[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32443325]Oh. So if I was to give you an example of where said rights were suddenly taken away, say...the internment of japanese-americans in World War 2, your argument would fall apart right? As they're no longer rights, they are priviledges.
[editline]23rd September 2011[/editline]
I'm still waiting for a new system from you where laws aren't decided by democratic process because that doesn't work as you pointed out.[/QUOTE]
Hence comes to the issue of a right is technically only a privilege that is supposedly guaranteed, but that example is from a time of piss poor equality. Before around the '60s , anyone who was not white in America, and even to some extent Canada, was seen as a second-class citizen. Their rights were not as important as those of the majority, which is quite frankly a disgusting thought. Racial discrimination has always been a large issue, and the constitution, which guarantees people equality, has come up several times in arguments about it. Internment camps were recognized as unconstitutional after the war, it took decades, but the government did pay reparations for it and acknowledged that is was unfair and unconstitutional. However, governments have passed unconstitutional laws before, and unfortunately it is up to the people then to challenge them in the supreme court to get them abolished. The government tends to forget its own limits sometimes, and when it does the task of reminding it falls to the people. This has happened before, several times, and specifically o the issue of firearms in the US. People have sued state, municipal, and I think even the federal government with success on firearm-related prohibitions, notably the ban on handgun possession in Washington D.C. which was overturned in a lawsuit as unconstitutional.
As I said already, we're opening a whole new can of worms here, arguments about the fundamental flaws of democracy really do belong in another thread.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32443424]Hence comes to the issue of a right is technically only a privilege that is supposedly guaranteed, but that example is from a time of piss poor equality. Before around the '60s , anyone who was not white in America, and even to some extent Canada, was seen as a second-class citizen. Their rights were not as important as those of the majority, which is quite frankly a disgusting thought. Racial discrimination has always been a large issue, and the constitution, which guarantees people equality, has come up several times in arguments about it. Internment camps were recognized as unconstitutional after the war, it took decades, but the government did pay reparations for it and acknowledged that is was unfair and unconstitutional. However, governments have passed unconstitutional laws before, and unfortunately it is up to the people then to challenge them in the supreme court to get them abolished. The government tends to forget its own limits sometimes, and when it does the task of reminding it falls to the people. This has happened before, several times, and specifically o the issue of firearms in the US. People have sued state, municipal, and I think even the federal government with success on firearm-related prohibitions, notably the ban on handgun possession in Washington D.C. which was overturned in a lawsuit as unconstitutional.
As I said already, we're opening a whole new can of worms here, arguments about the fundamental flaws of democracy really do belong in another thread.[/QUOTE]
It's beside the point that they said sorry after it, gave out money etc. In one swift move, they removed the constitutional protections granted to American citizens. There will always be inequality, thus there will always be opportunities for the government to ignore the constitutional rights of citizens to pursue laws. If the government can 'forget' it's own limits, and get away with shit like that with only an apology and money, your social contract has [B]failed[/B].
I live in Canada, never held a real gun, never fired one. Never have I said to myself, "Man, I really need a gun to protect myself." I don't plan on getting a gun. I don't need one. I don't think anyone needs them, at the most, a .22 rifle. I think the banning on handguns was a good idea.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32443470]It's beside the point that they said sorry after it, gave out money etc. In one swift move, they removed the constitutional protections granted to American citizens. There will always be inequality, thus there will always be opportunities for the government to ignore the constitutional rights of citizens to pursue laws. If the government can 'forget' it's own limits, and get away with shit like that with only an apology and money, your social contract has [B]failed[/B].[/QUOTE]
You are acting like it's only America who defies its constitution of legal issues. I know my government has defied its constitution several times, they've been taken to court and shot down over it, and I can guarantee that your government has done it too. Now we're getting off of firearms and into the failures of democracy and what can, if anything, be done to improve the democratic process and what kind of watchdogs need to be in place to ensure the constitution is followed without requiring a lawsuit as an afterthought.
Yes, constitutions have been defied before, it happens EVERYWHERE, and it's a terrible tragedy. Governments overextend, but the constitution is there as a list of what people are entitled to and as guidelines to the operation of the government, and when the government steps over its bounds, the constitution is there to tell the people what they know the government can and cant do so they know to stop the government on the issue. It can take time, but eventually the rights of the constitution will be and are upheld, what's unfortunate is that it ends up being an afterthought to the government when they enact laws.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32443571]You are acting like it's only America who defies its constitution of legal issues. I know my government has defied its constitution several times, they've been taken to court and shot down over it, and I can guarantee that your government has done it too. Now we're getting off of firearms and into the failures of democracy and what can, if anything, be done to improve the democratic process and what kind of watchdogs need to be in place to ensure the constitution is followed without requiring a lawsuit as an afterthought.
Yes, constitutions have been defied before, it happens EVERYWHERE, and it's a terrible tragedy. Governments overextend, but the constitution is there as a list of what people are entitled to and as guidelines to the operation of the government, and when the government steps over its bounds, the constitution is there to tell the people what they know the government can and cant do so they know to stop the government on the issue. It can take time, but eventually the rights of the constitution will be and are upheld, what's unfortunate is that it ends up being an afterthought to the government when they enact laws.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about America because the constitution is so revered and the gun debate is most furious there. But there's nothing to argue about here. You've agreed that the government can and will simply go against the constitution. I disagree with you on the rights of the constitution eventually being upheld, but whatever, on with the thread.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32443499]I live in Canada, never held a real gun, never fired one. Never have I said to myself, "Man, I really need a gun to protect myself." I don't plan on getting a gun. I don't need one. I don't think anyone needs them, at the most, a .22 rifle. I think the banning on handguns was a good idea.[/QUOTE]
Handguns were never banned in Canada outright, the ones that were I disagree with the limitation they put on barrel length, it should have been lower, 105mm prohibits so many historical pieces that were only built with 4" barrels, and I disagree with you entirely, as another Canadian citizen, there have been several times I've though "I would feel safer here if I had a gun," because there have been shootings all around, but never in, my neighbourhood, and many of these neighbourhoods are areas I have to pass through on my way to anywhere. I'd pass an intersection where 2 people were shot in the span of 6 months on my way to school everyday and be worried if I was coming home late that I'd be mugged and/or shot there myself.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32443499]I live in Canada, never held a real gun, never fired one. Never have I said to myself, "Man, I really need a gun to protect myself." I don't plan on getting a gun. I don't need one. I don't think anyone needs them, at the most, a .22 rifle. I think the banning on handguns was a good idea.[/QUOTE]
I really don't get why people would even want a handgun instead of a rifle. There's no real difference besides concealing ability. You put two bullets through a someone's heart, and one through their head. With a pistol or an rifle, they're dead.
[QUOTE=ShadoWxAssassiN;32447465]I really don't get why people would even want a handgun instead of a rifle. There's no real difference besides concealing ability. You put two bullets through a someone's heart, and one through their head. With a pistol or an rifle, they're dead.[/QUOTE]
You can't conceal rifles, so they are useless for protection in public and in your vehicle.
If you are ever going to be the victim of an attack, you're most likely to be attacked in three specific circumstances:
-Leaving your car
-Entering your car
-Entering your home
In all of these cases, you would be helpless to defend yourself with a rifle.
[url]http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-survival-2005.html[/url]
This is a small guide to survival in a post economic disaster scenario, written by an Argentinian after their country's economy collapsed in 2001. It's an excellent read, and it partly focuses on the utility and superiority of handguns to rifles.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32443499]I live in Canada, never held a real gun, never fired one. Never have I said to myself, "Man, I really need a gun to protect myself." I don't plan on getting a gun. I don't need one. I don't think anyone needs them, at the most, a .22 rifle. I think the banning on handguns was a good idea.[/QUOTE]
"I don't need one, so nobody needs one."
I hope you realize the gigantic logical fallacy that you're making in this post.
Even if it was a moral thing for governments to ban everything their citizens didn't "need," rifles and handguns are still completely practical for personal defense, home defense, sport shooting, recreation, hunting and collection. Where I live (in the sticks,) hunting saves families hundreds of dollars a year on groceries. Hunting also maintains wildlife populations, which is absolutely critical for ecological balance. A .22 isn't exactly going to cut it if you're shooting deer.
Not to mention that many non-hunting outdoorsmen carry revolvers for protection against wildlife. You don't have to live in the inner city to justify carrying a handgun on your person.
[QUOTE=faze;32430922]I'm not convinced that background checks = maturity.[/QUOTE]
not necessarily, guess what I meant to say was that they are capable of being sane enough to own the weapon.
[QUOTE=ShadoWxAssassiN;32447465]I really don't get why people would even want a handgun instead of a rifle. There's no real difference besides concealing ability. You put two bullets through a someone's heart, and one through their head. With a pistol or an rifle, they're dead.[/QUOTE]
Well you just answered your own question; the reason criminals want handguns is because they are concealable.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32448016]You can't conceal rifles, so they are useless for protection in public and in your vehicle.
If you are ever going to be the victim of an attack, you're most likely to be attacked in three specific circumstances:
-Leaving your car
-Entering your car
-Entering your home
In all of these cases, you would be helpless to defend yourself with a rifle.
[url]http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-survival-2005.html[/url]
This is a small guide to survival in a post economic disaster scenario, written by an Argentinian after their country's economy collapsed in 2001. It's an excellent read, and it partly focuses on the utility and superiority of handguns to rifles..[/QUOTE]
Thank you for posting this.
It was a fascinating read and he made some great points that are relevant to this subject.
[url=http://seozarabotok.com/]Çàðàáîòîê â èíòåðíåòå[/url] - Èíòåðíåò èìååò áåçãðàíè÷íûå âîçìîæíîñòè
[QUOTE=Bymnanivy;32450051][url=http://seozarabotok.com/]Çàðàáîòîê â èíòåðíåòå[/url] - Èíòåðíåò èìååò áåçãðàíè÷íûå âîçìîæíîñòè[/QUOTE]
Haha, what.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32448016]You can't conceal rifles, so they are useless for protection in public and in your vehicle.
If you are ever going to be the victim of an attack, you're most likely to be attacked in three specific circumstances:
-Leaving your car
-Entering your car
-Entering your home
In all of these cases, you would be helpless to defend yourself with a rifle.
[url]http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-survival-2005.html[/url]
This is a small guide to survival in a post economic disaster scenario, written by an Argentinian after their country's economy collapsed in 2001. It's an excellent read, and it partly focuses on the utility and superiority of handguns to rifles.
"I don't need one, so nobody needs one."
I hope you realize the gigantic logical fallacy that you're making in this post.
Even if it was a moral thing for governments to ban everything their citizens didn't "need," rifles and handguns are still completely practical for personal defense, home defense, sport shooting, recreation, hunting and collection. Where I live (in the sticks,) hunting saves families hundreds of dollars a year on groceries. Hunting also maintains wildlife populations, which is absolutely critical for ecological balance. A .22 isn't exactly going to cut it if you're shooting deer.
Not to mention that many non-hunting outdoorsmen carry revolvers for protection against wildlife. You don't have to live in the inner city to justify carrying a handgun on your person.[/QUOTE]
thank you
IMO gun restriction laws (that outright ban guns) make no sense, because fucking criminals are going to get them anyway, and there is no real reason that an average citizen should not be able to own a gun for sport or defense.
[editline]23rd September 2011[/editline]
snip, just an advert
To be honest? Shooting guns is fun as hell. I mean, it's beneficial for self defense in some cases. Sport is a perfectly reasonable reason to own guns, and hel, they can be fun and rewarding(if a bit pricy.).
I have 1000 rounds loaded up and I'm going to the range today with all my guns. :wink:
[QUOTE=nivek;32538087]I have 1000 rounds loaded up and I'm going to the range today with all my guns. :wink:[/QUOTE]
And he was never heard from again :ohdear:
If people are going to use guns in a responsible manner (target shooting, hunting, personal defense is rural areas,) than by all means let them. The problem is with idiots and criminals who aren't going to use them correctly. We need to set up a system that can allow the responsible users to purchase guns, but one that filters the idiots out. The thing is that it would be very difficult to implement that sort of system correctly.
[QUOTE=kaine123;32581217]If people are going to use guns in a responsible manner (target shooting, hunting, personal defense is rural areas,) than by all means let them. The problem is with idiots and criminals who aren't going to use them correctly. We need to set up a system that can allow the responsible users to purchase guns, but one that filters the idiots out. The thing is that it would be very difficult to implement that sort of system correctly.[/QUOTE]
Add a simple math question on the license application.
I saw a T-Shirt that said the following:
[quote]Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.[/quote]
Just some food for thought. [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I posted this in the Firearms thread, but how does FP feel about the FOPA Hughes Amendment?
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ[/MEDIA]
Is it unconstitutional? Is it a good thing?
I'm curious to hear FP's opinion on the matter.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act[/url]
The amendment never passed the vote, it should never have been signed in to law.
But good luck getting the government to give up power back to the citizens.
Our forefathers already passed the national right to carry in the 2nd amendment. We just became complacent and let their successors erode that right. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32386497]Posting this here:
[url]http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
I know I'm very late, but thanks for posting that. It's awesome.
[video=youtube;SCXtfR0_roE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE[/video]
[video=youtube;MtqufzEFCzw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtqufzEFCzw[/video]
[video=youtube;YoIKlO20RqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoIKlO20RqM[/video]
I will just place this here.You guys will find it VERY informative.Also a bit NSFW
The whole argument claiming that guns fall into criminals hands from legal stores is generally flawed. Most poor gangsters aren't gonna shell our $800 for a Glock 17 at a gun store. They're more than willing to shell out $150 for a piece of shit that someone stole from a freighter and ripped the safety off of.
The average firearm (Glock, Colt, Taurus, ect...) purchased at an FFL dealer cost around $600-$800. (That's ballpark, you can purchased firearms that are cheaper than $600 and more than $800)
An illegally imported unmodified AK-47 can be purchased for around $70.
A few reasons why it can cost the Average Joe an arm and a leg to buy just a simple PDW or CCW.
- Only an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) can sell firearms. It requires a quite expensive yearly tax stamp. (If you buy and sell Class 3 firearms, it's even more expensive)
- All FFL's have to be insured against firearm theft, this can run into the millions.
- Firearm manufactures are very heavily taxed for either manufacturing or importing firearms into the country.
- Every FFL must submit a questionnaire and background check for each customer...at the expense of the FFL dealer.
- Each State taxes purchased firearms, it can be a simple %10 or more.
All of these combine to create an expensive environment. If you a "brand name" buyer then it costs even more. You can purchased a Taurus Colt .45 clone for $550 or the Colt .45 Gov't Model for $1,200, but if you purchased the Taurus clone you're not guaranteed the Colt manufacturing standard, quality or name.
As for the AK-47? It was either brought in via shipping container or border smuggling. It's produced in some former Soviet Bloc nation or Third World country, most likely without licensing, no import taxation, no firearm tax, no required insurance, no background check, ect... it was most likely bought for $20 by the thug dealer because it's one of over 75 Million produced with more being made everyday and they're easy to obtain and sell.
You can buy a crate of AK-47's on the black market for nearly $150. It's why poor nations choice it as a primary rifle in conflicts. It's cheap, durable, effective, fires a medium caliber cartridge, has 7 moving parts, can be fixed with minimal tools available and you can teach a child to use it in less than 5 minutes.
Between the guy with the CC .380 Ruger LCP with 7 rounds in it magazine and the thug armed with an AK-47 packing an 85 round drum...the common man is literally out gun.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32443499]I live in Canada, never held a real gun, never fired one. Never have I said to myself, "Man, I really need a gun to protect myself." I don't plan on getting a gun. I don't need one. I don't think anyone needs them, at the most, a .22 rifle.[/QUOTE]
Svalbard called, they are asking what to do with all the angry polar bears.
If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
