Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
You make the classic mistake when you assume that we are smarter than those that went before......are you smarter than Aristotle? Or Socrates? Plato? They existed a hell of a lot longer ago than 319 years.......
Yup, I am smarter then they are..... all they did was build around basic common sense during a time where many followed religious explinations with blind eyes and without question. If they didn't figure it out, someone else would have, just like today.
No I didn't, I didn't even comment on that aspect of the conversation relating to the date. I just commented on being smarter or not to someone who lived 319 years ago.
You are also wrong when you limit the right to keep arms to 319 years.......
the right existed long before that, the display of weapons the symbol of a free man in Anglo-Saxon England over 1,000 years ago.....it was recognized as a right for free man in the Magna Carta of 1215, and again in 1689, it was a cornerstone of the philosophy of John Locke........it was also recognized by William Blackstone, the pre-eminent writer on English Common Law........these people and documents were the inspiration for the American Second Amendment
I think you're attempting to pump up only one small part of the common law of the time, which it was originally created as a means to keep kings in check with the rule of law, and to make sure they don't begin to think they are above it...... something that seems to have been lost over the centuries, since our leaders get away with bloody, unjustified murder.
You've been lucky so far. BTW, I have 2 Browning P- 35s, great pistols. That you would choose not to exercise a right at any particular time means nothing.....as long as you retain the right.
Well for clarification, I somewhat agree with the US's 2nd amendment, but not when it comes to using that right against fellow citizens.... I feel the right of owning firearms should be used against invaders and/or domestic corruption within the government as a means for revolution..... but not for everyday disputes or situations which could have easily been resolved through other means.
So, what are you going to shoot them with? Seriously, of course you do not need to carry weapons everywhere.......but the fact remains that an armed population is a serious check on government.....and crime.
Government yes, Crime is questionable. Now that Washington DC has lifted their own gun laws, we can see first hand how the gun related crimes will change in that area..... be that increase or decrease. If it increases, then one could simply see that guns do not prevent the crimes talked about..... if they reduce, then perhaps you have a valid point in how guns may reduce crime.
Time will tell.
What, you think guns are inherently evil, that they cry out with some extra-sensory power to be used to kill? Funny, I've got a housefull, never killed anyone. I know hundreds of shooters, none of them ever killed anyone either. The only guy I ever knew killed with a firearm was a dope dealer, killed by another in 1975..........you think gun control keeps dope dealers from getting guns?
I don't think firearms are completly evil, but there are plenty of morons out there who feel that a gun gives them a sense of power and respect and can/will abuse those weapons to suit their own means, even if it means removing someone else's freedoms, and possibly their life.
I feel that if you want to have a firearm, you should do some time working in either the Military, the Police force or a Security force, so that at least you know they're going to be given some decent training on their use and to give the firearm respect for what it is capable for. I don't agree with every person out there just being handed a gun without some form of actual training and education..... along with some type of screening process to determine their mental health prior to handing them one.
Treat them like a car where you need to get full training and understanding.... which didn't occur in Virginia Tech..... all the guy needed was his drivers' licence and another chunk of ID showing he lives there and he got his handguns. All I am promoting is a tougher screening process that would have made it more difficult (At the very least) for him to obtain his weapons.
And the only laws that prevent nuts from getting guns for shooting sprees are absolute complete bans on all firearms.....because nuts typcally jump through all the hoops, as did the shooters at Montreal in 1989, or in Dawson College last year.
The laws have to have some connection with results, and some consideration for liberty as opposed to risk. Canadian gun laws have neither, they are simply idiotic.......point: when Mom Boucher was arrested last time there were legally held firearms in his house.......
Canadian gun laws actually do work to a degree. Gun related crimes overall have dropped over the years, however gang-related gun crimes, like those in Toronto, have increased a lot over the last couple of years alone, which skews the overall spectrum. And the fact that the majority of the firearms police find or sieze from crime scenes in Toronto alone have come from Georgia (United States) the US itself is fueling our crimes.
And as mentioned before, Canada does it's fair share of the drug trade in the US, so what goes around comes around I suppose. I wouldn't have a problem with Canada working with the US to reduce the Drug trade between the nations, so long as the US worked to keep their guns on their side of the border.
Nobody "has" to carry a gun. Nice, though that some people would like to take the responsibility on themselves.
Well for your argument to stick with less people would have been killed if they had the right to bring their firearms to the school, they would need to carry their firearms at all times, because nobody knows when the next school shooter will come and from which direction. You don't know who it's going to be..... so you would have to carry your firearm with you at all times in order to be "protected."
And when I come across the day where I'm walking down the street and everybody I see has a gun strapped to them, will be the time I move. Unless there's a revolution going on, and in that case, I'm hopping on the wagon...... but I don't trust people I don't know enough as it is, and I sure as hell don't trust them with guns around me.
Look, there are only three possibilities:
1. Only the good guys have guns.
2. Only the bad guys have guns.
3. Everybody has guns.
The first is demonstrably impossible to achieve, the second is the worst possible outcome, the third the only sensible solution.
There's also "Nobody Has Guns." And if we can prevent people from getting RPG's, biological weapons and tanks for their homes, then this too can be achieved..... however until everybody agrees there shouldn't be any firearms, this won't happen.... even I don't believe in it..... but not everybody wants everybody to have firearms either, so there has to be a middle ground with stricter regulations for who can own a firearm, and there has to be very long prison sentences for those who use a firearm against their fellow man that wasn't in self defence.
As for Virginia Tech, you think hiding under a desk while this guy walked from person to person shooting was a BETTER defense?????????
Nope, didn't say that.... and I didn't say that I'd be hiding under a desk either. There's more then one way to kill someone with a gun.
I have no doubt that a person of moderate skill could have stopped the carnage.
Eventually someone might have.... but in just about everyone of these cases, the shooter ended up shooting themselves before anybody could get to them. And even if there were people with guns in the school, they'll be fully aware of this.... that too will not prevent them from carrying out their act. All they would do is start getting flack jackets and body armour, and unless everybody starts wearing body armour along with carrying their firearms, they still wouldn't have much of a chance against someone who came more prepared then they are.
[quote]Unfortunately, every side uses such tragedies for their own political objectives......[/
Indeed..... I'd just like to see next time people stop trying to make the other side look evil by doing the exact same thing they eventually end up doing.