4 ms·

Your right to bear arms is silly. Incredibly silly and archaic. You live in 2013, not in colonial times. While the amendment made perfect sense then, it makes n

by tomkin 14y ago

Your right to bear arms is silly. Incredibly silly and archaic. You live in 2013, not in colonial times. While the amendment made perfect sense then, it makes no sense now. The pro-gun movement seems to be completely ignorant to the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst. Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. As the above dictionary definition suggests, a society is based on a collective set of ideas, rules and order so that all within the society can live peacefully. Remove the guns and the strange associated chest-thumping, less people die. It's really that simple. You used to be able to drink and drive, until we all realized it was for the betterment of the society to change that. You lost that right, too. Guns are no different.

giardini 14y ago
"... the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst." Not true. US citizens are more effective than police in handling firearms: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-t... http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml scroll down to "Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police"
- tomkin 14y ago
  This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk about spinning the tires. Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).
    - tomkin 14y ago
      Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - bmelton 14y ago
        If you know of a way to increase the police force in a way that is efficient, affordable and repeatable such that people living 45 minutes away from the nearest police station would still be able to have relatively good assurance that said police would be there to stop crime from being done to them, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. In the absence of such knowledge, I think it's fair to point out that police are generally reactive. In the case of murder, they obviously weren't able to prevent the crime. As it stands, the sheer amount of crime we have speaks to the ineffectiveness of our existing police departments, and while they could almost certainly be made better, they can't likely be made perfect. In the case of an assault against me, my home or my family, my call to the police is not going to be made until I have at least assured the relative safety of myself and mine enough that making a call would be prudent. This means that, if someone is pointing a gun at me, if you give me the choice of whether I should have a cell phone in my hand or a firearm, I'll take the latter. Police are the first responders, but I believe that self defense is a personal responsibility, especially as Warren v DC[1] concluded that the police aren't under any obligation to protect me, despite whatever slogans may be painted on their vehicles. Of course, this ignores that nobody should have to defend their purchase of firearms in the US to anyone. It's a Constitutionally enumerated right, and according to our founders, a "natural, God-given right". Ignoring the theistic rhetoric, that means that I am able to possess a firearm, and most definitely for the purpose of self defense. If you could figure out such a way that would prevent me ever needing to use a firearm for self defense, as well as ensuring a means to prevent government tyranny, then perhaps I would consider relinquishing that right. Until such time, I will exercise that right lawfully and responsible and hope that I never need to use a firearm in defense. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
notdrunkatall 14y ago
Do you think that people are fundamentally different than they were three centuries ago? Do people not still seek power? If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the right to bear arms is as relevant today as it has ever been. You would throw away a peoples' right to defend themselves against an oppressive regime based on what, precisely? Your presumed ability to foretell the future? Your hunch that humanity has progressed beyond our base instincts? If that is the case, then you are a fool, which would put you in good company with the rest of the anti-gun crowd. Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad.
- tomkin 14y ago
  Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Couldn't make a better case against guns myself. Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly become vile? Would love your insight. Again, your argument sits within the confines of American reality, while the rest of the world gets by. What paranoid, delusional scenario do you see playing out exactly? Your government/other regime turns against you...and what? The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? Come on, man. Really? You're the only modern country that thinks this way. Let that sink in for a bit.
  - 18pfsmt 14y ago
    Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't own a gun, but I appreciate the right for my fellow citizens. I don't care if you ban it in your country; why are you so interested in restricting freedoms of people on the other side of the world? >The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can). >You're the only modern country that thinks this way. That's what Europeans have been saying to us for ~200 years (although, previously referring to things other than gun ownership). In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"

by tomkin 14y ago

giardini 14y ago

"... the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst." Not true. US citizens are more effective than police in handling firearms: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-t... http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml scroll down to "Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police"

tomkin 14y ago
This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk about spinning the tires. Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.
- bmelton 14y ago
  That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).
  - tomkin 14y ago
    Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - bmelton 14y ago
      If you know of a way to increase the police force in a way that is efficient, affordable and repeatable such that people living 45 minutes away from the nearest police station would still be able to have relatively good assurance that said police would be there to stop crime from being done to them, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. In the absence of such knowledge, I think it's fair to point out that police are generally reactive. In the case of murder, they obviously weren't able to prevent the crime. As it stands, the sheer amount of crime we have speaks to the ineffectiveness of our existing police departments, and while they could almost certainly be made better, they can't likely be made perfect. In the case of an assault against me, my home or my family, my call to the police is not going to be made until I have at least assured the relative safety of myself and mine enough that making a call would be prudent. This means that, if someone is pointing a gun at me, if you give me the choice of whether I should have a cell phone in my hand or a firearm, I'll take the latter. Police are the first responders, but I believe that self defense is a personal responsibility, especially as Warren v DC[1] concluded that the police aren't under any obligation to protect me, despite whatever slogans may be painted on their vehicles. Of course, this ignores that nobody should have to defend their purchase of firearms in the US to anyone. It's a Constitutionally enumerated right, and according to our founders, a "natural, God-given right". Ignoring the theistic rhetoric, that means that I am able to possess a firearm, and most definitely for the purpose of self defense. If you could figure out such a way that would prevent me ever needing to use a firearm for self defense, as well as ensuring a means to prevent government tyranny, then perhaps I would consider relinquishing that right. Until such time, I will exercise that right lawfully and responsible and hope that I never need to use a firearm in defense. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

notdrunkatall 14y ago

Do you think that people are fundamentally different than they were three centuries ago? Do people not still seek power? If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the right to bear arms is as relevant today as it has ever been. You would throw away a peoples' right to defend themselves against an oppressive regime based on what, precisely? Your presumed ability to foretell the future? Your hunch that humanity has progressed beyond our base instincts? If that is the case, then you are a fool, which would put you in good company with the rest of the anti-gun crowd. Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad.

tomkin 14y ago
Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Couldn't make a better case against guns myself. Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly become vile? Would love your insight. Again, your argument sits within the confines of American reality, while the rest of the world gets by. What paranoid, delusional scenario do you see playing out exactly? Your government/other regime turns against you...and what? The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? Come on, man. Really? You're the only modern country that thinks this way. Let that sink in for a bit.
- 18pfsmt 14y ago
  Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't own a gun, but I appreciate the right for my fellow citizens. I don't care if you ban it in your country; why are you so interested in restricting freedoms of people on the other side of the world? >The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can). >You're the only modern country that thinks this way. That's what Europeans have been saying to us for ~200 years (although, previously referring to things other than gun ownership). In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"