Some thoughts on gun control (1940 hits)
Category: SportsRating: 0.72 on 32 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by reallybored (View user info) at 2004-07-07 13:07:27 EDT
Recently a friend of mine let me borrow Michael Moore's book Dude Where's My Country. Now this wasn't exactly a book that I was interested in, but she wasn't done with The DaVinci Code and King's latest book (DT 6) was a crappy read so I went with Moore.
Now I'm not a liberal in any sense of the word. In fact I'm pretty disenfranchised with this whole two party system (I'm sure many of you are as well) as a whole. If I had to describe myself I would say I lean left on most social issues, and right on most economic ones (once again, like many of you).
It's been about a week now of leisurely reading and while I have not finished the book I think I have hit some of the more important parts. Moore actually does have some good points but he is an extremist and many of his views go just a wee bit too far. [Sidenote: I think people hate him more then say O'Rielly or other right wing extremists because of his weight. I personally believe that if Ann Coulter was 5 foot 2 and 210 lbs nobody would give that bitch the time of day.]
However one of the views I disagree with on many levels is his gun control concept. It doesn't take a literary scholar to determine that Moore wants a ban on most types of guns in the US. This I think to be a massive mistake.
Now don't get me wrong; I know gun related deaths in the US are astronomical. I know that by having a gun in your home your chances of dying go through the roof. I know all these things. However this does not equate a ban on guns.
Should guns be hard to get, yes I think so. I think all people should be given a background check before they buy a gun, any gun. I also think people should have to have mandatory safety classes and other educational programs. But I DO NOT think that people should not have the right to own and or carry a gun.
The 2nd amendment protects a person right to own a gun, but a lot of people don't understand exactly why. People talk about certain guns being illegal and its relation to hunting, but that makes no fucking sense. Nowhere in any of the founding documents for our country does hunting come up. Gun ownership and 2nd amendment are both ideas based on a statement made in the Declaration of Independence.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
So we as Americas have the right (actually it's considered a duty) to overthrow our government if it becomes destructive. Now of course this doesn't mean that we can go around killing politicians because we disagree with the new alternate side of the street parking. If you read further into the Declaration of Independence you will see that it says that. However the important part is that one of the founding documents of this country lays down the groundwork for overthrowing our government if necessary.
Now if we would to take Moore's stance and ban all guns, how in the holy hell would we be able to fulfill that right? How would we as a nation rise up against the government if we did not have the weapons to face them?
We couldn't. We as a people would be at the mercy of the government. And I don't know about all you but I find that idea less than comforting. Our current government can and has detained people without any access to lawyers or without even a charge being filed. The current government can and has gone to libraries and request every book a certain individual read without any sort of warrant issued. Our government is currently on a witch hunt because of terrorism and the people who will suffer will be us.
And if people like Moore have their way, when we finally get fed up about it, we won't be able to do anything about it.
[This is one of the first pictures when I googled Bill of Rights. Funny shit.]
User Reviews
Submitted by podium (user info) at 2005-03-22 17:01:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by maryjane (user info) at 2004-08-04 19:53:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2004-07-22 16:44:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
your a liar!
Two quick-thinking Jacksonville residents turned the tables on an apparent home invasion suspect Tuesday, police say.
Initially, a strange man got the upper hand on a female resident, who lists her address as 615 Northeastern Ave. in Jacksonville. The woman told police that she had heard a knock at the backdoor of the residence and thought it was the man whose address was also listed as 615 Northeastern Ave., as well.
The woman said that she then went to the door and opened it only to have a male suspect, later identified as Thomas Perrow III force his way into the residence. The woman advised that Perrow refused to leave and told her to stay put as well. Perrow also allegedly told the woman that someone was trying to kill him.
While the male suspect went into another room, the woman grabbed up her keys and fled to her van. Up the road, she met up with the actual man she had thought had been knocking upon the backdoor.
After the woman told him what had transpired at the residence, this man took a gun out of his truck and tried to gain entry through a side door of the residence. The man told police, however, he had to break the door to gain access because it had been locked with a chain.
The man advised that upon entering the residence, he observed a white male standing in the kitchen. The man told police that he then grabbed the white male by the shirt and pointed his gun at him while asking him, "'Why he was at his house?'"
Perrow allegedly replied that he had been running from "some black males."
No arrest report was accessible in connection with this case. However, Jacksonville Police Department officials indicated that Perrow now faces a burglary charge stemming from this incident.
Submitted by disAbled (user info) at 2004-07-15 12:07:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
+2 for making a good point in your post.
+1 because I agree with it.
-1 for this: "I know that by having a gun in your home your chances of dying go through the roof."**
-1 for the silly pic at the bottom
** According to whom and what study? Furthermore, because everyone dies, your claim is a non-sequitur. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to say, "Some groups claim that that having a gun in your home increases your chances of dying at a younger age." That's still bullshit, though. Is the death rate related at all to the gun ownership, or just incidental statistics. If 30% of people in the US own a firearm, or posess one, it would be very hard to produce any conclusive evidence that gun ownership is related to earlier death. Furthermore, are these gun owners educated in gun safety and use? Does the number of guns in your house reduce your life expectency proportionally? I don't buy it.
Submitted by negative2man. (user info) at 2004-07-15 11:38:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2004-07-07 18:48:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"When it comes down to it though, the second amendment isn't there to protect you from the government if the government needs to be overthrown. Your shotgun is hardly going to hold up against a tank or laser guided missile.
The First Amendment is a much more powerful weapon should you ever need to overthrow a government."
False. If all hell breaks loose, the most you can do with the First Amendment is use it as a firestarter for Molotov cocktails. A gun is much more useful in a revolutionary state than a piece of paper "guaranteeing" some rights. As for shotguns vs. lasers and tanks, the number of insurrections in which the insurrectors lost is negligibly diminutive. Consider Vietnam, Cuba, Colombia, Russia, and America itself.
Are you aware that the first civil liberty denied to black people in the USA, was the right to carry firearms?
Submitted by Smurfs (user info) at 2004-07-07 18:23:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't have time to read comments, but "Now if we would to take Moore's stance and ban all guns"
Moore is actually a member of the NRA and isn't for teh banning of all guns, but rather strictor regulations, such as increased waiting times and more indepth background checks.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-07-07 18:16:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm a strong believer in the second amendment, but only because I think of it as the "personal accountibility" amendment.
People who don't like the second amendment generally support drug laws and market regulation in the name of "import taxes" or "labor unions". In other words, they want the government to be their mother and they want someone else to blame for their problems, whether that blame falls on gun manufacturers, drug dealers, foreign labor, illegal immigrants, etc.
When it comes down to it though, the second amendment isn't there to protect you from the government if the government needs to be overthrown. Your shotgun is hardly going to hold up against a tank or laser guided missile.
The First Amendment is a much more powerful weapon should you ever need to overthrow a government.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-07-07 15:42:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
They should really pass a law that makes killing people with guns illegal. Uhhhh...
Hm, I like the sidenote.
Is it libertarians who are left socially, right economically or is that populists? No, it's libertarians. No populists. Either way, Michael Moore's still a Jew. His extremist politics simultaneously entertain and anger me. I hope that people don't believe that all Democrats are like Moore, just as I hope all people don't believe all Republicans are like Limbaugh (is he still around or in jail?).
(The still a Jew thing wasn't meant to be racist, just an observation I have about the cruelty of circumcision. I like Jewish people. Especially sex with Jewish people. I close my eyes and pretend they're Jon Stewart or Larry David. Is he Jewish? Oh well, sex with Jews is easier to clean up. Ack! Here to balance this comment out, I'll make a racist comment about Palestine: we got your water suckas!)
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-07-07 15:22:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This should get on the Most Heated list...
These things needed to be said.
Submitted by Phinch (user info) at 2004-07-07 15:06:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
good post.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-07-07 15:03:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The Right to Bear Arms has nothing to do with hunting, target practice, or carrying around a concealed artificial penis. I would go so far as to consider a rifle, amissle launcher, a surplus tank, or a homemade nuke an arm that has the right to be borne.
The Right to Bear Arms is a symbolism depicting that the people of our nation are truly in charge and no higher authority can use legal/governmental/financial/whatever tactics to pry that right from the population. An armed population is the ultimate check and balance.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-07-07 14:44:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Your post was well written but I would have to agree with Loki when it comes to the second
ammendment.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-07-07 14:40:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Did you even think that line through? Really? How do you think a corrupt government would respond to a few million people with guns trying to 'rise up' against them? Guns or no guns, they would be a few million very dead people. Any government bad enough to make a nation of the notoriously complacent rise up in arms would annihilate them if they dared to do so. "
Um, this happened before, it was called the Revolutionary War. We won.
Moving on. This was mentioned earlier but it bears repeating. If the government gets so bad that a large majority of people would be willing to overthrow it we must realize that many of these people will be the military. Like any other country that has expierenced this type of revolution, the military will splinter will most of the support behind the government and the rest behind the people. One of the reasons we need these weapons is too help alleviate that difference.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2004-07-07 14:30:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This was very good. I liked the hunting reference, since that always seems to come up.
Circe, that's just ignant. The "slippery-slope" is a basic fallacy of logic. It's like arguing against gay marriages by saying, "What's next? People marrying goats?" No government of ours is ever going to bomb or nuke it's citizens. But less aggressive means of control by tear gas or even tactical assault can be fought against with guns.
Not that I think that we need to overthrow the government or anything.... unless Kerry gets elected...
-Bus
Submitted by AndraSidan (user info) at 2004-07-07 14:13:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
word that pittdude
Submitted by Pittdude (user info) at 2004-07-07 14:09:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Gun control made simple.....take the ability for law obeying citizens to defend themselves away by leaving people who break the law anyway to be the only ones with guns.
Submitted by lucid (user info) at 2004-07-07 14:08:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
When I was a little kid I went to pre-school and played with this plastic ball that had a star, square and triangle shape cut out in it. There were three different shaped blocks and you were supposed to put them inside the ball.
So I spent my time picking up the triangle and putting it in the triangular hole, then the same for the square and so on.
When I tired of the toy I put it down and this kid named Kenny decided he wanted to play with it next. Excitedly I watched to see if he was as smart as I was and it turns out he was a genious.
He picked up the plastic ball, swung it around his head three times then smacked me in the face with it before wetting his pants and biting another classmate in the leg.
From that point forward the plastic ball was off limits because it was just too dangerous so Kenny used his Dukes of Hazzard lunch box to beat us up instead.
Submitted by akrofiild (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:54:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
You get a +1 due to the funny bill of rigths.
But as #6 said what the fuck are you going to do against a tank. Automatic rifles are illegal, and technology has gone so far that the militaries organization (CENTCOM), resources (the most technologically developed military in the world capable of turning countries into glass parking losts without them knowing we are even there; or without us being there for that matter), manpower ... are far beyond what the forfathers envisioned. In terms of military strenght we are week compared to the US Military.
But I still haven't come to an opinion on gun control so this is all for now.
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:54:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ha! You have guns, they have bombs.
that's a typical thought. If we attack the government, then the government will use the military to attack us!
If things worked the way that they were supposed to the military wouldn't attack us, they would be involved in the Coup.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:51:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
loki - if you don't want a history lesson, don't play dumb. I am tired of hearing gun control activists bitch about guns being for militia and not for regular citizens. they are the same fucking thing.
"I thought the second amendment was about an armed militia."
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:46:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
runninginplace - Uh yea no shit, thanks for the history lesson though.
As for overthrowing the government, there is a reason that the president is also the commander in chief of the armed services. Without that and well just look what happened in Pakistan.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:43:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
militia back then (when it was written) was the "people". The militia was made up of regular town folk who grabbed their guns and took up a fightin the bloody british.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:41:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"How would we as a nation rise up against the government if we did not have the weapons to face them?"
Did you even think that line through? Really? How do you think a corrupt government would respond to a few million people with guns trying to 'rise up' against them? Guns or no guns, they would be a few million very dead people. Any government bad enough to make a nation of the notoriously complacent rise up in arms would annihilate them if they dared to do so.
You have guns? They have bombs. What's next? Citizens with a couple nukes in the garage just in case the powers that be fuck up and need to be taken out?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:39:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Now, wonder why I thought this was about a militia:
** 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. **
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:37:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Not bad.
why do we own guns? - Red Dawn, that's why. See what American's can do with guns!
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:37:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not saying I'm surprised, but I think this is a really good post. I mean, you quote the Declaration of Independence for God's sake. Awesome.
Also, I completely agree with you. I'm pretty danged conservative and all, but I just can't get all wound up for guns. I think they are necessary for the reasons you mention, but beyond that, meh. You don't need to take one with you to get a squishy at the Kwickie-Mart or have one in the pack window of your pick-up.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:33:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought the second amendment was about an armed militia.
How long until you hole up in a compound in Montana teaching survivalist camps?
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:28:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Alah - Try reading the whole post next time. Fucking dumbass.
WQP - You could stop obeying that, and im sure that would work real fucking well when they toss your ass in the slammer.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:22:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Now if we would to take Moore's stance and ban all guns, how in the holy hell would we be able to fulfill that right? How would we as a nation rise up against the government if we did not have the weapons to face them?
-------
You could stop obeying them.
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:22:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Recently a friend of mine let me borrow Michael Moore's
Got to the last name before I hit this with a -2.
Not because I hate Michael Moore
Not because I am republican.
BUT BECAUSE I'M FUCKING SICK OF HEARING ABOUT HIM. SHUT THE FUCK UP. JESUS CHRIST.
Submitted by ToiletChunx (user info) at 2004-07-07 13:19:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not sure if you're like my father in law or not. He is of the belief that if someone voices opposition to current rights concerning guns, that means they want to take his guns. This of course requires him to always vote republican because they are the tools of the NRA. I'm an NRA member and a Democrat so don't get me wrong. But a man on social security at the age of 52 and a daughter that has been on disability since the age of 18 would appear to have a more vested interest in social programs and assistance---not exactly a republican strongpoint. But no, only guns and his rights to own on get him riled up.
Not everything is black and white. America without guns is like hotdogs without some form of fecal matter in them---will never happen.