posted March 31, 2008 11:23 PM            

Anyhow back to the topic:

Answer: Its quite possible.

Will people resort to killing/violence?
Considering your country's past.
Answer: Yes, Its possible.

So what must we do?
Answer: May be we can be lenient and only allow uniformed people to carry guns and that too in emergencies like Katrina etc.
Or grant that privelege to "good" citizens.
What is "good" in that case?

I guess the law in its present form is stupid , someone better not use it for terrorist purpose or other movements.

posted March 31, 2008 11:31 PM            

If I had my way there'd be no guns or weapons in the world. The United States government finds ways to oppress us regardless of whether we have guns or not.

posted March 31, 2008 11:38 PM            

Possessing and keeping privately owned firearms is not a "privilege" in the United States.

How is it you don't know the difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

BTW, your opinion about the 2nd Amendment is in the minority in America. People overwhelmingly support the "right" of private citizens to own and keep their firearms.

***edit

You poor baby Blue. You don't know just how lucky you are to live in America..under the rule of law. Just know Blue and all the other whining developmentally arrested juveniles, if it were up to me, you would serve a hitch in the US military. Probably right now, you'd be walking patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan....or, you could flee this den of oppression and not come back.

posted March 31, 2008 11:45 PM            

>>>How is it you don't know the difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

I think you read too many things in one day and missed what I said. Better be a tortoise than a hare ...lol

I certainly want it to be a privelege not a right. Just as Driving License is a privelege not a right. It can be taken away.

>>>> BTW, your opinion about the 2nd Amendment is in the minority in America. People overwhelmingly support the "right" of private citizens to own and keep their firearms.

Again you missed. I said the law in the present form needs proof reading and drastic changes because of increasing threat to "life" and post 9/11.

**added**
You sound like one of Moses followers who reads every thing literally. The constitution is not written in stone and allows changes to it. Please check your facts.

posted April 01, 2008 02:32 AM            

How can you call yourself compassionate denying a woman like this a gun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A

How is it compassionate or sane to allow the strong to rule the weak by virtue of being strong? And how is it sane to support gun control when gun control has led to more violence, while relaxing gun laws has led to decreased violence over and over again? How is it compassionate or sane to prefer 33 dead at VT over 3 dead at the school of law shooting in the same state?

As one disable lesbian shared:

"These anti-gun people apparently don't know what it’s like to be knocked out of your wheelchair, robbed and left to die on the sidewalk on a cold night. The second time that happened to me, I said never again. I mean, what am I supposed to do? Run away? Speak sternly to them?" She raised a corner of her chair seat cloth enough for me to glimpse the butt of a large handgun. She sat silently a moment, lost in painful thoughts. "Guns equalize physical power," she said. "Women, the elderly, those of us with disabilities, we can't physically protect ourselves with our bodies. This gives my body back its dignity."

--a disabled lesbian described by Cindy Hill, a liberal environmentalist for gun rights.

posted April 01, 2008 11:04 AM            

The foolishness exhibited by the ones making this argument (besides the inability to admit that this is not a realistic model for our present world) is this:
That those arguing in favor of the wisdom of our forefathers in their implementing of the Second Amendment are war-mongerers, addicts of violence and against the thought of World Peace and Human Harmony.

How nice it would be if all firearms and weapons of the world with the potential of destroying ourselves were non-existent! Quickly, let's all go out and paint all the roses red and all the violets blue! Yay! Fantastic!

Ok, breath. Deeply. Though I've just finished employing some sarcasm, I'd like to make it clear that I am not joking in this matter. This view of the world does us no good. The time we spend wishing and hoping that the world was rid of the evil of firearms and other ridiculous weaponry, we waste time on frivolous daydreaming that could very well be spent on much more effective brainwork.

Has anyone here really thought of the ramifications and made a really practical plan for the abolishment of the Second Amendment that would be applicable to the current state of the world? If so, let's hear it!

As far as I can tell, do you know what I see? Wanting to get rid of all the dangerous weapons of the world is a thought that comes only from arrogance and Fear. The fear of accepting the World as it is, the fear of trust in others, the fear of death and destruction, and the arrogance in believing that taking away the ability to choose, the very will of an individual, is the answer to this solution. Above all, this argument shows a lack of faith in God (or whomever/whatever it is you wish to believe in) and the course by which our human destiny is set: a course that requires us to diligently choose our own paths towards whatever destination we so credibly believe.

Matthew 8:25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
Matthew 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

Love is with Us, always.

posted April 01, 2008 01:27 PM            

I'm not a politician, Nosis, so my views don't really matter. I cast one vote, and it's not for a candidate that will ban guns. I understand that it is not practical to ban weapons completely. My practical solution is to express my intolerance of weapons and violence, and to express my hope for peace. That is all I have.

I understand that my views are not rational and don't fit in to the practical, conservative perspective. But that's not the point. The point is that violence is wrong, weapons are wrong , and guns are wrong. Weapons are destructive and amplify suffering in the world. I wonder what the Dalai Llama thinks about guns?

I do lack faith in god, in fact I do not believe in god and I am certainly not a Christian. Your words seem to indicate that anyone who is not religious is somehow not worthy, what kind of narrow perspective is this, Nosis? Do you not tolerate people of all beliefs? I am not afraid of accepting the world the way it is, I see how it is, I accept it. Perhaps it is you who are afraid of living in a world without strife? The path I choose is one to envision peace, is that so wrong? Am I in denial because I"d like to see less suffering and violence in the world?

What about faith in humanity itself? Your argument that people opposing guns have no faith in humans makes no sense. Are you trying to say that I should have faith that people will have weapons and not use them? Then what is the point of having them? Do all the gun owners in the US not use them? How many children and young people have died at the hands of guns improperly wielded or stored? Do guns really not kill people?

THe second amendment: "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."

Are all of your people here arguing for guns part of a well regulated militia? Are teenage members in poor neighborhoods shooting and killing each other part of a well regulated militia? LOL, maybe.

Reality starts with the dreams of one person.

posted April 01, 2008 08:57 PM            

Kinda like how Switzerland was spared the horrors of the Nazis. I know, some point out how the Swiss banks helped the Nazis, but that's not the reason the Nazis didn't invade as they invaded all the countries around them, nor were the Swiss the only ones to make deals with the Nazis. It's just the Nazis weren't there to enforce those deals as they did with all the other countries, as virtually everyone (at least male) was armed.

As for pepper spray, it doesn't work like a charm. Granted, a GOOD can of it will be effective in many circumstances, but not all. There are other problems, too, such as you can get the stuff on you--even if the one you spray doesn't attack you. Wind can also create a problem, and those with asthma definitely shouldn't use it, ever. Really, you should not only get training to use pepper spray, but spray some on yourself just to see how well you can fight through it should you get dosed with it by wind or by the attacker.

OC also has various effects. It can bring a huge man down to his knees, while a small woman might blink and ask, "Is that it?" It's especially dangerous when using this stuff on an experienced criminal that has had it used on him (especially the super strength police kind, that is the kind that has been known to kill people and is illegal for civilians), as he won't have the panic that some drunk needing strong discouragement would likely have. Furthermore, it takes a few seconds, at the very least, for it to take effect. Anyone with enough rage, or experience at what pepper spray can and can't do, can fight through the effects to cause significant harm to the one who sprayed him. That's why after having sprayed, run, preferably not in the opposite direction and in a zig zag manner. This option isn't available to many, including the elderly and disabled.

It also doesn't do much against multiple attackers, or attackers with a gun. Pepper spray wouldn't have helped these people for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7at_k8k5Fcg

And btw, the poor teens shooting each other aren't part of the gun culture, but part of the THUG culture. Yes, there's a difference. If you don't know what it is, I suggest you go to a cowboy action shoot, shooting range, and the like and see. The vast majority have owned guns for decades and never had an accident or used them inappropriately. There aren't shootings over parking spaces or domestic disputes there. There are no mass shootings. Here is the gun culture, as opposed to the thug culture:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28017.html

And also acquaint yourself with the laws as they stand, even in Vermont. The youth you speak of can't legally buy those guns, especially if they've ever been convicted of violence. And they don't need to, as there are criminals who import guns and ammo that are illegal for ANYONE in the USA to use, and sell to them cheap. Therefore, harping on thug culture, especially teens in thug culture, is a straw man at best.

Given that such gang violence is much more common in places of high gun control (even the exceptions, primarily in the Southern US, were more violent in the past before gun controls/victim disarmament was lessened than they are now), it's especially inappropriate. As I pointed out earlier, gang violence with guns and knives have skyrocketed in the UK since they banned their guns. Likewise, where CCW permits have been granted, crime almost always goes down, whereas those that adopt strong gun controls see violence--including gun violence--go up.

posted April 01, 2008 09:27 PM            

Your post is admirable and most sincere of heart. I am glad to read it because it has given me hope for this discussion finally coming full circle. The very hope presents itself by your own stand against unnecessary violence, pain and suffering.

Many make the mistake in judging that all who support the Second Amendment are a destructive people, full of the desire to do harm to others, and quick to spring towards violence. I feel this judgment is full of folly.

quote:

---

I'm not a politician, Nosis, so my views don't really matter.

---

I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic here because of this second part.

quote:

---

My practical solution is to express my intolerance of weapons and violence, and to express my hope for peace. That is all I have.

---

This couldn't be a practical solution if you really believed that your views don't matter. I'm all for this effort, though. It's important to express how we honestly feel in any given moment, but this expression is not all we have. In order to express our hope for peace, we must cultivate it in the feelings of our hearts and in the thoughts of our minds. I think that, in and of itself, is weightier than its verbal expression.

quote:

---

I understand that my views are not rational and don't fit in to the practical, conservative perspective. But that's not the point. The point is that violence is wrong, weapons are wrong , and guns are wrong. Weapons are destructive and amplify suffering in the world.

---

Actually, the idea of abolishing the Second Amendment not being rational nor practical is exactly the point. I'd like to remind you of the topic of this thread, which has been the focus of my responses. Violence is often committed heartlessly. Weapons and guns are often used wrongfully. Is violence wrong, however, if a hero decides to knock an assailant unconsciously by swinging a bat to the back of the criminal's head, thus saving a crowd from a threat? Or should we not call the hero's action "violence"? Similarly, martial artists use weaponry in such beautiful ways. Shall we take away their craft? Guns are used in sport as well. Shall we take away guns along with others' right to choose their way of life? Their right to choose to hunt for their food in as long as they follow the local laws concerned? This is absurd. The disastrous nature of a weapon comes not from the weapon itself, nor does it amplify the suffering of the world. It is what humanity has been doing with these weapons that is at fault and the solution to that lies within each and every one of us.

quote:

---

I do lack faith in god, in fact I do not believe in god and I am certainly not a Christian. Your words seem to indicate that anyone who is not religious is somehow not worthy, what kind of narrow perspective is this, Nosis? Do you not tolerate people of all beliefs?

---

Brother, did you completely miss the content of my parentheses "(or whomever/whatever it is you wish to believe in)"??? I can assure you that, even though you don't believe in God, you most certainly believe in something. Sanity of mind cannot reside without a belief in something. There are many things in which I believe, but God/dess is the loftiest of the lot and this belief is expressed constantly within my words. An artist cannot separate his/her self from their art. That's all that I meant by including the word "God". I will not apologize for that. If there is any further evidence of me being intolerant "of people of all beliefs", please point it out. Otherwise, I find it ridiculously humorous that you would pull the "You're a closed-minded Christian!" card on me. On a forum themed on esotericism, of all places!!! I'll have to use that one at the next party I go to.

quote:

---

I am not afraid of accepting the world the way it is, I see how it is, I accept it.

---

If you are of the mind to abolish the Second Amendment, I disagree.

quote:

---

Perhaps it is you who are afraid of living in a world without strife?

---

*Chuckle*

posted April 01, 2008 09:27 PM            

quote:

---

The path I choose is one to envision peace, is that so wrong? Am I in denial because I"d like to see less suffering and violence in the world?

---

No, your choice is not wrong. No, your desire to see less suffering and violence in the world does not make you in denial.
I don't see how you might think that I don't have the same desire to envision peace or that I don't care to see less unnecessary suffering and violence in the world. I simply disagree with thinking that making the possession of guns illegal will solve any of these issues.

quote:

---

What about faith in humanity itself? Your argument that people opposing guns have no faith in humans makes no sense.

---

No, it makes complete sense. Anyone opposing the rights of others to choose to possess a gun are implying that they do not have faith in that person's judgment, no matter who they are! It's completely myopic!

quote:

---

Are you trying to say that I should have faith that people will have weapons and not use them?

---

No. What I am trying to say is that you should accept the fact that people will have weapons, whether it's the gun hangin' on their sling or the knives coming out of their mouths.

quote:

---

Do guns really not kill people?

---

No. People kill people.

Aside: Thank you for setting me up for that cliché, by the way.

quote:

---

Don't crush my dreams of peace with cynical rationality.

---

The only possibility that might've "crushed" your dream of peace is if it involved, in its design, the abolishment of the Second Amendment. If so, then tough cookies. But you're free to dream as you please, so I don't see the biggie.

Let me try to use a metaphor to help explain the dynamic involved in abolishing the Second Amendment. Has anyone ever played "Jenga"? It's a game that starts with a tower made of smaller, wooden blocks. The point is that you have to try to take these wooden blocks from the tower without making the structure collapse. Well, let's just say that the Second Amendment is the kind of block that will make the tower collapse, no matter the timing.

posted April 02, 2008 02:18 AM            

Let me also say that I have been exposed to gun violence in the home. There was no reason for the parties involved to possess guns, they were never used for safety or protection, only to point at and terrorize family members. But I shouldn't allow my personal anecdotes to color my opinion.

I am constantly exposed to violence in my work, I stand in between people as they attempt to destroy one another. My body is a shield. It is through this experience that I understand how truly awful violence is. I am a shield.

I cannot accept your argument that people will always have weapons and I have to accept it. Yes people will always have weapons, but do they have to have easy access to the most violent and destructive of weapons? I don't think they do. Should I be able to buy a bazooka? A tank? Guns are probably more dangerous than those, due to how easily they are concealed. Some people simply aren't meant to possess guns, this opinion is not myopic, it is progressive.

I'm not sure how you can't make the connection that absence of guns would make the the world a bit safer. You say people will always have weapons, yes, but this argument disregards the specific properties that guns have. Easy to conceal. Easy to accidentally fire. easy to obtain. Lightweight. Incredibly deadly. The pistols of today are NOT the muskets of the 18th century, have you considered that? If your child accidentally shot him/herself with a gun I think your tune would change.

Thanks for your sincere response.

I did not see your parentheses about god, and yes I did pull that card.

posted April 02, 2008 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

For me this is bigger than the second amendment, this is about the fundamental nature of weapons: they create pain and suffering.

---

I think we all, at least here, want to see peace prosper but we have different views on how peace can ultimately be achieved. I do think choice is most important when looking toward that end. But weapons don't create anything. Weapons are creations. They are things we humans created ... and it isn't as though the world was peaceful before any weapon was created anyway. You can kill people by various means. Any notion that only "evil" people desire weapons is illogical. People made weapons to hunt for food. Others used those weapons to hunt people. Still others used those weapons to defend themselves from being hunted. Should we stop before that last one? Because our modern day murderers are human hunters in the simplest of terms. For all those who want to "arm bears" to be fair there are many of us who want the choice to "bear arms" for the same reason.

No one here, imo, desires weapons as an ideal. But as a reality ... nasty people use weapons to hurt other people. Those same nasty people are also deterred from their negative intentions when their intended victims are armed ... and even more so if they are armed with a gun. Even suspecting that a person is armed is enough to deter many criminals. And it's like rock, paper, scissors ... a gun trumps most any other weapon used in "common" crime, like knives. If someone breaks into your house, armed with a gun, your little kitchen knives won't be much help. Even a martial artist caught by surprise can be shot down ... even Chuck Norris.

posted April 02, 2008 09:36 AM            

I believe you are a compassionate person too. But capitalism does not allow compassion to be at its side. In my viewpoint that is good but not great. Some times compassion retards progress of a soul for the same reason capitalism makes a soul hardened.

We have to look at the context of any situation and then comment.

It is ok to be a rep of Dalai Lama or Gandhi or Luther King. But sometimes their teachings can be applied only to themselves and not a for a group.

Your comment on quartering british soldiers is exactly Gandhism and thats why he was killed.

All,

There is a spiritual ideology in which Gun becomes obsolete and even violence. And then there is a political ideology among mortals where gun is not obsolete yet, but peoples "will" can make it obsolete. And I really wanted the Americans to take that first step.

Ramblings over.

*added at 10:35am Where do you see anger exhibited by Masters like Jesus, Osho or any Zen master? Even if you see, you cannot explain until you understand the truth.

posted April 02, 2008 01:02 PM            

THe idea is that if guns weren't available so readily, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself from an intruder. THey wouldn't have a gun, so the likelihood of someone getting killed would decrease.

I hear this argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is essentially what you wrote. But your statement doesn't do anything to refute the fact that guns are especially deadly, and that the guns of today are not the guns that the 2nd amendment discusses.

Yes there are other weapons, and people will still kill eachother. But the idea is that it wouldn't be as easy without guns. How easy would it be to carry out a mass killing at one of our schools or universities without a gun? What would the attacker use?

What is the likelihood that someone is going to come in your house and kill you, versus the likelihood that your gun will be used against someone you know? Accidentally or on purpose?

"f 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities, [this study] revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)."

posted April 02, 2008 01:23 PM            

You wrote that there was no indication in your previous post of your agreement with abolishing the Second Amendment.

However, on your first post in this thread you wrote:

quote:

---

I'm with you Mannu, and I appreciate you arguing on the side of compassion and sanity.

If I had my way there'd be no guns or weapons in the world.

---

Considering the topic of the thread, the assumption of your stance on this argument was not at all projected.

I am sorry for the pain that you have experienced from forms of gun-related violence in your past. Our personal experiences are always going to color our opinions. The question is: What kind of picture are we going to make of the world we live in when we use those colors? Will it merely be functional enough to live and work in the world? Or is it possible to paint a picture with our own "colors" that harmoniously reflects our environment's condition and our own? I am not solely targeting you as I ask this question here. I refer to it in a general sense.

I think you're making the mistake of separating "idealist" and "realist". An idealist, undoubtedly, should have some views of the world that are definitively realistic (especially if any of their ideas are to welcome any practical function). Similarly, a realist cannot aspire to see the world as realistically as possible without inviting, within their self, that very ideal. There are extremes in each case and both lead to the inability to proficiently change the world. As humans, I feel that we abandon a responsibility when we label ourselves strictly as "idealists" or "realists": the responsibility to the polarity in each of us.

The violence you are exposed to at work must have a considerable effect on you. Being that it is a conscious decision to put up with that violence, the inner strength you must be building from those experiences should be quite admirable. Given your personal experiences, I should venture out and express my thoughts on this: That you have undergone such violent experiences and willfully decided, of your own accord and not because of some law, not to own and carry a firearm on your person makes you a much stronger person for having made that decision. Of course I am assuming here, but I should admit that I would find it a bit hypocritical if you did, in fact, own and carried a gun with you considering your expressions on this matter.

Whatever perceptions you might have made of me may be whatever you may, but I think it is important that you understand that I do hold a deep respect for you, Blue. I don't think that you lack a great deal of respect for me, but I don't think you are really understanding or listening to the argument being made.

I'm not asking you to accept that people will always have weapons. People will want to have weapons for now and for some time to come. People should not be denied of this.

What I am asking is that you admit that there is no conclusive connection between the absence of guns and the world being a bit safer. Realistically speaking, there cannot be an absence of guns and the governing parties of any country wishing to abolish their right will remain in absolute control of these weapons. The real Snake in question might or might not hibernate for a bit but rest assured that, if it does rest, the sleep will have its purpose in coiling. Then the Snake will rise up in a great spring, injecting the very heart of humanity with its injurious venom.

quote:

---

If your child accidentally shot him/herself with a gun I think your tune would change.

---

I have the advantage of reasoning about this with an ease of objectivity, but if my child did accidentally shoot him/herself then I do believe my tune would change, though not as dramatically as you are insinuating. In such a hypothetical situation, if there were any fault of mine that could be blamed or anything that I could have done to prevent the accident, then I would change my tune as far as those elements were concerned. Granted, I have only some idea of how I might react to such a thing and I care not to wonder of it. However, I stand firmly on the solid foundation that my own reasoning has uncovered and I do not believe that the foundation would be cracked by an occurrence of this hypothetical tragedy. I perceive a profound fallacy of thinking when it comes to the opposition of this particular argument.

Thanks again, BR, for your earnestness. It's been refreshing and enlightening.

Eleanore,

and thank you.

Dervish,

Impressive research. Thanks for your contribution.

posted April 02, 2008 09:10 PM            

The Kellerman study has been debunked, btw, and it was debunked by a member of Amnesty International. What you quote him as saying is wrong because he ONLY COUNTS DEATHS. That is, if a person defends herself by pointing a gun and he runs, it does not count. If she wounds him and he gets help in time (as she already called 911 or does right after), it was not counted. (And in like 98% of self-defense cases, the gun wasn't even fired, just presented! And out of those shot due to self-defense, like only 2% actually died from it as they got prompt medical attention.) And that was just one of the problems with the Kellerman study. Seriously, that one is so debunked I marvel that anyone quotes him anymore.

The likelihood of a gun being used against you by accident or otherwise is much less than a backyard pool causing harm. Or drowning in a bathtub for that matter.

As for killing each other, I just saw The Mist, and according to the commentary, the flamethrower used on the set was made from supplies at Home Depot. I can use materials that you yourself surely have to make enough napalm to take out a daycare center. The most deadly school massacre on American soil was done with dynamite. And have you forgotten what fertilizer can do? (If not, ever talk against pools and fertilizer, and also trampolines, household cleansers, etc?)

IOW, massacres would remain very easy to do without legal access to guns. (Meanwhile, gun violence would go up if guns are banned, just as it did in the UK, where gun violence is a daily tragedy out there now. Contrast that to less gun control meaning less violence in US States, especially Washington, Vermont, etc.)

Knives can be deadlier than a gun, because knives are silent, they don't misfire, and they take less skill to use. I already gave one example where a madman in Japan used a knife to kill and wound more than at the NIU shooting. Here it is again:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200106/08/eng20010608_72155.html

Here's another one in China:
http://www.nbc6.net/news/3951088/detail.html

IOW, the massacres still happen.

Btw, looks like that VT victims or their families are getting a settlement for the failure of "gun free zones" (the gun free zone list is a shopping list for lunatics, whether they use a gun, knife, explosive, or machete). More and more students are suing to be allowed to bring their guns on campus. Which will make them much safer as a result, given the comparison to VT to the Appalachian school of law shooting. (Or even Arlington, VA compared to the gun violence in Washington DC, as DC has a lot more victim disarmament. and thus more violence.)

I really don't care what the 2nd says, but your thing that "it's not about the guns today," is irrelevant. The principle is the same.

And even if there were no guns, that doesn't mean that "pepper spray works like a charm." Pepper spray wouldn't have turned mobs away as they did in the LA Riots, or in post-Katrina New Orleans (before they were disarmed by police who betrayed their trust). Pepper spray wouldn't stop a prison-hardened stalker from stabbing his ex to death (and if couldn't run because she was in a wheelchair, had arthritis really bad, or if she had asthma, then it would likely do more harm than good anyway). A man that is 220 pounds, especially if he's an experienced fighter, is going to outmatch the majority of women. Even pepper spray, to be effective when it can be (and it won't always be), has to allow him to get too close to begin with. Pepper spray and other alternatives to guns used by women have repeatedly failed to stop serial killers. Meanwhile, criminals will still get guns from their dealers.

And not all of us live in well policed suburbs, or perfect security. And danger can strike anywhere. Having a gun is like having a fire extinguisher. Children have been saved with guns, too, and some children died because a woman wasn't able to get a gun before the waiting period was over, and her ex killed them before that.

More:
http://www.a-human-right.com/

posted August 02, 2019 03:10 PM            

first of all you can go into a hardware store and find a lot of things you can use to kill a **** ton of people easy if you were so inclined

it's not like the tools to make explosives and such are illegal many common items can be used for things like poison gas and bombs

in places where you don't have guns people just stab each other, run each other over etc so there's really no shortage of ways to kill

second of all the government itself and the cops etc are known to be corrupt and they have weapons much stronger than what you're allowed as a civilian and yet you're ok with that? why?

people are so afraid of civilians with guns meanwhile they'll give their tax money to people with power over them to create new and improved weapons all the ******* time

the entire purpose of the second amendment is so that the scales of power don't tip too far in the favor of a tyrannical government and people are able to check their government using force if necessary

people are already too weak and complacent to begin with, taking guns away will only make that worse

the reality is statistically speaking your average person is unlikely to get killed in a mass shooting, but they're blown out of proportion and covered in the media because it serves well to scare and divide people

divide and conquer

there's absolutely no point in shifting the scales even further when it comes to the power people have over their government (voting is largely ******** and more of a pacification and division tool than anything because if you look many of the larger issues that aren't plays on people's passions and ideologies have been going on for decades regardless of left or right; 2 party system is largely the perfect way to keep people against each other instead of looking at their masters) by giving up gun rights

it's a short sighted way of pacifying scared people with potential long term major consequences for future generations

people being so passive towards their governments in the first place is part of the reason why things are so **** now

the reality is people should be demanding the right to have weapons equal to what those in power have not to have more taken away

just common sense to never give someone who's able to control what you do, whether their laws are just or not, everything they need to use force to control you

2nd amendment is important for the balance of power ultimately, and like i said if someone is so inclined they can go to a store like wal-mart pick up a few things and kill a fair amount of people without ever firing a gun or just get in their car you've seen the trucks in england and **** i'm sure

posted August 02, 2019 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mannu:
The civil rights bill was passed 100s of years ago with not much progress. It took a Martin Luther king to change everything in America in the 60s. His movement did not use violence. He was inspired by Gandhi who won India her independence primariy in a peaceful way.

But look what these people did. They killed Martin Luther king with a gun. And they even killed Gandhi with a gun.

---

this is too old for an answer from op, but people who put gandhi on a pedestal are completely wrong

gandhi didn't win anything, the british backed out of india for unrelated reasons and most of what gandhi accomplished was setting back the revolution and getting other revolutionaries killed

if you actually research the truth about gandhi he wasn't that great of a person and a lot of what he did amounted to **** all

granted pacifism and peace are good for pr, and peace is an important part of war, but that's the thing it's just part of it

which is why mlk was successful to an extent, he was hardly the only civil rights movement leader at the time and there were people violently taking their rights

he didn't single handedly do **** , and is only held as a standard in schools because pacifism is preached to keep people passive

we're taught to honor largely ineffectual means (pacifism is ultimately ineffectual in most cases particularly when it's the only method employed notice how all major power shifts occur violently? it's because power isn't given away freely and blood is usually the price) because it serves those in power well to have a population that's kept in check and societal morale is a good way of doing that

posted March 19, 2020 10:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Right Eleanore.

THe idea is that if guns weren't available so readily, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself from an intruder. THey wouldn't have a gun, so the likelihood of someone getting killed would decrease.

I hear this argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is essentially what you wrote. But your statement doesn't do anything to refute the fact that guns are especially deadly, and that the guns of today are not the guns that the 2nd amendment discusses.

Yes there are other weapons, and people will still kill eachother. But the idea is that it wouldn't be as easy without guns. How easy would it be to carry out a mass killing at one of our schools or universities without a gun? What would the attacker use?

What is the likelihood that someone is going to come in your house and kill you, versus the likelihood that your gun will be used against someone you know? Accidentally or on purpose?

"f 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities, [this study] revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)."

---

posted March 21, 2020 07:10 PM            

On the topic -- much water has flown under the bridge. I do see a need for people to own gun during this tumultous times to protect themselves.

Compassion is a higher health state of a conscious mind no doubt but even a healthier state of mind is to be free of the consequences of action or lack thereof. Hope you get it.

During these times, cops could use guns and force you to get vaccinated. We know Trump /Fauzi has no cure yet. We know that people die of vaccines these days. you cannot trust any body these days.

Our constitution protects us with this 2nd amendment.

I rather have a constitution open to interpretation than be told what do do