rachel on 17/4/2007 at 11:11
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
Jeez, why did the French kill Mary Antoinette?
A little known fact is that between 1789 and 1793, the French kept the King, although he was kept under watch and without powers. In spite of absolute powers and everything, a majority of people still respected the figure of the King and the Royal Family, and they merely removed them from power. It is only when he tried to flee abroad and seek allies outside of the country that they condemned him as traitor to the Nation, and they executed him on these grounds.
Besides, all those years were a very dark period called "the Terror" for a reason. The power was in the hands of the people all right, and they happily beheaded each other, killing thousands, including their leaders, sometimes just because they didn't like the way they looked at/spoke to them.
Arguably the rise to power of another tyrant, Napoleon, is perhaps the best thing to have happened at the time as it restored peace and some sort of unity and basically laid the legal and territorial foundations of what eventually became today's French Republic.
Scots Taffer on 17/4/2007 at 11:14
Quote Posted by scumble
Elimiating the motivation to violence is more important, and what people use to kill each other is a side issue relating to the degree of violence that can be inflicted.
Bang on, scumble. It's a cliché, but like so many clichés, it's true: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
It's the same old thing with America and crying foul of gun control; the easy example is to compare to Canada and you instantly have to draw comparisons that rest more on culture, attitudes and behaviour more than accessibility of arms.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE) Also, fucking Chris Rock said it years ago.
BrokenArts on 17/4/2007 at 11:28
Don't feed the troll people.
*Zaccheus* on 17/4/2007 at 11:59
I wonder if the asian guy who was arrested would have been shot by panicked students if they had all had guns.
Quote Posted by Jonesy
I suggest you read this- (
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm) http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
Nunn v State 1846- "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms
of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well- regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."
I want my F16, NOW !
:cheeky:
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
At any point in the world, a government or military can take over a country. If those citizens are vehemently against that action, they will take every action to disarm the military and government. Having firearms will make that more feasible. That was the intent of the right to bear arms. The right shall not be infringed. I'll see to that myself, along with all patriots who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of this country.
Don't be silly. Owning a few hand guns will not help you against the US military.
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
But if you kill enough of the people manning those things, you can actually take the equipment away from them. How many revolutions have there been in history? Do you think we could overpower a tyrant state if we didn't have arms?
Except that hardly anyone knows how to use a modern tank or an F16 or an air-craft carrier equiped with cruise missiles.
Vivian on 17/4/2007 at 12:38
Why do people want to own handguns? That's a real question, btw, not a winge.
steo on 17/4/2007 at 12:49
If the arms that US citizens have the right to bear don't include assault rifles, tanks, F-16s etc. then why shouldn't their arms be resticted to pitch forks and kitchen knives?
Similarly, if a law was passed further limiting the magazine size of semi automatic weapons to say, one bullet then the killing power of people planning massacres would be seriously reduced. Perhaps restrictions could also be placed on the type of ammunition available to civilians, perhaps eventually limiting them to just rubber bullets. Clearly a bid to straight out ban all firearms in the US would be doomed to fail but by slowly introducing tighter and tighter restrictions perhaps guns could be phased out.
Why do people want to own handguns? I would say it's probably divided into two groups: those with an interest in guns as a hobby and those who feel the need to own a gun for protecting themselves or their families even though doing so probably makes them less safe.
On the other hand, if guns were banned in the US it would reduce the scope for guns in films/TV.
Dia on 17/4/2007 at 13:07
Some people feel that a handgun is protection. For others it provides a sense of power. And as steo said, some consider it a hobby. And of course, there's the criminal element.
Face it, in this crazy world a lot of people feel rather defenseless and powerless, especially in light of the type of unfortunate events such as the one that just occured at VA Tech. Owning a handgun provides some with a sense of protection and control. The only problem with that is that if you draw a gun on somebody, chances are they'll draw an even bigger gun on you.
Having lived alone for the past 10 months now I can honestly say I've considered looking into purchasing a gun. I live out in a rural area and feel a little vulnerable some nights, especially considering the fact that there's a town not too far away which has a nasty slum area where shootings, stabbings, and rape are almost a daily occurence (our mailboxes out here get blown up or literally shot all to hell on a regular basis). But I figure that if some bastard were to break into my home, chances are that at that moment I'd be at the end of the house opposite of where I kept that gun. So I just have a big, mean dog instead.
NOTE: I didn't go out and buy the dog for protection; my daughter fell in love with him when he was a puppy and kind of just brought him home. Turns out an Akita/Chow mix is one of the worst combos a dog could be as far as temperment and being territorial. He's good with the kids, but most definitely does not like strangers. He's also quite odiferous (something to do with anal glands). :eww:
AR Master on 17/4/2007 at 13:39
.
Chimpy Chompy on 17/4/2007 at 14:00
So where is the line drawn, and is that line consistent with all this constitutional "right to bear arms" stuff? Automatic weapons? machineguns? 30mm autocannon? At what point do even the NRA types say "right yeah that's getting a bit silly"?
Vivian on 17/4/2007 at 14:18
If it kills more people with one shot than you can fit in your car, then you can't have one
