Scroll to see replies
Guns are easily obtainable in the United States. There is almost certainly a higher incidence of violent crime as a result of this availability. The fact that there are more guns increases, not decreases these incidences. Common sense, observation, and an understanding of human nature allow me to speculate (quite accurately) that more guns lead to more violence. This is the argument that most people use for gun control, and it misses the point.
I often hear that the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is obsolete. That the writers didn't foresee assault riffles. That what the gun situation within the United States has evolved into, was not their intentions. Well, what were their intentions?
The Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution in 1791 in the wake of the American revolution. During the build up to the revolution it was British policy to disarm the american colonists by any means, as early as 1768. It's main influence, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided the right to bear arms in response to James II's attempt to disarm the protestants. The second amendment states;
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is not about protecting their family from robbers. It's not about reducing violent crime. It's about being able to threaten a potentially oppressive government with revolution. It's about being able to organize for a revolution if necessary, without the said government being able to legally squash such attempts. The people can form an army and arm that army, and the government legally can do nothing until that army acts. Under those circumstances a government is forced to appease the will of the people it governs. The first step of a government which desired to do otherwise, would have to be to seriously consider disarming its' people.
So when asking if what the U.S. Constitution writers intended are assault riffles. You have to first ask if assault riffles would be needed to threaten the government with revolution. Considering the number of governments/dictators throughout history which have eventually oppressed it's people, perhaps an increased occurrence of violent crime is worth it. At least that's what it's writers intended.
I often hear that the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is obsolete. That the writers didn't foresee assault riffles. That what the gun situation within the United States has evolved into, was not their intentions. Well, what were their intentions?
The Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution in 1791 in the wake of the American revolution. During the build up to the revolution it was British policy to disarm the american colonists by any means, as early as 1768. It's main influence, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided the right to bear arms in response to James II's attempt to disarm the protestants. The second amendment states;
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is not about protecting their family from robbers. It's not about reducing violent crime. It's about being able to threaten a potentially oppressive government with revolution. It's about being able to organize for a revolution if necessary, without the said government being able to legally squash such attempts. The people can form an army and arm that army, and the government legally can do nothing until that army acts. Under those circumstances a government is forced to appease the will of the people it governs. The first step of a government which desired to do otherwise, would have to be to seriously consider disarming its' people.
So when asking if what the U.S. Constitution writers intended are assault riffles. You have to first ask if assault riffles would be needed to threaten the government with revolution. Considering the number of governments/dictators throughout history which have eventually oppressed it's people, perhaps an increased occurrence of violent crime is worth it. At least that's what it's writers intended.
Original post by ckingalt
Guns are easily obtainable in the United States. There is almost certainly a higher incidence of violent crime as a result of this availability. The fact that there are more guns increases, not decreases these incidences. Common sense, observation, and an understanding of human nature allow me to speculate (quite accurately) that more guns lead to more violence. This is the argument that most people use for gun control, and it misses the point.
I often hear that the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is obsolete. That the writers didn't foresee assault riffles. That what the gun situation within the United States has evolved into, was not their intentions. Well, what were their intentions?
The Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution in 1791 in the wake of the American revolution. During the build up to the revolution it was British policy to disarm the american colonists by any means, as early as 1768. It's main influence, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided the right to bear arms in response to James II's attempt to disarm the protestants. The second amendment states;
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is not about protecting their family from robbers. It's not about reducing violent crime. It's about being able to threaten a potentially oppressive government with revolution. It's about being able to organize for a revolution if necessary, without the said government being able to legally squash such attempts. The people can form an army and arm that army, and the government legally can do nothing until that army acts. Under those circumstances a government is forced to appease the will of the people it governs. The first step of a government which desired to do otherwise, would have to be to seriously consider disarming its' people.
So when asking if what the U.S. Constitution writers intended are assault riffles. You have to first ask if assault riffles would be needed to threaten the government with revolution. Considering the number of governments/dictators throughout history which have eventually oppressed it's people, perhaps an increased occurrence of violent crime is worth it. At least that's what it's writers intended.
I often hear that the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is obsolete. That the writers didn't foresee assault riffles. That what the gun situation within the United States has evolved into, was not their intentions. Well, what were their intentions?
The Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution in 1791 in the wake of the American revolution. During the build up to the revolution it was British policy to disarm the american colonists by any means, as early as 1768. It's main influence, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided the right to bear arms in response to James II's attempt to disarm the protestants. The second amendment states;
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is not about protecting their family from robbers. It's not about reducing violent crime. It's about being able to threaten a potentially oppressive government with revolution. It's about being able to organize for a revolution if necessary, without the said government being able to legally squash such attempts. The people can form an army and arm that army, and the government legally can do nothing until that army acts. Under those circumstances a government is forced to appease the will of the people it governs. The first step of a government which desired to do otherwise, would have to be to seriously consider disarming its' people.
So when asking if what the U.S. Constitution writers intended are assault riffles. You have to first ask if assault riffles would be needed to threaten the government with revolution. Considering the number of governments/dictators throughout history which have eventually oppressed it's people, perhaps an increased occurrence of violent crime is worth it. At least that's what it's writers intended.
Let's say the US amended the constitution and the article now states that no one can have any guns on them (besides the authority e.g. police, army, etc.); in your opinion, would this lead to a better America? Do you think the Gov. will certainly oppress the people?
(edited 8 years ago)
Guns are great and it's a shame everyone's so irrationally terrified of them here in the UK.
I don't really like the gun situation myself, especially since Texas passed a campus carry law and I have to worry about them on campus.
I'm not sure about an outright ban on guns, but I do support changing the 2nd amendment so that states and cities could decide for themselves whether to ban or allow guns.
I'm sure some of the more liberal states would ban them entirely if given a chance.
If it were up to me, though, only the police and the military would have guns. Britain's unarmed police force seems to be taking things too far, in my opinion. I wouldn't feel safe if the police are only armed with batons and something serious happened that required use of force.
Someone has to have weapons to maintain order when necessary, and I'd rather that weapons be in the hands of people who are trying to maintain order rather than people concerned with their own safety and self-interest.
Bear in mind, my alignment is Lawful Neutral, so anarchy is something I have nightmares about, and I would probably take any form of government over no government at all. I doubt Chaotic individuals would feel the same way.
I'm not sure about an outright ban on guns, but I do support changing the 2nd amendment so that states and cities could decide for themselves whether to ban or allow guns.
I'm sure some of the more liberal states would ban them entirely if given a chance.
If it were up to me, though, only the police and the military would have guns. Britain's unarmed police force seems to be taking things too far, in my opinion. I wouldn't feel safe if the police are only armed with batons and something serious happened that required use of force.
Someone has to have weapons to maintain order when necessary, and I'd rather that weapons be in the hands of people who are trying to maintain order rather than people concerned with their own safety and self-interest.
Bear in mind, my alignment is Lawful Neutral, so anarchy is something I have nightmares about, and I would probably take any form of government over no government at all. I doubt Chaotic individuals would feel the same way.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by VV Cephei A
Guns are great and it's a shame everyone's so irrationally terrified of them here in the UK.
I would make hand pistols at least obtainable again in the UK although not without a firearms licensed
Original post by jeremy1988
If it were up to me, though, only the police and the military would have guns. Britain's unarmed police force seems to be taking things too far, in my opinion. I wouldn't feel safe if the police are only armed with batons and something serious happened that required use of force.
It doesn't detract from your argument, but I do believe that police here carry Tasers.
There is, in fact, a small number of armed police officers who're used for situations that require force of that kind. It's less frequent than in the United States, but we do have the same sort of problems with (apparently) unarmed black civilians getting shot by white police officers and this leading to unrest. The 2011 riots that originated in London would be one of the better-known examples of this happening. So we do have our fair share of guns in the police force. 
Original post by Hydeman
It doesn't detract from your argument, but I do believe that police here carry Tasers. There is, in fact, a small number of armed police officers who're used for situations that require force of that kind. It's less frequent than in the United States, but we do have the same sort of problems with (apparently) unarmed black civilians getting shot by white police officers and this leading to unrest. The 2011 riots that originated in London would be one of the better-known examples of this happening. So we do have our fair share of guns in the police force.
There is, in fact, a small number of armed police officers who're used for situations that require force of that kind. It's less frequent than in the United States, but we do have the same sort of problems with (apparently) unarmed black civilians getting shot by white police officers and this leading to unrest. The 2011 riots that originated in London would be one of the better-known examples of this happening. So we do have our fair share of guns in the police force. Oh, I thought there were no armed police officers at all in Britain. I assumed they didn't even know how to use a gun, and they would have to call out the military if someone got a gun into the country and started shooting people somehow.
That makes a little more sense, I guess.
Original post by jeremy1988
Oh, I thought there were no armed police officers at all in Britain. I assumed they didn't even know how to use a gun, and they would have to call out the military if someone got a gun into the country and started shooting people somehow.
That makes a little more sense, I guess.
That makes a little more sense, I guess.
Haha, that would be quite funny if it was true. Imagine having to bother the Army anytime there was a crazed gunman on the loose... The response time wouldn't really be acceptable to the public. They probably train all their officers to use firearms anyway, just so that you don't need to find specific people when armed police are required, as they're often used for emergencies.
You might have been right if you were talking about somewhere like Norway -- there was a surprising statistic released earlier this year that the entire Norwegian police force fired something like 33 bullets between them in the last ten years. Now that's a police force that doesn't know how to use guns.
Also, we do have limited gun ownership in the UK, so it's not totally devoid of guns. You can get gun licences in some circumstances (e.g. if you're a farmer who lives in the countryside) and I'd imagine there are quite a few illegal guns kicking about as well. There was a gun amnesty a few months back where people could just turn in illegal guns without being prosecuted for possession and quite a few rarities were turned in...
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Hydeman
Haha, that would be quite funny if it was true. Imagine having to bother the Army anytime there was a crazed gunman on the loose... The response time wouldn't really be acceptable to the public. They probably train all their officers to use firearms anyway, just so that you don't need to find specific people when armed police are required, as they're often used for emergencies.
I just thought that a crazed gunman would be an extremely rare occurrence in the UK because people can't legally have them.
You might have been right if you were talking about somewhere like Norway -- there was a surprising statistic released earlier this year that the entire Norwegian police force fired something like 33 bullets between them in the last ten years. Now that's a police force that doesn't know how to use guns.
Ah, I guess I was thinking of Northern Europe in general, but it seems like Norway might be an exceptional case.
Also, we do have limited gun ownership in the UK, so it's not totally devoid of guns. You can get gun licences in some circumstances (e.g. if you're a farmer who lives in the countryside) and I'd imagine there are quite a few illegal guns kicking about as well. There was a gun amnesty a few months back where people could just turn in illegal guns without being prosecuted for possession and quite a few rarities were turned in...
That makes sense, the people screaming the loudest against gun control are in fact, farmers who live in the countryside that are paranoid about government. I guess it's a certain type of person that likes to live in the middle of nowhere and be self-sufficient. It's hard to control people like that.
It sounds like there are more guns in the UK than I thought. I looked it up, and it turns out that even places like Norway and Sweden are reluctant to try and take guns away from farmers and rural hermits. I'm seeing a pattern here. LOL.
I mean, if you look at the US, think about how long it was a frontier, and how rural much of the country is, it makes sense that so many people support gun ownership... much to the chagrin of people living in urban areas with strong police presence who don't like trusting the shady-looking individuals with guns in the apartment next door not to shoot them.
(edited 8 years ago)
They are obtainable.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by VV Cephei A
Guns are great and it's a shame everyone's so irrationally terrified of them here in the UK.
Wrong. Also pistols are legal.
Original post by DiddyDec
Wrong. Also pistols are legal.
What's wrong? That people are irrationally terrified of guns here? I think you'll find that's most definitely true.
Original post by VV Cephei A
What's wrong? That people are irrationally terrified of guns here? I think you'll find that's most definitely true.
I disagree. Generally it is only city dwellers that fear guns.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
Not the ones with a barrel under 30cm, they're completely banned unless you live in Ireland. Maybe you could get an antique handgun in decent working order without having a FAC for it but they are hard to find.
Original post by ckingalt
Guns are easily obtainable in the United States. There is almost certainly a higher incidence of violent crime as a result of this availability. The fact that there are more guns increases, not decreases these incidences. Common sense, observation, and an understanding of human nature allow me to speculate (quite accurately) that more guns lead to more violence. This is the argument that most people use for gun control, and it misses the point.
I often hear that the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is obsolete. That the writers didn't foresee assault riffles. That what the gun situation within the United States has evolved into, was not their intentions. Well, what were their intentions?
The Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution in 1791 in the wake of the American revolution. During the build up to the revolution it was British policy to disarm the american colonists by any means, as early as 1768. It's main influence, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided the right to bear arms in response to James II's attempt to disarm the protestants. The second amendment states;
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is not about protecting their family from robbers. It's not about reducing violent crime. It's about being able to threaten a potentially oppressive government with revolution. It's about being able to organize for a revolution if necessary, without the said government being able to legally squash such attempts. The people can form an army and arm that army, and the government legally can do nothing until that army acts. Under those circumstances a government is forced to appease the will of the people it governs. The first step of a government which desired to do otherwise, would have to be to seriously consider disarming its' people.
So when asking if what the U.S. Constitution writers intended are assault riffles. You have to first ask if assault riffles would be needed to threaten the government with revolution. Considering the number of governments/dictators throughout history which have eventually oppressed it's people, perhaps an increased occurrence of violent crime is worth it. At least that's what it's writers intended.
I often hear that the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is obsolete. That the writers didn't foresee assault riffles. That what the gun situation within the United States has evolved into, was not their intentions. Well, what were their intentions?
The Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution in 1791 in the wake of the American revolution. During the build up to the revolution it was British policy to disarm the american colonists by any means, as early as 1768. It's main influence, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided the right to bear arms in response to James II's attempt to disarm the protestants. The second amendment states;
A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is not about protecting their family from robbers. It's not about reducing violent crime. It's about being able to threaten a potentially oppressive government with revolution. It's about being able to organize for a revolution if necessary, without the said government being able to legally squash such attempts. The people can form an army and arm that army, and the government legally can do nothing until that army acts. Under those circumstances a government is forced to appease the will of the people it governs. The first step of a government which desired to do otherwise, would have to be to seriously consider disarming its' people.
So when asking if what the U.S. Constitution writers intended are assault riffles. You have to first ask if assault riffles would be needed to threaten the government with revolution. Considering the number of governments/dictators throughout history which have eventually oppressed it's people, perhaps an increased occurrence of violent crime is worth it. At least that's what it's writers intended.
But do you really think that assault rifles would be any match for the government of the USA? When they have the military, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, bombs, helicopters and sophisticated machine guns, is it not deluded to think that a rifle can combat that?
Original post by jeremy1988
I don't really like the gun situation myself, especially since Texas passed a campus carry law and I have to worry about them on campus.
I'm not sure about an outright ban on guns, but I do support changing the 2nd amendment so that states and cities could decide for themselves whether to ban or allow guns.
I'm sure some of the more liberal states would ban them entirely if given a chance.
If it were up to me, though, only the police and the military would have guns. Britain's unarmed police force seems to be taking things too far, in my opinion. I wouldn't feel safe if the police are only armed with batons and something serious happened that required use of force.
Someone has to have weapons to maintain order when necessary, and I'd rather that weapons be in the hands of people who are trying to maintain order rather than people concerned with their own safety and self-interest.
Bear in mind, my alignment is Lawful Neutral, so anarchy is something I have nightmares about, and I would probably take any form of government over no government at all. I doubt Chaotic individuals would feel the same way.
I'm not sure about an outright ban on guns, but I do support changing the 2nd amendment so that states and cities could decide for themselves whether to ban or allow guns.
I'm sure some of the more liberal states would ban them entirely if given a chance.
If it were up to me, though, only the police and the military would have guns. Britain's unarmed police force seems to be taking things too far, in my opinion. I wouldn't feel safe if the police are only armed with batons and something serious happened that required use of force.
Someone has to have weapons to maintain order when necessary, and I'd rather that weapons be in the hands of people who are trying to maintain order rather than people concerned with their own safety and self-interest.
Bear in mind, my alignment is Lawful Neutral, so anarchy is something I have nightmares about, and I would probably take any form of government over no government at all. I doubt Chaotic individuals would feel the same way.
The American police don't exactly have a good track record of not using their guns to abuse others though, especially if you're black. Do you trust the police with guns?
I would feel much safer with a gun.
I'm weak as hell so a gun would be an equaliser even if everybody else had one.
I mean, really, let's say somebody tried to rob me and we were both armed - are they *really* going to risk their lives just for the £15 in my wallet?
I'm weak as hell so a gun would be an equaliser even if everybody else had one.
I mean, really, let's say somebody tried to rob me and we were both armed - are they *really* going to risk their lives just for the £15 in my wallet?
Original post by simbasdragon
But do you really think that assault rifles would be any match for the government of the USA? When they have the military, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, bombs, helicopters and sophisticated machine guns, is it not deluded to think that a rifle can combat that?
It worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Original post by simbasdragon
The American police don't exactly have a good track record of not using their guns to abuse others though, especially if you're black. Do you trust the police with guns?
I do trust them. I feel like the far-left tends to smear the police unfairly because they're paranoid due to a lot of them having been hippies or civil rights protesters back the in 1960s/1970s, and they still think the "pigs" are out to get people. So they look for trouble and spread that idea around as much as they can, IMO.
I mean, a lot of the police are black, at least where I live. The news tends to unfairly focus on the worst communities in the worst states. Places like Missouri, which we jokingly call "Misery". Everyone knows it's the most backwards state in the Union, and yet they plaster it all over the news and try to make out that the whole country is like that.
Interestingly, that has become the biggest point of contention between myself and more liberal black people. They've gone really anti-authority and anti-government lately thanks to the media campaign, and I really hate anarchists and anti-government types.
In D&D terms, I'm seeing a huge split between the black and white communities form along the Law and Chaos axis, with white people tending towards Lawful alignments, and black people tending towards Chaotic alignments. The rift is stronger on the left than the right, because people on the right all seem to be sticking together now regardless of race. The main exceptions are white people who join cults or adopt libertarian philosophies (making them Chaotic), or black people that join the military or are strongly Christian (making them Lawful). Neither group seems to have a stronger tendency to Good or Evil, though.
The Democrats had black people supporting stronger government and welfare programs for a long time, including legal protections and new laws, but now they distrust the police to the point that they'd rather own a gun and take the law into their own hands. That makes me uncomfortable, because that's not a mentality that we need more of in this country.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
