@Dmizer,
Learn it, live it, love it. Like it or not, you can not remove one amendment to the constitution without opening a pandoras box of cause and effect legislature that WILL destroy America and call into question the existance of ALL our rights based on it.
Quote:As the issue of gun control gains prominence due to the ever increasing crime rate, people must ask themselves what would it take to change the second amendment?
Nothing.
Quote:Some like those who support the NRA will say that gun control is not the answer but it is the problem. They will argue that taking away the guns from those who are law abiding citizens will only leave the guns in the hands of the criminals. They will argue that a gun does not kill people, but that people kill people.
Make an arguement against any of these premisses.
Quote:"There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good person is no threat to anybody, except bad people." - Charleton Heston, NRA President
Very true, and proven.
Quote:Did the founding fathers ever envision a nation like what we have today? Did they ever believe that the level of violence, which is reaching epidemic proportions in Philadelphia, the same Philadelphia that they sat in and ratified the constitution, would be facilitated by the ease of obtaining and using guns. Does the second amendment apply in the same fashion today as it did in 1776?
They could have had no idea how society would end up, do you know how American society is going to be in 250 years? As far as if the 2nd applies, yes it does. For instance, there were many in NO that took up arms to defend their neighborhoods in the absense of law enforcement, against rovering gangs taking advantage of the situation.
Quote:In 1776 the right to bear arms was crucial for a nation that was about resisting tyranny. It was about the ability of a populace to maintain the balance of power with a government through the threat of armed revolt. If the threat of tyranny, which justified the creation the second amendment, no longer exists or is greatly diminished, then what is the justification for maintaining the second amendment in its current form?
It STILL maintains a balance of power, it is a lot more individual, but as a whole, the polulace has the ability to defend itself, even if it has to be against a police state in a dire circumstance. Hitler, Moa, and Stalin all agreed that an unarmed polulace was a good polulace.
Quote:Many argue that the second amendment is obsolete and does not apply to current state of civilization in the United States. The checks and balances within the government have created a stable government that for the most part, is widely supported by the populace. Tyranny is no longer a legitimate threat.
There's many that would disagree.
All the more reason for LAW ABIDING citozens to be able to defend themselves.
Quote:Comparison with other democratic societies clearly indicates that gun control when implemented over the long term and under strict enforcement is highly effective at reducing crimes committed with guns. For example, Japan has 120 million people. Philadelphia has 1.5 million people. Japan has a murder rate of 1.1 people killed with a gun per 100,000 people. Philadelphia has a murder rate of 33 people killed per 100,000. There will be over 500 people murdered with guns at the current rate in Philadelphia for 2007. Japan will suffer approximately 132 for their whole country. A city of 1.5 million has almost 4 times as many gun murders then a country of 120 million. Almost 40,000 people are killed with guns in this country each year. That is almost 4 times as many as the rest of the industrial nations combined.
Sorry, but the cultural differences are WAY too vast for this to be a valid comparison. And I would like a source for those figures, because what I found was Japan had 1.1 murders per 100,000 it did not specify that they were with a gun. Also a complete list of statistics broken down to include non death related would be better to garner any kind of support over such obviously blanket numbers.
Not too mention, lets get real when comparing those numbers and get some guns per citizen figures in there. Considering that private ownership of guns in Japan is almost non existant, we probably have a thousand times more guns than they do, and yet philly is only going to have five times more guns murders, with a larger population?
Because they are religious fanatics that would like to use them on people? Maybe?
Hardly, as a matter of fact, it is a proposterous comparison.
Quote:Suppose a guy walks into a school with a knife and attacks people. How many would he kill before he is overpowered?
A field somewhere in the middle of PA maybe?
Quote:He may get one or two but not much more. Suppose the same guy walks in with guns? No imagination required, just remember Virginia Tech.
And what would have happened if one, just one of those students had been allowed to carry? Maybe they could have shoot him before he killed more than one or two people. What if's, what ifs, what ifs, they go both ways, not good to use them in an debate.
Quote:Why make it so easy for unstable people to commit murder?
Why make it so hard for stable people to defend themselves.
Now you're getting it.
Quote:But the criminals will retain them. Perhaps initially, but over time, (most likely a decade) the amount of guns on the street will diminish. Eventually guns will be scarce and expensive and difficult to get under strict enforcement.
Kind of like a Japan, that still has over a hundred gun murders a year, with practically absolute private gun ownership forbidden? Don't think so.
Quote: Perhaps you say you need guns for protection? Statistics are not on your side.
Actually, yes, they are.
Quote:Statistics show that when a gun is pulled in self defense against a gun toting criminal, the majority of the time the victim is shot and not the criminal.
Really? Prove it.
Quote:How fast can you draw your gun when you already have one pointed at you? What the Police will tell you is to be compliant with the demands of the criminal. Why do they say this I ask? Is it because they want you to get mugged or raped? No, the answer is because statistics show those who resist or try to shoot it out with the criminals mostly end up dead.
Taking infinite individual possibilities and using then as proof of a point of view is just silly, I can do the samething, and personally intriduce you to people that have fought back and won against assault and rape.
Ask ANYONE in Kennesaw Georgia. This town has a law saying every head of household has to own and maintain a firearm, when the law went into effect in 1982 the crime rate DROPPED 74%, and has done nothing but go down since. Kthanx.
Ahhh, so we get to the root of the problem, the laws aren't enforced, and suck to begin with, and this is law abiding citizens fault? I guess it would be easier to just make more, and more laws, with government intruding into our lives more and more, as opposed to actually enforcing our laws. The only reason most of those problems is that people, we'll call them criminals, DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW. Why can't people wrap their heads around this? LAWS ONLY EFFECT PEOPLE THAT OBEY THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!
Quote:Would you give up your right to own a gun if it meant that thousands of lives would be saved each year? What would a good Christian man say in response to that question?
No, I wouldn't, and I do not care because I am not a christian.
