT TO FEEL THREATEND. And if more people had guns, no matter weather you had one or not, you would feel threatened.
[QUOTE="Squeets"] Well dude... you keep saying we should ban guns... it isn't that simple... it is one of our rights as americans... the government isn't like yours... it isn't a monarchy with a parliment and a queen... it is a government of the people... and for them to take that right away is unconstitutional based on our constitution... in our country the government can't just take away citizens rights... it is illegal for our officials to do that and to do that would mean they'd be impeached and the case taken up in supreme court to prove it is our right to own guns if we want to... it isn't the government's right to tell us what we can and can't own... we don't have a parliment that just says "no guns" and thats that...
Tamashii-sosaku
Britain has a monarchy but it has no rights to change British law. That has to be done by national referendum or ateleast be passed by the house of commons and then approved by the house of lordes. Britain has a monarchy but it's also a constitutional democracy. The royal family does not decide who become the Prime minister andwields little to absolutley no politcal or legal power.
The patriot act also violates the constitution along with various other activities recent goverment activities that violate one of the most sacred tennets in any democratic country. The rights defined by Habeas Corpus.
It would be very easy to ban guns in the U.S. if that's what the government wanted. The problem is the gun companies. Unfortunatley the way the U.S. democratic system is set up allows interest groups and lobbies to weild alot of power and influence over what the government can and can't do. Lobby groups have very marginal influence compared to the U.S. and not nearly as many gun manufacturors.
Americas government being one of the people. You voted george bush through a dogy florida vote, and it is possible to change the constitution, the only people that want guns are those that carry them, NOT the majority of americans I assure you. Just because its an old law, does not mean its right.
Log in to comment