View Poll Results: Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

Voters
204. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    87 42.65%
  • No

    102 50.00%
  • Others

    15 7.35%
Page 28 of 171 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878128 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 1703

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #271
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not for personal rights. It was written before the advent of a standing army, when every able-bodied man (okay, let's be honest, every able-bodied white land-owning man) was expected to maintain a firearm and come forward in times of crisis to protect their homes, towns and nation. Every man was, by definition, part of the militia and had to provide their own weapons. That was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. However, times change and today, we have a standing military and an active police force, two things not forseen by the founding fathers. The modern-day Supreme Court's sole job is to interpret the Constitution in light of modern events, yet the farther we get from the days of the founding fathers, the less impact the founding documents can have on modern life because they just had no clue about the modern world. Given a modern army and police force, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have taken the positions they did with the 2nd amendment.

    I think we can make some good, logical reasons for personal gun ownership, but this mindless clinging to the 2nd amendment really is pretty pathetic.
    I do not totally agree. We have always had a standing Army, Navy and Marine Corp (a sub division of the Navy). The militia intent, I believe, was that all able bodied men would be a reserve for that standing military. Had the intent been to only have militias and no standing military, then, since they were still in control, they would of disbanded the standing military after peace was established with England. Standing militaries cost a lot. So instead of a large standing force, we would have a small standing force backed up by the citizens in time of need.

    After the Civil War, in which a lot of the "militia" went off and fought with the rebels, and some other problems. Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903. This established the National Guard to replace the militia concept and instead of personal arms, the government then furnished them. Prior to this, all men (ok, be honest, there was some prejudices running around back then, so some may have been "exempted") were required to have personal arms so they could be called up. Most households had guns.

    After the requirement to own a personal gun, a possible side affect of this act was that crime, specifically murder (I assume other violent crimes also, but I admit I cannot at this time prove it) shot up to tremendous levels. Since this act was passed, our murder rate has not gotten any where near as low (admittedly the rate then was probably higher as prejudices caused some murders not to get into the statistics). I said possible side affect simply because it cannot be definitively proven, other than comparing rates before and rates after. I also do not know of any other major social change at the time that might account for this affect.

    While this might lead one to believe returning to mandatory ownership might be a solution to the problem of violent crime, it should be noted that our society today is drastically different than that prior to 1903. I still believe it is a much better solution than the abolishment of guns in America, a desired prospect for some but, at this point, unachievable. It would, in my opinion, cause some immediate upheaval, but after a few years it would settle down and while we might not see 1902s murder/violent crime rates, they would, with in 5 years or less reach lower levels than we have seen since adoption of the Militia Act of 1903. And we can still keep the Guard and Reserves to counter act faults in the militia system.

    And no, I don't believe it is pathetic to cling to the second amendment, it still acts a check upon the government acquiring too much power.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  2. #272
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Feel free to turn yours in. That would be the right amount of strictness, don't you agree?
    Uhh no i dont think think anyone should have to turn their guns in...


  3. #273
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not for personal rights. It was written before the advent of a standing army, when every able-bodied man (okay, let's be honest, every able-bodied white land-owning man) was expected to maintain a firearm and come forward in times of crisis to protect their homes, towns and nation. Every man was, by definition, part of the militia and had to provide their own weapons. That was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. However, times change and today, we have a standing military and an active police force, two things not forseen by the founding fathers. The modern-day Supreme Court's sole job is to interpret the Constitution in light of modern events, yet the farther we get from the days of the founding fathers, the less impact the founding documents can have on modern life because they just had no clue about the modern world. Given a modern army and police force, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have taken the positions they did with the 2nd amendment.

    I think we can make some good, logical reasons for personal gun ownership, but this mindless clinging to the 2nd amendment really is pretty pathetic.
    It absolutely is not the Supreme Court's place to decide that part of the Constitution is outdated, and no longer needs to be fully obeyed. The only legitimate way for this determination to be made and put into effect is by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede that which is deemed to be outdated.

    Until such an amendment is ratified, to supersede the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment remains the law of the land, and any part of government that refuses to obey it does so illegitimately. There is nothing the least bit “pathetic” about insisting that the Constitution be obeyed. If there is anything pathetic in this discussion, it is the sort of excuses that you are making to disobey the Constitution. If you don't agree with any part of the Constitution, write your elected representatives, and ask them to begin the process of Amending it to supersede that part with which you do not agree.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  4. #274
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    398

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Your premise is nonsense. You might as well argue about a “What if…?” scenario in which it is absolutely proven that painting pigs in different colors has a substantial effect on safety.

    This whole thread is an example of the GIGO principle at work. If you want to have a rational discussion, you need to start it based on a rational premise, and not some disproven left-wing statist fairy tale.
    I don't disagree... - the premise is nonsense, but the premise was not mine. I chose to participate. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that gun control could cause a reduction in violence. I accept that there is ZERO evidence for it currently, but if the left-wingers want to know the hypothetical 'what-if' so that they know if it's worth attempting to find a causal relationship between gun control and reduced violence - if that makes the world a truly safer place - then I'll give them the green light by telling them that I'll at least listen to what they have to say.

  5. #275
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    It absolutely is not the Supreme Court's place to decide that part of the Constitution is outdated, and no longer needs to be fully obeyed. The only legitimate way for this determination to be made and put into effect is by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede that which is deemed to be outdated.
    But you're missing the whole point. In many of these cases, the Supreme Court is basically inventing new application out of whole cloth because what came before simply does not apply in any way, shape or form to new technologies, new ideas, etc. It's not a matter of deciding what the founding fathers intended, they didn't intend anything, they couldn't have imagined these things in their wildest dreams, it's just making up new ideas and trying to shoehorn them into the writings of people who died almost 250 years ago. I seriously doubt they intended their ideas to be the only driving force for the nation for centuries to come, nor could they have foreseen the kind of polarization that's come to pass that makes ratifying any new ideas into the Constitution basically impossible.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #276
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I pretty much agree with this. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness.
    Then why do you support registration and FOID cards?
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  7. #277
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    Then why do you support registration and FOID cards?
    The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #278
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
    CHeese and crackers! Duh! Sorry, I don't know how I messed that!
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  9. #279
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,671

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  10. #280
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Gun Control

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
    But once you take away the guns and the knives and the bomb-making chemicals in everyone's homes and cars, etc., you're still left with the PEOPLE! Why not stop worrying about all the things that can cause damage and deal with the actual problem?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •