lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: Guns.... ban them?
Yay 7 35.00%
Nae 13 65.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: Guns are bad mmmkay...
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-05-2003, 01:57 AM   #41
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Great post, Munik.

Quote:
If one constitutional right is undermined, then that leaves the others open as well. We don't see it as the word of god, but it is part of the foundation of our country. If you can revoke one ammendment, why not others? Some of those ammendments we as americans feel are unalienable rights, things we never want to give up.
Hmmm.. with all due respect, what angers me is that you don't seem to speak up when the rights of minorities are run over. The civil rights movement of the 60's, for example, consisted mostly of dark-skinned people. Few wanted to help the darks get all the rights the light had. Same with people who want to marry someone of their own gender, and cannot, in complete violation of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion (and common sense). I don't see much of a public outrage about the rights of your fellow citizens being run over, to say it that way. Also, freedom of speech is violated. You should be able to say something against the war in Iraq, for example, without being fired from your news station.

I know a lot of Americans really care. I've even done community work with Americans, you're a great bunch. But really, your rights are already run over. And you've gotta face the facts that the constitution is 200 years old, and thus, what might have been unalienable rights back then are today outdated.

Quote:
The 2nd ammendment was put there to help prevent the government from going bad, so to speak. Revolting against a corrupt government is much easier when you posses the firepower to do so. Also, the 2nd ammendment helps in defense of this country, as every citizen has the opportunity to be armed and partake in repelling any invasion.
That's what I learned in American History and World History class while staying in the States. Good point indeed. In fact, the Scandinavian nations, especially Finland, take pride in our guerillas, which are almost the same as militias. However, times change. If the Norwegian HV guerilla shot 11 000 innocents a year, I'd be against it too.

Quote:
Now, you can say that the ammendment is outdated, not relevant, or harmful. But, how many times has the government turned on it's citizens? How many times has the country been invaded (disregard the crazy canucks)? So, wouldn't it appear that the ammendment is doing what it was put there for? Yes, we can play the "what if" game, and talk for endless hours about how invasion or government corruption could be prevented without the 2nd, but if we were to revoke that ammendment and then things did turn bad, we'd be up sh*t creek without a paddle. That's not a chance some americans want to take.
Well, you're the one playing the "what if"-game here, answering the question of "what if we restrict guns?"
The government isn't that unstable. I cannot for the life of me understand how Americans brag that your government is so great and weak and that you're so free, while you are still so paranoid about it turning evil on you. If the Republic is so kind and loving, why do some Americans seem afraid of it?

Quote:
A seatbelt is uncomfortable and restricting, but I wear it all the time because when and if I do get in an accident, having it save my life will be worth the years of wearing it. For me, the negative aspect is worth it, even if the chance of me getting in an accident is slim to none. I believe the same goes for the 2nd. It sucks that people use firearms on each other, but when and if a crisis happens and we are invaded, we will be well equiped to defend the nation. Failing in that regard because we revoked the 2nd would be terrible, because once you lose to an invader, that's it. Game over.
The second irony is that the country with the biggest army in the world seems to be the country that's the most paranoid. You've got by far the world's biggest army. Face it, if some coalition was to take down the US Armed Forces and actually start capturing the USA, do you really think that some untrained civilians with guns could accomplish what a $200 billion armed forces couldn't accomplish?

Oh, and the current situation is unconstitutional. The constitution specifically states that the militia should be well-regulated. The current US "militia" certainly is not well-regulated. If we started regulating guns, we'd be following the constitution, despite every ignorant who says we're violating it by restricting guns.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-16-2003, 03:36 AM   #42
Taran'atar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 85
Quote:
Do you think guns ought to be banned
No. That would merely make the law-abiding community defenseless to anyone that wants to rob, kill, rape, torture, or do whatever to them. The police and justice system in the US is a complete joke. The community needs to be able to defend itself, because if they don't, no one will.
Taran'atar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-16-2003, 11:45 AM   #43
Breton
Ta deg en bolle
 
Breton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,398
Quote:
Originally posted by Taran'atar
No. That would merely make the law-abiding community defenseless to anyone that wants to rob, kill, rape, torture, or do whatever to them.
We never talked about removing guns from the police or the military. I think the police still should have access to them.

But know this: The police here (in Norway) practically never have to even carry their guns. You know why? Because guns are so bloody rare amongst the common people, so the police simply does not need to have their guns raised all the time.

Quote:
The community needs to be able to defend itself, because if they don't, no one will.
Defend themselves against what? The only reason for why the need of protection is larger in the states is that you have guns so easily accessible at all! I find it strange that many American people does not trust the police in ensuring their safety. Bullets do not deflect bullets, a gun will not make you more safe, actually the opposite. A gun is little but false security, and the easy access of guns is why you have to "defend" your home and family at all.


Penger er for kapitalister
kun papir for meg
så lenge jeg har penger til tippefrister
kan gjerne karl johan bli motorvei for meg


Postgirobygget, "Sløv uten dop"
Breton is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Guns are bad mmmkay...

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.