The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Just Like You
I own a gun because my constitution allows me to own one. I shouldn't need any more reason than that.



I have no objection to you having a gun, but you should have a heck of a better reason to why you should have one than that. Does it not occur to you that the constitution may be wrong?

This is what I find odd about US political culture - every other country that has a constitution just treats it as a structure for the state and governance, and that can be amended if necessary. In the US, on the other hand, it's treated as some sort of infallible religious text.

As an example, I'm no fan of Obama, but the birther saga was ludicrous. And part of the reason for that was all the debate was on whether he did or didn't have a birth certificate. The idea that the clause that would make him inelible if he didn't have one should be ignored and abolished as wrong wasn't even discussed, despite him having been democratically elected.
Original post by anarchism101
I have no objection to you having a gun, but you should have a heck of a better reason to why you should have one than that.


Why? What is your reason for NOT owning one? Did you read through the link I posted?
Reply 182
Original post by anarchism101

This is what I find odd about US political culture - every other country that has a constitution just treats it as a structure for the state and governance, and that can be amended if necessary. In the US, on the other hand, it's treated as some sort of infallible religious text.


That first bit is completely false. All nations with codified constitutions have them to enshrine in higher law the relationship between the citizens and the state. Read some constitutions, it's something worth understanding. I point you to Germany, Israel and France for now.

Regarding that second point, there have been no less than 27 amendments to the US constitution - it changes when change is necessary - the 3/5ths doctrine, for example.

I suggest you read up a little before using false generalisations to bash the US constitution.
I'm not much for debate, because I believe we should all just get along or let each other go on and do whatever they like, and all that hippy-dippy stuff. But the difference in opinions sure is fascinating!
Original post by Gales
What? My mother works full-time and if we had to pay for healthcare, we definitely wouldn't be able to afford it. It's not about being too lazy to work or not.


You would be able to afford it because your paying out your ass in taxes for the NHS. In the US you would keep that money and use it for paying for health insurance. It's the same ****
Original post by Just Like You
Why? What is your reason for NOT owning one? Did you read through the link I posted?


Well, apart from that there's isn't an absolute right to have one in the UK, I don't want one. If nothing else, I see it as a waste of money.
Reply 186
Original post by anarchism101
Well, apart from that there's isn't an absolute right to have one in the UK, I don't want one. If nothing else, I see it as a waste of money.


It makes everyone more polite you see. If there's a threat that that guy you were an ******* to will get out a gun and shoot you, you're not gonna be such an ******* any more. That is the real reason behind the second amendment. :wink:
Original post by barratt15
That first bit is completely false. All nations with codified constitutions have them to enshrine in higher law the relationship between the citizens and the state. Read some constitutions, it's something worth understanding. I point you to Germany, Israel and France for now.


Israel doesn't have a constitution, Germany's post-WW2 constitution is substantially different from it's Weimar one and France rewrote their constitution from scratch in 1958.

Regarding that second point, there have been no less than 27 amendments to the US constitution - it changes when change is necessary - the 3/5ths doctrine, for example.


The first 10 of those 27 are the Bill of Rights, the 18th and 21st cancel each other out, the 25th already happened, and the 22nd was supposed to already happen.

Amendments aren't so much about changing with the times (unless you look at it from the cynical point of view that the constitution is merely an instrument of the wealthy to use the state - which personally I would, but I'll ignore it here), more about rectifying things which were never right to begin with.
Original post by barratt15
Well it isn't what you said earlier. Like me to remind you?

"the amount of racism and homophobia is enough to make me sick."
Well, that sounds like you're talking about Americans rather than America - a country can't be 'racist and homophobic', the people are. Surely you agree?

"people like dykwia come from there"
Sounds like you're talking about Americans to me.


"oh that and the annoying over patriotism, the constant banging on about the constitution, and the fact they seem to think they are the saviours of the world or something from the evil commies."
Yep, sounds like, yet again, you're talking about people.

You are anti-American because you don't like the PEOPLE. Admit it, come out of the closet. Maybe some narrow-minded bigots on TSR will respect you for it - 17 of them have already liked your original, appallingly written, tirade.


so im now being criticised for disliking homophobic and racist americans, and people like dykwia (who is an example of a racist homophobic american), thats perfectly reasonable im not going i hate all americans they need to burn am i?

and its also fine for me to find the usa usa usa our constution is perfect rar rar rar americans and the "we saved your ass in ww2" kind, because that is for a reason

also, appallingly written i really could not care less about your opinion, this is a forum, ill save my proper writing for my work thanks
Reply 189
Original post by alex5455
so im now being criticised for disliking homophobic and racist americans, and people like dykwia (who is an example of a racist homophobic american), thats perfectly reasonable im not going i hate all americans they need to burn am i?

and its also fine for me to find the usa usa usa our constution is perfect rar rar rar americans and the "we saved your ass in ww2" kind, because that is for a reason

also, appallingly written i really could not care less about your opinion, this is a forum, ill save my proper writing for my work thanks


I have to be honest and say I've never seen DYKWIA being racist.
Original post by Gales
I have to be honest and say I've never seen DYKWIA being racist.


he took to private messaging me a few weeks ago, came out with some stuff then, then got himself banned, hes never actually been racist in a public thread before though
Reply 191
Original post by anarchism101
Israel doesn't have a constitution


Yes it does, it's an uncodified one. There are two types of constitution, the most basic of errors is to assume that because it doesn't exist in a single document it doesn't exist at all.

Original post by anarchism101
Germany's post-WW2 constitution is substantially different from it's Weimar one and France rewrote their constitution from scratch in 1958.


Those are both true. So what? Constitutions can be rewritten - they remain higher law.

Original post by anarchism101
The first 10 of those 27 are the Bill of Rights, the 18th and 21st cancel each other out, the 25th already happened, and the 22nd was supposed to already happen.


Thus demonstrating the flexibility and balance of the US constitution.

Original post by anarchism101
Amendments aren't so much about changing with the times (unless you look at it from the cynical point of view that the constitution is merely an instrument of the wealthy to use the state - which personally I would, but I'll ignore it here), more about rectifying things which were never right to begin with.


Fair point. But what is 'right' is always subjective - I believe in equality of opportunity and a welfare state, no doubt you believe that equality should be of outcome and the state is inherently bourgeois. We're both wrong, both right. It doesn't matter. Somebody has to codify a set of rules in a higher law even though some will disagree.
Reply 192
Original post by alex5455
so im now being criticised for disliking homophobic and racist americans, and people like dykwia (who is an example of a racist homophobic american), thats perfectly reasonable im not going i hate all americans they need to burn am i?

and its also fine for me to find the usa usa usa our constution is perfect rar rar rar americans and the "we saved your ass in ww2" kind, because that is for a reason

also, appallingly written i really could not care less about your opinion, this is a forum, ill save my proper writing for my work thanks


No no, I am enjoying the intellectual challenge that is deciphering your sentence structure and literary style.
Reply 193
Original post by alex5455
he took to private messaging me a few weeks ago, came out with some stuff then, then got himself banned, hes never actually been racist in a public thread before though


Umm, really - I don't think I've ever been racist, and I wasn't banned for racism. I wouldn't consider myself homophobic either, but clearly some folk do.

You on the other hand are nothing but an anti-american *******.
Original post by Just Like You
I own a gun because my constitution allows me to own one. I shouldn't need any more reason than that.

The basic text in the constitution is this:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For the purpose of this debate, I own a gun for protection against crime, for target shooting, for hunting, for whatever reason I want. Did you know that your own original English Bill of Rights allowed for gun ownership? Have you ever had the pleasure of taking a rifle to a shooting range to practice target shooting? Have you ever even had the pleasure of shooting a gun in the first place? Let me guess... "No! Because guns are dangerous!". No. Wrong. People are dangerous. Licensed gun owners are among the SAFEST people in the country. I'm sure you have thugs over there that buy guns illegally and use them for purpose of crime, but those people don't count, because they're breaking the law, and you can't stop that anywhere.

I was going to waste my time listing out all sorts of facts and figures, but you'll most likely ignore them or find a reason why I'm wrong. I'll just post this link and hope you take something from it. I'm sure you'll find a reason not to: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

-Brittany

I completely disagree. You need a reason to own a gun, no question. If you like to go to a shooting range, like to hunt or have a high risk career(security related) then fair enough, it's justified. BUT once you take it out of those circumstances to protect yourself personally against crime it will only lead to an arms race of firepower and increased violence related death. He has a knife, you get a revolver, he gets a semi-automatic pistol or an uzi of some kind. You get a gun because you're too lazy to learn how to defend yourself in other ways. Killing or seriously and probably permanently harming someone is not the solution.

It sounds like that was to protect the fledgling USA from invasion which is no longer a risk. Hence an invalid argument.

Wrong. Guns AND people are dangerous. That is why they need tight regulation. There are nowhere near as many illegally owned guns here as in the US. As mentioned if you had better regulations it'd be harder for people to get guns illegally and you'd have a safer society but it's too late for that.

Lmao, of what I read, that link is a massive fail on your part really - I read quite a bit but it was humungous. It just goes to prove the US is a lot more violent than the UK. Well done(!) Generally it's a bad site; I'm a mathematician and I can see big flaws in the comparisons made there. It just goes to show that just because there are people who are law abiding that doesn't mean everyone is, simple as. It also doesn't allow for specific data for each crime.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by barratt15
Yes it does, it's an uncodified one. There are two types of constitution, the most basic of errors is to assume that because it doesn't exist in a single document it doesn't exist at all.


Sorry, meant to say they didn't have a codified one.

Those are both true. So what? Constitutions can be rewritten - they remain higher law.


The point is that they are not treated by some as quasi-religious as can be the case in the US - can you imagine it being proposed that the US constitution simply be rewritten from scratch? In most countries, that would be a serious proposal in some situations if not at a normal time - can you imagine it ever happening in the US?

I can see you're not the kind of person I was complaining about, to be fair to you.
Original post by Tara Gonzalez
It is the land of the free, paid for in the blood of our patriots.It is a democracy where people are allowed to fail if that is their fate, or succeed if that is their fortune, But that does not mean we are our brothers keeper. The european health care is a failure. You should get educated, and get a job or start a business. Freedom is not free, we paid for it.


Damn they washed your brain pretty good, wiped off the cells completely!
Reply 197
Original post by alexs2602
I completely disagree. You need a reason to own a gun, no question. If you like to go to a shooting range, like to hunt or have a high risk career(security related) then fair enough, it's justified. BUT once you take it out of those circumstances to protect yourself personally against crime it will only lead to an arms race of firepower and increased violence related death. He has a knife, you get a revolver, he gets a semi-automatic pistol or an uzi of some kind. You get a gun because you're too lazy to learn how to defend yourself in other ways. Killing or seriously and probably permanently harming someone is not the solution.

It sounds like that was to protect the fledgling USA from invasion which is no longer a risk. Hence an invalid argument.

Wrong. Guns AND people are dangerous. That is why they need tight regulation. There are nowhere near as many illegally owned guns here as in the US. As mentioned if you had better regulations it'd be harder for people to get guns illegally and you'd have a safer society but it's too late for that.

Lmao, of what I read of that link is a massive fail on your part really - I read quite a bit but it was humungous. It just goes to prove the US is a lot more violent than the UK. Well done(!) Generally it's a bad site; I'm a mathematician and I can see big flaws in the comparisons made there. It just goes to show that just because there are people who are law abiding that doesn't mean everyone is, simple as. It also doesn't allow for specific data for each crime.


I think making guns illegal in the USA would be disastrous now. Maybe guns do increase crime rates, but the fact remains that 1. There are too many guns in the country 2. We are bordered with Mexico, so it'd be hard to stop guns coming north through the mexican border. Also, if criminals can't use guns, then they'd just switch to knives.
Reply 198
Original post by anarchism101

I can see you're not the kind of person I was complaining about, to be fair to you.


Well I'm not an American, and you make some valid points. Certainly much more reasonable than some of the other anti-American hatred that this thread has produced!
Original post by DYKWIA
I think making guns illegal in the USA would be disastrous now. Maybe guns do increase crime rates, but the fact remains that 1. There are too many guns in the country 2. We are bordered with Mexico, so it'd be hard to stop guns coming north through the mexican border. Also, if criminals can't use guns, then they'd just switch to knives.


This is true. And knives are pretty much just as bad; my karate club had a knife 'defence' seminar last year and the general advice was RUN.

Latest

Trending

Trending