The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
The Second Amendment
34 replies
Nina4u said on June 29, 2003 08:11:
The Second Ammendment SUCKS!!!! ” My friend told me earlier today when we discussed the gun law ... , he knows I have a Colt Python 357 magnum with 8 3/8ts inch barrel ,a taurus 357 magnum 2 inch barrel and a 12 gauge shotgun.
For all those people who didn’t pay attention in U.S History class,ore dont know ....this is the right to carry arms.
His argument was ass follows:
Even in light of all of the terrorism this country would be a whole lot safer if people didn’t have the right to carry guns....
I’ve been to countries he said where people don’t have the right to carry guns and people, its peace of mind knowing that the guy you pass on the street can blow you away if he feels like it. (Im from Sweden so I know too)
Statistics he says .....show that you are much MUCH more likely to shoot one of your own FAMILY MEMBERS than the burglar or murderer that you fear..... he say’s it’s something like 8 in 10 chances that you shoot someone you love rather than the criminal..... so why bother having a gun if you are only going to hurt the people you are trying to protect?
that amendment was written back when there were no police to protect the civilians, so you were pretty much on your own to provide protection for your family. last time i checked, every city, town, village, whatever has its own police force........
*NOW TO ME THAT IS A BUNCH OF BULL*
First of all, if guns are outlawed only the criminals will have guns............ When a criminal has the fear that I’m gonna pull a gun and blow his brains out, he will think twice. ............
To better illustrate this, look at the UK and Australia who have restricted gun ownership greatly. What has happened?: An increase in violent crime, more “kick-in” burglaries, and an overall feeling of insecurity.......
Why should we punish over 99% of people who use guns correctly? Outlawing firearms has proved itself futile.....
2’nd nobody can blow you away if they feel like it because then thats murder one.
That person is then observed by all the other people around and then that guy is basicly target practice for the cops. I think your reletivly safe, not everyone owns guns and they are ususally used to keep burglers out. ........
And I love to go target shooting .......
let’s remember this though...i would rather have a gun and not need it, than need it and not have it!
More gun laws won’t do anything except help criminals.
They don’t get their guns thru legal means, so the only ones gun laws hurt are law abiding citizens. Responsible gun owners know how to secure their guns and ammo and are smart enough to teach their children about gun safety.
There are more people killed in automobile accidents every year than with firearms ... then we should outlaw cars too.......
Also, many people use guns legally; for hunting and sport shooting.
I canstab people in the eye with a fork, but doesnt mean i am going to. Why outlaw forks? it’s be stupid.............
What people cannot seem to understand is that guns are INANIMATE objects.
They have no want, need, or desire to do harm.
It is the will, and the ignorance, of man that is responsible for the deaths and injuries that are caused by guns.
The gun is a tool, same as a car, whip, baseball bat or feather duster. It is not the object that is bad ... it is the *twit* pulling the trigger.
What do you think??
kachina008 said on June 29, 2003 08:26:
Jan 1st, 2001. I found my bedroom window cracked and a bullet lodged in the wall above my dresser. Luckily I was celebrating New years at a friend’s that night. If I had been on my computer, which was next to that window, I would have had a bullet in my head.
I’m sure every gun owner argues he is responsible. but I wouldn’t trust the other guy. how do I know he is as responsible as me?
I know someone who has guns. I have even fired one of them at a shooting range. I LOVED it, the power trip feels amazing. And acutally I didn’t like myself afterwards. The guy at the range said wow, you would have mortally wounded an intruder in your home at this range. Question is, what if that was my husband, friend or child?
So no thanks. no guns for me.
Nina4u said on June 29, 2003 08:31:
kachina008
Eummm .... you dont think that it was one of the bad guys ???
Ore do you think it was a registerd gunowner that was playing around with the gun playing dirty harry????
kachina008 said on June 29, 2003 09:30:
I don’t know they never found out...but the policewoman said it was probably a drunk dude thinking it was a great idea to make a big noise come midnight.
funny thing: I was having a lot of trouble with my boss that time, and I was so out of it when the police asked me “do u think anyone might want to hurt you?” I said, well my boss doesn’t like me too much....
heheheheheh
LittleSpooky said on June 29, 2003 16:52:
There is nothing wrong with not liking guns, or wanting to not possess one in the house. However, I prefer to have that option available to me, and I’ll tell you why:
I am a single female who lives alone (at the present). My step dad works the grave-yard shift (late nights) and I’ll be home alone. There are enough sick and depraved people in the world that I am a target for a rapist. He ain’t gonna get the chance....
A few years ago, I was attending the wedding of a good friend of mine. He called my cell and told me that the napkins they’d ordered hadn’t arrived (with his and his wife’s names and the date they were married) and would I swing by the market and grab some. I did and as I’m standing in the Paper / Picnic Supplies isle, some guy came up behind me and grabbed my tits. It was a case of mistaken identity, however, the end result is:
I busted his sternum in half, in front of the local law enforecment, and he has a wire in his chest that keeps the bone together and gives it support. I hit the man before the cop had a chance to even say anything.
Long and shot: I want the OPTION of having a gun in my home. And the statistics are right on Australia and the other countries about the “kick in” home invasions. In fact, in Australia, they tried to convict a 76 year old woman because she took a mini crossbow and shot the intruder as he was breaking in. Her grandson had left it behind by mistake..... (the crossbow)
LittleSpooky said on June 29, 2003 16:54:
Oh, and I bet it was some drunken jackass for new years. I’ve had that happen here at the apartment complex.
And the cops arrest these people and they finish out the holiday in jail until arraignment
derek said on June 29, 2003 18:13:
i think the second ammendment was good a couple of hundred yrs ago but not now .and harder laws must be passed on owning a gun .and yes the gun is just a piece of cold metel its mostly the asshole behind it that in many cases has no controle .and im a brit and i am proud that our cops dont have to walk around with a side arm. guns do not controle other guns it only makes it easier to murder some one and yes while in canada i owned a gun but only for target pratise at a club and i didnt kill any animals with it either what is the point in shooting a defenceless animal if you are not going to eat it ??/ but im sure some one will give me a crappy answer of why its ok to kill animals
Jackie_Radiorox said on June 30, 2003 17:06:
(First, sorry for the book I wrote bellow)You know, it depends on the person. My father has a 357 Mag, 38 Special, 22 Hunting Rifle and an AK47 (Umm don’t ask!!).
On a New Years, I almost was shot about 10 years ago. We were standing on the stairs under a roof on the back porch of my house, and a bullet came right through that roof, hit the floor and ricochet off to where we would have been dancing. I was standing about 3 ft away. Which is far, but a bit too close. This still does not make me affraid of guns. First thing my father did when he bought the 357 was show me how to open it, make sure there is nothing in the chamber... etc.
If you ask me, certain things should not be sold. For instance, the AK. You can go to a gun show and buy one. Yes, they have to check you out and yes you have to wait and blah blah blah... But put it this way... If, hypotheticaly speaking, I wanted to kill someone, that 7 day (or whatever it is now) waiting period (cool down period) will just piss me off MORE!
I believe we do have the right to bare arms but to a limited amount. 1 Gun per household and it should be mandated as to what type it is. There is really no reason for a consumer to have an AK47 or other possibly automatic or military type weaponry.
With the AK, You can argue that it is a hunting rifle but what the hell do you want a potentially fully automatic weapon for hunting for? Ain’t that a bit of a disadvantage for the animals you are hunting? :P
And ok there is a fine and possible jail time if you are caught with an AK that is fully automatic. But it is really not too difficult to find a kit that makes it fully automatic.
As for the Constitution in general. Our government needs to trim a bit of fat off of it. Reason why, a lot of it was put together back when a major town had a population of 30 people, the main threat was getting cholera or the Injuns that were just defending their land to being with. I am not saying to lose our freedom, but it should conform a bit more to modern times with all the psycho freaks that are lose.
StillFar said on June 30, 2003 17:24:
it’s strange to read these opinions of people from a country where school kids very frequently kill a couple of classmates & teachers, where tourists get killed for taking the right of ringing the bell of houses when asking for directions,...
Get a nerve gas if you’re a fragile female who doesn’t want to take any self protection classes...
Ferdan said on June 30, 2003 20:02:
Death by fireguns per year and country
Germany: 381
France: 255
Canada: 165
UK: 68
Australia: 65
Japan: 39
.
.
.
United States : 11,127 persons per year
Americans are obviously not responsible enough to have guns.... it’s a shame but death by fireguns in the US is TOO high
Ferdan said on June 30, 2003 20:17:
more stasts
- In recent years gunshots have been the second leading cause of death for people 10-24 and the third leading cause of death for persons 25-34 (National Center, 1996)
- Firearms injuries cost over $20 billion a year in meical, disability, and related expenses (Max and Rice, 1993)
- Over 70% of murders are commited with a firearms (National Center, 1996)
- The United States leads the industrialized world in the level of gun-related deaths (House, 1996;”Guns,1996”; United Nations, 1997)
Jackie_Radiorox said on June 30, 2003 21:22:
And I am sure a nice little amount is suicides as well. Our main problem, is that it is too easy to get a gun without going through the proceedure. I don’t see owning a gun as a problem. I see the problem being that it is too easy to get one, legally or not. And there is really no need to have more than one gun per household.
Also, we have very irresponsible parents that don’t seem to clue in that kids love to play cops and robbers and guns should be kept in a locked, fireproof safe away from kiddies.
I wouldn’t say Americans are irresposible and that is why we have deaths... It’s an accumulation of things.
LittleSpooky said on June 30, 2003 21:27:
Ferdan: We call it population control. Should be WIDELY practiced.
My thought for the month:
“God said: ’Go forth and populate the Earth’... he didn’t mean you by your little lonesome”
Shane said on June 30, 2003 21:54:
Why do people focus on just the gun deaths? Is a person any “less” dead if they die from something else?
According to the American Heart Association, about 37,000 to 40,000 Americans die from heart and blood vessel disease caused by second hand smoke each year.
Perhaps we need to focus more time on banning those cancer-sticks rather than guns?
Nina4u said on July 1, 2003 03:50:
do you like your freedom? all the many things you can do as an american?
i do, and the right to carry a gun is only one of the many freedoms i enjoy.
the right to carry guns is not the root af all our criminal problems!
even if the second amendment was excluded.... crime, and terrorism would still happen...people still would be strangled...still be stabbed with knifes .....still make bombs.....
According to Federal statistics, something like 2,000,000 crimes are prevented or stopped each year by private citizens and their guns.
If you think back on mass shootings in our history, just remember that one law-abiding citizen in those public venues carrying a weapon could have put an early end to those rampages.
MYTH: “Mass shootings by crazy ‘gunmen’ are a serious threat to society, and a cause to worry for everyone.”
FACT: Mass shootings where psychopaths shoot total strangers are actually rare, and only account for about 60 to 90 total deaths per year.
Considering that the population of the U.S. is about 260 million, your chances of dying in one of these shootings are extremely small.
If you include disgruntled employees shooting co-workers, then the total increases to about 200 per year; (still an extremely small risk). . (Sources: Libernet Press, & Boston Globe.)
Also, these shootings would all have had very different results if JUST ONE of those victims had been allowed to carry a gun for self defense. Many lives could have been SAVED.
First of all, making firearms illegal doesn’t take guns out of criminals hands... do you think they get them legally now?
Banning guns, is just a step toward restrictions.
It’s a small step exactly where Big Brother wants you to go. It’s naiive to think that getting rid of guns will erase crime - people are criminals, a gun is just a tool.
I don’t know what to tell ya, if you don’t like guns ..dont get one......
and more..... It is the constitutional rights of the AMERICAN citizens!
I see the negative point in it too ....as i come from sweden....but crimes wont dissapear if gun dissapear....It would rather bennefit criminals........
Again I say that accident will always happen
but responsible gun owners know how to secure their guns and ammo and are smart enough to teach their children about gun safety....
FACT are: These statistics on “child” gun deaths are exaggerated by including young adult criminals, often up to 18, and sometimes up to 24 years old......
So these “child gun death” statistics include young adult drug dealers killing each other in turf battles.
The deaths are not nearly as tragic as a truly innocent young child being killed, (which is what most people think of when you say “child gun deaths”. Any other use of that phrase is very misleading.
The truth is, the number of American kids aged 0 to 15 killed with guns is about 950 each year.....
Guns are involved in less than half of one percent of all child deaths!
Also, the “gun death” statistics quoted by the anti self defense lobby include all deaths from guns.
So they include gun deaths that are actually justified; as when a citizen or officer shoots a criminal who is trying to rob, rape or murder................
Finally, the anti-gun “statistics” always fail to mention the many times guns are used to prevent crime and save lives.
(Sources for those who wants to check it out : National Center for Health Statistics, Advanced Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 231. New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 270: page2207)
And....here is some facts about guns and crimes
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm
usa is not as safe as in sweden were kids can go to the playground and play without supervision ...america is different .... sadly so
Ferdan said on July 1, 2003 06:18:
there’s nothing like “anti-gun stastics” if they’re made objectively.
stasts are stasts,if someone makes up a stast sheet... it’s not stasts anymore.
objective stasts show the US is the most violent country in the industrialised world.
Because of guns? who knows, because of violent history? who knows...
But why it is not safe as sweden?
is it a coincidence that it is one of the countries with more guns per household... and the country(industrialised) with most gundeaths per year?......
And talking about made up stasts,
you posted from a site made by gun-lovers (gunowners). It even stated that Japan has a bigger gun deathrate than the US! *sigh*
Why don’t you post stasts from the UN or even from any media outlet?
Because I could find any “antigun” site and post same kinda crap but saying the opposite....
I´ll save you work with finding objective stasts...
This is by Associated Press (in case you don’t know www.ap.org): “The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.[...]The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths.[...] The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.”
A firearm a tool?.... what other purpose than killing or harming does a firearm have?
And I remember when an argentinean couple went to visit family in the US... they were talking in the garden and a crazy neighbourg came and shot to death 2 or 3 of them... only because “they were talking too loud”. If he had to make a psicological test before being allowed having a gun....
3 deaths and some injuries would been avoided...
Nina4u said on July 1, 2003 06:54:
Ferdan ... if a guy stab you in the eye with a fork ...should we outlaw forks???
i would rather have a gun and not need it, than need it and not have it!
Ferdan said on July 1, 2003 08:17:
a fork is a tool... a gun is not...
the gun was made with the practical purpose of killing...
the fork, working the soil...
can you tell any other practical purpose of a fire-gun than killing or damaging?
anyway, people in Canada has the more or less the same amount (proportional) of fire-guns than the US people...
but, Americans kill each other much more than Canadians (with fire-guns)... That shows Americans are not responsible enough to have guns compared to Canadians.
You know why guns are allowed? because weapon industry in the US is one of the biggest, and as almost everything else... as long it helps to keep a market strong, it doesn’t matter if it’s harmful to the people (it could be anything from guns to CO2 pollution problems)
Almost 50% of the weapon market of the world.... is owned by American weapon companies...
so you can see they have an important influence in the US economy.....
and lil spooky wasn’t so wrong when she said it was a population control...
My position is totally against weapons, BUT... the situation of US citizens security doesn’t seem very nice at all... so I would not (at the moment) ban fire-guns, but I would enforce a psycological test on every person that wants to own a gun... if someone doesn’t pass the test..... no candy for him.
kachina008 said on July 1, 2003 08:41:
I read somewhere that most of the ppl who own guns put Bush in office... the Fl governer Jeb went to a D&D of the Gun association (not sure what the real name is) and thanked all its members coz they supported Bush.
heh.
Nina4u said on July 1, 2003 10:12:
Ferdan ... The right for citizens to bear arms was given to them, not primarily to allow them to protect themselves against criminals, but as a safeguard against government abuse of power. No government would be able to opress an armed population, it was thought.
Or as some american said, “If we hadn’t had guns, we would have spoken british today”
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
Info and documents if you are interested ....(page 26 in perticular)
Ferdan said on July 1, 2003 10:21:
The current US government is oppresing the people and violating the constitution with the PATRIOT Act... go and shoot Bush please.
Nina4u said on July 1, 2003 10:41:
Hahahahahahaha ....You actually made me laugh ..... funny ,Ferdan ...
coyboyusa said on July 1, 2003 21:56:
the right to carry firearms was designed to keepgovernment frm unlawfully controling a mans right to defend himself. If the laws that currently exist were enforced more guns would be under control better
derek said on July 1, 2003 22:34:
you know people you can argue whats right and wrong about the gun laws but let me tell you this have you ever had a friend shot before your eyes?
have you seen the damage what a magnum 41&44 can do to human tissue ??guns should be banned and nobody has the god given right to bear arms you can also talk about the statistics but the death rates in America are much higher than you think how many children are killed by their parents guns because they were left lying about and not locked away like any responsible parent should be ???and why should a person have more than one gun ??there is over 300 million guns owned in America alone makes you think doesnt it .i hope none of you see a friend or loved one shot like i have then you will change your minds about guns and gunlaws
Nina4u said on July 2, 2003 05:24:
Right and wrong should be decided by society...
I fully support the right of the people to keep and bear arms which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Like many law abiding gun owners, I’m alarmed by the growing encroachment of government on this individual freedom. We must remember that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I will protect and defend this right.
Tragedies such as the shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado have many Americans wondering what has gone wrong in our country. They are right to wonder.
Clearly, something has gone wrong when we have children killing children.
But rather than addressing the true causes of our increasingly violent culture–rather than discussing the role of the media, of Hollywood, of the erosion of reliable standards of right and wrong, and the breakdown of families, the elite’s simply want to blame guns.
But blaming guns misses the point. Americans have always had guns but we have not always had school shootings.
A generation ago, young people had far greater access to firearms than today, yet it was unheard of to have children firing on their classmates.
The massive proliferation of gun laws in America hasn’t worked.
Today there are over 40,000 gun control laws on the federal, state, and local level, yet our children seem more violent than ever.
The two boys in Littleton violated 15 federal and 7 state weapons laws.
Would anybody suggest that if they had violated 20 federal laws anything that happened there would be different?
In 1977 Washington, DC banned handguns.
By the early 1990s the homicide rate had tripled. Other cities and states across America have had similar experiences.
In fact, the overall murder rate in jurisdictions that have the most restrictive gun laws is 23 percent higher than the rate of the rest of the country.
Another problem is that the Clinton-Gore administration refused to enforce the laws we already had.
Since the background check went into effect, 13,000 people have been denied guns.
Yet, amazingly not one of the 13,000 who lied on the federal background form-a crime punishable by 10 years in prison-has been prosecuted.
In the past two years 6,000 children have brought guns to school, yet only 5 were prosecuted.
And of the thousands of criminals who have illegally bought guns for juveniles, the Clinton-Gore administration only prosecuted 6 in 1998.
We must do something about the violence that has infected our culture. But the solution is not to further trample on the rights of the people.
Instead of passing more laws, we need to enforce existing laws to control criminals. Above all, we need to confront the culture of death that has killed the hearts and minds of too many of our people.
coyboyusa said on July 2, 2003 14:01:
well i reserve the right to defend myself by any means possible by threat from a potential agressor as we have seen governments cant always do it. do u think a battered whife should have a gun when we all knwo restraining orders dont do a damn thing? Shouldn’t a family living in war toren iraq have the right to bear arms to fend off vicious rapist looters?
lets not all be hypocrites
Shane said on July 2, 2003 15:23:
This is such a grey issue - of course, getting rid of guns would reduce the number of gun-related deaths (duh!). However, will governement imposed laws that ban guns be an effective method of getting rid of guns? I do not think so.
Drugs are illegal but yet easily available. Young people are not allowed (by law) to purchase cigarettes, yet there continues to be an increase in teen smoking - they are getting cigarettes from somewhere.
I think Jackie makes a good arguement - we need to change the culture of how people view guns and killing.
derek said on July 2, 2003 22:52:
im not saying any more on the subject of gun laws and guns we all have our own opinion lets leave it at that before some thing wrong is said we could argue all day about the rights and wrongs but it wont change anything the killing will still go on more guns will be sold and more bullets will end more lives. i blame the people not the guns. good or bad i hope that one day the blood shed will stop but not in your or my life time i dont think. laws must me changed existing laws should be enforced but nothing is going to change if people wont change
Santi said on July 8, 2003 20:33:
Just one little question:
The Second Ammendment was proposed in... 17... (I don’t know exactly)
We are in 2003... July actually.
The world hasn’t changed enough for this stupid damaging law??
Is the USA still full of cowboys and pioneers like then? :O I guess no...
I was considering going to study in the USA, but now I’m a little bit afraid :s
derek said on July 9, 2003 20:40:
@santi my feelings also the second ammendment is out dated and what can i say without hurting the feelings of the yanks that are on TDR
lost-little-girl said on June 29, 2003 08:19:
Ohhhhh I love shooting rabbits!!