Two points: Mr. G need not rant. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution speaks loudly enough that even you should be able to hear: Gun ownership is our legal right because we say it is until we decide otherwise. Gun ownership protects us from people like you who would presume to decide for us without our consent. Gun ownership puts opinions such as yours to the ultimate means test: Are your convictions feeling lucky? Here's my gun. Take it, if you can. When your words prove inadequate to the task, what alternative means will you use to overcome ours? What importance do you place on a good night's sleep? You fail to appreciate our appreciation for our Constitution. BTW: the Constitution says nothing about you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mr. G: Once again, I can only comment that for somebody who claims not to care what I think, you seem very eager to dispute my point of view. You speak for all gun-owning Americans now, do you? Yes, but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. Get it? I'm not presuming to decide anything for you. I'm trying to get you to think. Only from your cold, dead hands. Right? Hmm.... Are you aware that my country's Constitution was, at least in part, influenced by yours? The framers of the Australian Constitution wisely decided to omit the nuttiness about guns.
quadraphonics: This thread started off completely unbiased, as a poll comparing attitudes to guns in the US and elsewhere. It could only be regarded as an attempt to "impugn the mentality of an entire nationality" if Americans feel that they have something to apologise for in the gun laws in their nation. You're half right. Of course I expected Americans to get all defensive. The question worth asking is: why get defensive if you have nothing to be ashamed of? Where you're wrong is in assuming this thread aimed to start a conversation on guns where differences of opinion among Americans would surface. Overwhelmingly, Americans support minimal gun control, as the results of the poll show. In this instance, I was more interested in getting Americans to consider why people of other nations do not think the same way as them. Ooh, an actual argument about the topic, rather than about my presumed attitudes to Americans. Stop it, or you'll make me have to search for actual statistics and data to back up my point of view! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! quadraphonics, you are taking an admirable, principled stance here, and I must say I respect you for it. I'll try to be more serious, I promise.
ahmm i dont think anyone needs guns there is things like traps or boomerangs and bows and arrows i play with me bow and arrow and i set traps for people coming in me room my room mates are sumtimes light fingered i never needed a gun dont wanna and i tie fishing line on to things if anyone is near they cant see and bump into the line makes the tins dingle and loud next door has a dog and ahmm just going by experience i dont use weapons just prevention
You seem to think you're point of view is competitive. Were it so your point of view might be worthy of dispute. You're out of your league. Because your nutty intellectual firepower was an accurate predictor of your likely success around real firepower.
well if you bring that up then they never intended the second admendment to protect invidual gun ownership bears in other writtings of the time they used the phrase bear arms as meaning to serve in the armed forces
" the right of the people" means the army? Yes it is an individual right. Unless you wish to make the claim that, say, a search warrent is only needed to search a soldiers home.
Actually... http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html To paraphrase JamesR: "...cold, dead hand."
I read every untrue word.They clearly intended the 2nd ammendment to protect individual rights. Hence the phrase "right of the people" you went from "people" to "armed forces". I merely pointed out the error of your thoughts.
Those criminal penalties are not really going to be a deterrent to drug addicts, people with mental health problems, jealous and enraged husbands, those wanting to start a massacre ect. So gun crime is higher but other crime is lower. That is beside the point. Maybe your crime rates are not a factor after all. :shrug: No your answer does not lead me to rethink the premise of the question. I understand that changing the law and buying back the guns sounds like your freedom being taken from you. Don’t you think your society would be better place afterwards though? Would the quality of life be so much lower if Americans didn't have the right to buy deadly weapons? It would certainly be higher if there were less weapons for criminals to get their hands on. You do have higher levels of gun crime and have had some horrible massacres lately. James’ poll did produce interesting results. So what is he doing that is so bad? Oh he is disagreeing with an American law…. How dare he? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That is what this forum is for. It is the behavior of some of the Americans that has been poor. Some are not actually debating the topic at all. Instead we have challenges to “try and take our guns away” and childish insults.
well i guess if you grew up in a country which always have had guns you can not imagine what it would be like with out them..... i feel so sorry for you all!
And neither are the criminal penalties you'd attach to all gun ownership. So what's your point? You seem to have this nutty idea that making guns harder to obtain legally is also going to make it harder to obtain them illegaly. There's no basis for this assumption; in fact, almost all guns used in crimes in the United States are obtained illegaly. No. Yes. Which has nothing to do with disarming law-abiding citizens. It's already illegal for criminals to buy guns, and disarming criminals is far, far cheaper and easier than trying to disarm all the people who aren't criminals.
what i said was if you want to go by what the framers inteneded and meant when they used the phrase bear arms it was always used to signify milatary service. i dislike that you are trying to say i'm using the phrase right of the people to me armed forces because i'm not even someone with first grade reading comp would know that
If you say so. Yeah, that, or if you read the posts in which you describe Americans as "brainwashed," "nutty," "unreasonable," etc. I would characterize the responses of Americans here as largely aggressive. You've pissed several people off, and they're gunning for you. Also, your insistence on characterizing any Americans who disagree with you as "defensive" implies that your intent is to attack them. Certainly, dismissing someone's input as "defensive" is a transparently provacative tactic, and a very cheap one at that. I'd hazard that the answer can be found in the answer to this question: "why is the perception of your intent and purpose here at such a variance with your stated aims?" Which is never going to happen in such a polarizing discourse. If you want to get through to people, you need to create a space where they feel that their ideas are given fair hearing, rather than their identities being judged. Otherwise, they're just going to circle the wagons and return fire. And a crucial component in the construction of such a dialogue is reciprocity: it should be as important for you all to understand why Americans do not share your views as the other way around. Otherwise, what you're suggesting is just a euphemism for "preaching to the unwashed Americans." For that matter, even if that is your intent, it's better served by reciprocity: arguing in good faith makes people more likely to sincerely consider what you're saying, and also provides you with the opportunity to learn enough to craft arguments that are relevant and persuasive to Americans. In contrast, rallying the non-American anti-gun troops does you no good, because they don't get to vote on American gun policies. All you end up doing is hardening the attitudes of the people who *do* have the ability to change American gun policies. And further diminishing the quality of discourse here at SciForums.
No you don't just change the law, you have a gun buy back scheme where people are given good money for their guns. No that wont cause everyone to disarm but it will motivate a lot of people. Removing as many guns from the country as possible will make it harder for people to get guns illegally. No you are not going to remove them all but the more you remove the harder it will become to get a gun. You really think that is a nutty idea? Yes you will need to remove a lot of guns before it is effective but it does sound logical. Ok. So briefly explain to me how criminals and law abiding citizens having guns improves the quality of life in your country. Who cares what is easier and cheaper? We are discussing what is better.
