Should We Have The Freedom To Bear Arms?

LA-384 · Apr 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Originally posted by ferret@Apr 22 2007, 09:54 PM
And if I happen to like shooting as a hobby? Do they have target-tazering leagues? Besides the fact that a tazer (shoots darts attached to wires) isn't practical in a home (need an open space, since if the wires hit/get tangled, you have to reload the tazer, making you either dead or wounded pretty quickly--those open spaces aren't found very often in homes, at least the ones I've seen) and the fact that, at at a range of over ten feet, you can dodge them pretty easily (the darts move at around the speed of a Nerf gun). Batons and stunguns (and other like items, such as a baseball bat) require you to close with the intruder, making them effectively useless against an armed intruder.

I'll not get started into the fact that a gun ban is unconstitutional (read: illegal) in the US, seeing as explaining that (for the fifth/sixth time) gets me nowhere.

[snapback]3694247[/snapback]
Click to expand...

There is a difference in having a gun for your hobby, and having a gun for defence. If you're hobby is shooting with a gun, then you should be able to get a licence for it, (only applying at the shooting-range). So having a hobby that involves guns, shouldn't have to be a reason to keep guns legal.
Offcourse a gun is more practical then a baseball bat, but that doesn't have to be a reason for legalizing guns. It's also more practical to download software for free, but you don't see that legalized anywhere.

I still think it's rather weird that it is illegal to ban guns. Why not ban the entire government all at once? seeing that they can't do ---- without getting into trouble, because every citizen has so much freedom.

ferret · Apr 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Originally posted by LA-384+Apr 22 2007, 03:23 PM-->

Originally posted by ferret@Apr 22 2007, 09:54 PM
And if I happen to like shooting as a hobby? Do they have target-tazering leagues? Besides the fact that a tazer (shoots darts attached to wires) isn't practical in a home (need an open space, since if the wires hit/get tangled, you have to reload the tazer, making you either dead or wounded pretty quickly--those open spaces aren't found very often in homes, at least the ones I've seen) and the fact that, at at a range of over ten feet, you can dodge them pretty easily (the darts move at around the speed of a Nerf gun). Batons and stunguns (and other like items, such as a baseball bat) require you to close with the intruder, making them effectively useless against an armed intruder.

I'll not get started into the fact that a gun ban is unconstitutional (read: illegal) in the US, seeing as explaining that (for the fifth/sixth time) gets me nowhere.

[snapback]3694247[/snapback]
Click to expand...

There is a difference in having a gun for your hobby, and having a gun for defence. If you're hobby is shooting with a gun, then you should be able to get a licence for it, (only applying at the shooting-range). So having a hobby that involves guns, shouldn't have to be a reason to keep guns legal.
Offcourse a gun is more practical then a baseball bat, but that doesn't have to be a reason for legalizing guns. It's also more practical to download software for free, but you don't see that legalized anywhere.

I still think it's rather weird that it is illegal to ban guns. Why not ban the entire government all at once? seeing that they can't do ---- without getting into trouble, because every citizen has so much freedom.

[snapback]3694314[/snapback]
[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh, they can do things. There are certain things (i.e. infringing on Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, press, religion, right to bear arms, due process of law, etc. etc.) that they cannot do. To do so would be unconstitutional. For example, they could theoretically ban automobiles in the US. Why? Automobiles/the right to drive are not protected by the Constitution.

This is a pretty comprehensive guide to what the Constitution is. Most of it is contained on that page. For example, Amendment One says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That says, in simple English, that Congress will not make a state religion, it will not restrict others from practicing their religion freely, it will not take away or restrict freedom of speech and press, and it will not restrict or ban peaceful demonstrations or petitions.

This is Amendment Two, the amendment concerning this discussion:

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.

That establishes the need for a militia that is not a part of the Armed Forces (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, Reserves of seperate branches). It also says that we, the People, have the right to keep and bear (as in own) weapons, and that right will not be infringed upon. That theoretically makes gun control laws (laws saying that you can have x type of weapon but not weapon y) unconstitutional, as well as requiring a license to own one. Why is that? Each of the amendments constitutes a right (or rights, depending upon the amendment) that the People have full, unrestricted access to and may exercise at any time they wish, or they may choose not to exercise them.

This amendment. Amendment Nine, says that an amendment may not be added that removes and/or infringes upon one of the others:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendments Two and Nine make a gun ban illegal. In my own opinion, it also makes gun control illegal, a view shared by more conservative elements (elements that are more of strict Constitutionalists--meaning take what the Constitution says, not trying to find something in the Constitution that it does not say).

You can look through the other sections to figure out what certain branches of government can and cannot do.

<!--QuoteBegin-.:Apostle:.@Apr 22 2007, 03:13 PM
If you like shooting as a hobby there are clubs and certain types of weapons for that i think, unless you mean shooting at ppl
And theoretically if there isn't much space in your home (or any else for that matter) it should be alot easier for you to hit any intruders with the tazer, since there isnt much space they can move in and "dodge" the shot.

[snapback]3694286[/snapback]
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that in my own home, I don't even have the minimum arming distance (around seven-eight feet) of open space that doesn't have some obstruction in it. Between that fact and the fact that a potential target has quite a few obstructions to move behind negates the use of a tazer where I'm at.

.:Apostle:. · Apr 22, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Originally posted by ferret+Apr 22 2007, 10:03 PM-->

Originally posted by LA-384@Apr 22 2007, 03:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ferret
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

@Apr 22 2007, 09:54 PM
And if I happen to like shooting as a hobby? Do they have target-tazering leagues? Besides the fact that a tazer (shoots darts attached to wires) isn't practical in a home (need an open space, since if the wires hit/get tangled, you have to reload the tazer, making you either dead or wounded pretty quickly--those open spaces aren't found very often in homes, at least the ones I've seen) and the fact that, at at a range of over ten feet, you can dodge them pretty easily (the darts move at around the speed of a Nerf gun). Batons and stunguns (and other like items, such as a baseball bat) require you to close with the intruder, making them effectively useless against an armed intruder.

I'll not get started into the fact that a gun ban is unconstitutional (read: illegal) in the US, seeing as explaining that (for the fifth/sixth time) gets me nowhere.

[snapback]3694247[/snapback]
Click to expand...

There is a difference in having a gun for your hobby, and having a gun for defence. If you're hobby is shooting with a gun, then you should be able to get a licence for it, (only applying at the shooting-range). So having a hobby that involves guns, shouldn't have to be a reason to keep guns legal.
Offcourse a gun is more practical then a baseball bat, but that doesn't have to be a reason for legalizing guns. It's also more practical to download software for free, but you don't see that legalized anywhere.

I still think it's rather weird that it is illegal to ban guns. Why not ban the entire government all at once? seeing that they can't do ---- without getting into trouble, because every citizen has so much freedom.

[snapback]3694314[/snapback]
Click to expand...

Oh, they can do things. There are certain things (i.e. infringing on Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, press, religion, right to bear arms, due process of law, etc. etc.) that they cannot do. To do so would be unconstitutional. For example, they could theoretically ban automobiles in the US. Why? Automobiles/the right to drive are not protected by the Constitution.

This is a pretty comprehensive guide to what the Constitution is. Most of it is contained on that page. For example, Amendment One says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That says, in simple English, that Congress will not make a state religion, it will not restrict others from practicing their religion freely, it will not take away or restrict freedom of speech and press, and it will not restrict or ban peaceful demonstrations or petitions.

This is Amendment Two, the amendment concerning this discussion:

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.

That establishes the need for a militia that is not a part of the Armed Forces (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, Reserves of seperate branches). It also says that we, the People, have the right to keep and bear (as in own) weapons, and that right will not be infringed upon. That theoretically makes gun control laws (laws saying that you can have x type of weapon but not weapon y) unconstitutional, as well as requiring a license to own one. Why is that? Each of the amendments constitutes a right (or rights, depending upon the amendment) that the People have full, unrestricted access to and may exercise at any time they wish, or they may choose not to exercise them.

This amendment. Amendment Nine, says that an amendment may not be added that removes and/or infringes upon one of the others:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendments Two and Nine make a gun ban illegal. In my own opinion, it also makes gun control illegal, a view shared by more conservative elements (elements that are more of strict Constitutionalists--meaning take what the Constitution says, not trying to find something in the Constitution that it does not say).

You can look through the other sections to figure out what certain branches of government can and cannot do.

[snapback]3694403[/snapback]
[/b]
Click to expand...

We already know that guns are legal to own at the present, Thats why are talking about possible reform of the gun laws..

ferret · Apr 22, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Originally posted by .:Apostle:.+Apr 22 2007, 04:09 PM-->

Originally posted by ferret@Apr 22 2007, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by LA-384@Apr 22 2007, 03:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ferret
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

@Apr 22 2007, 09:54 PM
And if I happen to like shooting as a hobby? Do they have target-tazering leagues? Besides the fact that a tazer (shoots darts attached to wires) isn't practical in a home (need an open space, since if the wires hit/get tangled, you have to reload the tazer, making you either dead or wounded pretty quickly--those open spaces aren't found very often in homes, at least the ones I've seen) and the fact that, at at a range of over ten feet, you can dodge them pretty easily (the darts move at around the speed of a Nerf gun). Batons and stunguns (and other like items, such as a baseball bat) require you to close with the intruder, making them effectively useless against an armed intruder.

I'll not get started into the fact that a gun ban is unconstitutional (read: illegal) in the US, seeing as explaining that (for the fifth/sixth time) gets me nowhere.

[snapback]3694247[/snapback]
Click to expand...

There is a difference in having a gun for your hobby, and having a gun for defence. If you're hobby is shooting with a gun, then you should be able to get a licence for it, (only applying at the shooting-range). So having a hobby that involves guns, shouldn't have to be a reason to keep guns legal.
Offcourse a gun is more practical then a baseball bat, but that doesn't have to be a reason for legalizing guns. It's also more practical to download software for free, but you don't see that legalized anywhere.

I still think it's rather weird that it is illegal to ban guns. Why not ban the entire government all at once? seeing that they can't do ---- without getting into trouble, because every citizen has so much freedom.

[snapback]3694314[/snapback]
Click to expand...

Oh, they can do things. There are certain things (i.e. infringing on Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, press, religion, right to bear arms, due process of law, etc. etc.) that they cannot do. To do so would be unconstitutional. For example, they could theoretically ban automobiles in the US. Why? Automobiles/the right to drive are not protected by the Constitution.

This is a pretty comprehensive guide to what the Constitution is. Most of it is contained on that page. For example, Amendment One says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That says, in simple English, that Congress will not make a state religion, it will not restrict others from practicing their religion freely, it will not take away or restrict freedom of speech and press, and it will not restrict or ban peaceful demonstrations or petitions.

This is Amendment Two, the amendment concerning this discussion:

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.

That establishes the need for a militia that is not a part of the Armed Forces (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, Reserves of seperate branches). It also says that we, the People, have the right to keep and bear (as in own) weapons, and that right will not be infringed upon. That theoretically makes gun control laws (laws saying that you can have x type of weapon but not weapon y) unconstitutional, as well as requiring a license to own one. Why is that? Each of the amendments constitutes a right (or rights, depending upon the amendment) that the People have full, unrestricted access to and may exercise at any time they wish, or they may choose not to exercise them.

This amendment. Amendment Nine, says that an amendment may not be added that removes and/or infringes upon one of the others:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendments Two and Nine make a gun ban illegal. In my own opinion, it also makes gun control illegal, a view shared by more conservative elements (elements that are more of strict Constitutionalists--meaning take what the Constitution says, not trying to find something in the Constitution that it does not say).

You can look through the other sections to figure out what certain branches of government can and cannot do.

[snapback]3694403[/snapback]
Click to expand...

We already know that guns are legal to own at the present, Thats why are talking about possible reform of the gun laws..

[snapback]3694409[/snapback]
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yes, and if you read the post, you'd realize that, in the US, requiring a license or banning them is illegal. Restricting certain types is a grey area; I'm against it.

Marforce · Apr 22, 2007 at 6:17 PM

Closing to prevent further escalation of flaming.

Log in or Sign up

Should We Have The Freedom To Bear Arms?

LA-384 Well-Known Member

ferret Well-Known Member

.:Apostle:. Well-Known Member

ferret Well-Known Member

Marforce Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Should We Have The Freedom To Bear Arms?

LA-384 Well-Known Member

ferret Well-Known Member

.:Apostle:. Well-Known Member

ferret Well-Known Member

Marforce Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches