Control Arms (guns being legal)

Mud:

Thats possible. But very very unlikely. And the Constitution has been changed before. If there was a part of the Constitution that said every second child born to every family should be drowned, there would be no problem in changing it. No one would once mention that it would leave the door open for other changes to the Constitution because they're unrelated issues.

That... is a very weird arguement.
Oh, now I know.
The Constitution is about what we have the right to do mostly, not what we have to do. Taking away a right is different than taking away an obligation.

Ok, so what if the Constitution gave people the right to drown their second child? And I know this is an extreme example, but the idea was to create an example of something that would NEED to be changed. No one would argue then. No one would say "now that we're not allowed to drown our kids, we might lose the right to criticise the president". You see what I mean?

If we had the right to kill the second child, that would be a freedom, and we wouldn't see it as wrong. Just like some people don't see having guns as wrong. If that right was taken away, it would be just like any other right being taken away.

But it wouldn't make it right. And it wouldn't make taking that freedom away wrong.

I think taking away any freedom is wrong.

I'd much rather have the choice of whether I wanted to own a gun or not, rather than have someone tell me that I could never have a gun whether for protection or otherwise.

(I know I'm late with this comment, but)I don't feel "crimes of passion" are easier to commit with a gun because when you think about it, the gun is immediate and there. If you panic, you've killed someone for no reason or by accident or not at all, there's the problem of properly disposing the gun, having an alibi, all sorts of things. It would surely be much harder to cover up the fact that you shot someone than it would if you stabbed them or blew them up because a kitchen knife could have been used by you at any time so of course your DNA would be on it and the bomb would completely desruct by itself. If you know what I mean...

Okay I found a counter arguement.
If I say gay should be illegal or whatever, I'd be taking away a right.
Some people think it's really wrong to be gay, but that's because they aren't gay.
Some people think it's really wrong to own guns, but that's because they don't want guns.

^ I don't want a gun. But I seriously don't want to be shot. Being gay doesn't impinge on other people. Being allowed to be gay doesn't give you the potential to kill.

But it does offend people.
Peaceful gay people are seen as a menace to society to some people, just like peaceful people who own guns are seen as a menace to society as some people.
What about the gay people who rape little kids and stuff? MICHEAL JACKSON!?
Sure, straight people rape people too.
But people with guns might not shoot people.

I'd rather be offended than dead. Someone who is offended will get over it. Someone who is dead won't.

There are straight rapists and gay rapists. There are not gunmen without guns.

There are murderers without guns.

You know that prochoice slogan if you don't want an abortion, don't get one?
If you don't want a gun, don't get one.

Same principle.
If I don't get an abortion, a baby can still die.
If I don't get a gun, I still just lost a right.

It is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to own something to defend yoursefl with.
No one should be able to take away our rights.
Ever.
America (Which is here) should be FREE, not "Perfect".
A couple people die.
That's better than what will happen if we start letting people take away our rights.

Not owning a gun won't stop someone else shooting you because they do. If you don't want an abortion no ones going to abort your pregnancy.

Why do more people die from gun crime than in America than in any other country of similar economic development? Why is the rate of murder so high in the US? The right to life is more important than the perceived right to defend yourself.

Go on then, what WOULD happen if they took away your right to own a gun?

There's this poem that goes like this:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

If we let them take away our right to guns because we don't want guns, there's no telling what's next. They might take away our right of peaceful assembly, and no one will say anything because they don't want to peacefully assemble. The might go freedom of the press, and they won't say anything because they don't want to read about how bad the president is. Then goes freedom of speech, because they don't have anything to say. Then goes the right to liberty, and they won't say anything cause government knows best. Then goes pursuit of happiness, and they'll be fine because their happiness comes from serving the government. Then goes the right to life, and they will think it's okay because it's what the government wants.
Then, there will be nothing left.
It's far fetched, but it is 100% possible


The murder rate high because other crime rates are high. Like drugs. People kill each other over drugs, over differences, whatever. I'd rather have someone shoot me than take away my freedoms because their cowards.

Its very, very far-fetched. I don't see how the right to hold a gun has any impact on the right to public assembly, etc. And frankly, if it stopped people getting shot, it'd be a risk I was willing to take.

Is it a bad thing that in India families are no longer allowed to force widows onto the funeral pyre? After all, that was their right.

I don't understand your reasoning about the murder rate. Other countries have drug problems.

I'd rather have no gun and know that my next-door neighbour doesn't have one either.

Black market, hand made, imported, secret.
There are ways to get guns illegally.
There are ways to get anything illegally.
(The Indian pyre thing was a religious thing, and taking away other rights)

Then, only criminals would have guns.

And what about hunters?
Some people live off hunting.
The animal populations would suffer, too.

I guess you've never read anything by George Orwell.
Concerning this, I'd suggest Animal Farm.

Ever heard the phrase, "Give somone and inch and they'll take a mile"?
It's true. They'll keep going and going until there is nothing left.

Maybe the rules for getting guns should be stricter or something but it won't accomplish anything.
Murder is illegal, yet it still happens.
Underage drinking.
Speeding.
Graffiti.
Rape.

A lot of stuff is illegal.

Taking guns will only put a dent in the numbers, but it will be another right we lost.

A small number of criminals would have them. But proof of ownership would be enough to warrant an arrest, so they could be caught BEFORE they committed any other crime.

The "Indian pyre thing" wasn't a religious thing. It may have been masked as such, but it was actually a practical ritual to prevent the towns being overrun with elderly widows who would drain the town's resources without putting anything back into it. And after all, it was the families' right. So is it right that the right has been taken away? Or should young girls still be pushed into fires to prevent their being a burden?

Actually, I have read George Orwell novels. I wouldn't be so judgemental if I were you. And whilst he was looking at the loss of freedom, he was also looking at the corrupt nature of man. Power makes you do things you wouldn't otherwise do. Guns are power.

So you think murder, underage drinking, speeding, graffiti and rape should be legal? After all, they're illegal and people still do them. Lets give people more rights! Yay! The fact that they're detrimental and, in fact, dangerous to others is neither here nor there...

Oh and, with the hunting thing, how would animal populations suffer from NOT being shot at? They were alright before man invented guns, so I think they'll manage.

And I'm assuming the hunting you're talking about is hunting for entertainment? Well, jobs lost in the hunting industry would open in other sectors. People who hunt won't just sit at home and twiddle their thumbs cos they're not allowed to hunt. They'll entertain themselves some other way. Besides, is it even right to KILL another creature for your own entertainment? Doesn't it sound a little selfish?

The animal habitat is shrinking, the population is growing. Therefore, the animals would starve. Each generation would be smaller and smaller. It's been proven.

I'm talking about hunting for food and stuff. I've heard of people who keep their families alive off animal meat. I've had deer meet several times.
And Indians? They have guns, I'm sure, on their reservations.
People keep alive off eating.

I say hunting is more humane than slaughter.
If you don't agree, I can show you some videos of slaughter.

To the other thing you posted:

Yeah, and proof of drug ownership should stop people from getting high.
I know several people who do drugs a lot.
People are good at keeping secrets. They would find such creative ways to hide them that there would be more laws made, just like the dress codes in school.

The widows on the pyres sometimes wanted really badly to burn alive. I agree it is wrong to burn people alive, but that's s heathen ritual and a little like brain washing. That was a case of people repressing themselves, and it's really wierd.

I wasn't being judgemental. And if I was, that's my business. I have the right to form opinions about people. It was a reasonable assumption since you didn't see the correlation between losing one right and losing another. A lot of people haven't read anything by George Orwell, and I figured reading it would be an enriching experience. I suggest books to people because I think they are worth being read, not because I think people are idiots.

If the people had had guns, don't you think they could have fought back? The people in control didn't have guns, neither did the people being repressed. The novels showed how slow and subtle repression can be. It showed how people can be fooled into thinking things in different ways. The people in control got there by being corrupt. They were bad BEFORE they had power, because they knew how to repress and how to fool.

Guns aren't power. Guns are a right. I've had lots of guns in my hands, and I'm a good shot. I've never killed anyone because of who I am. People need to be punished more severely, maybe. Probably. That would cut down on murders.

That's bad examples.
Pit bulls.
And doing (some) drugs. (It's my body, let me do to it what I want.)
Gay marriage.
Having chapstick on an airplane.
I think that should be legal. But it's not.

You know who Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are, don't you?
If you don't, they are the kids who pulled off Columbine.
Every gun they had, it was illegal to have. They shouldn't have had them, there were laws against them.
And yet still, thirteen people died.
Making guns illegal doesn't make it impossible to get them. Appearantly, it doesn't make it very hard to get them either.
They had at least semi automatics, they had sawed off shotguns, they had knives, and the laws did nothing.