LET'S MAKE AMERICA A 'SAD-FREE ZONE'!

[Guest]

Whoop-de-doo for you then. This isn't Australia, there's this "thing" in our Constitution called "the Second Amendment". It's that simple.

Hmm.. so if there was a way to lower the number of murders in our country - you do not think that is a good thing?

And then you have that pesky thing about 'militia' in the Second Amendment.... but it is easier to just overlook that - I mean who doesn't need to purchase semi-automatic rifles, m-16s, rocket launchers, gernade launchers, heck - no restrictions right? We have the 2nd amendment!

 

[lawhammer]

You are alonevoice aren't you?

Gun-control is for Nazis, you silly rabbit!

What is that Machevelli said those many centuries ago?

More guns than people here, and that's not going to change in your gun-grabbing lifetime. There's dozens of ways to lower the murder rate that won't get you killed when you try them.

 

[stranger]

lawhammer jested:

Gun-control is for Nazis. . .

So the main arguments against gun control/ reform in the US:

1. citizens may need to take up arms against the government.
2. everyman's right to defend himself.
3. its anti-constitutional (2nd amendment).
4. fight against a foreign invader (?)

 

[Guest]

You are alonevoice aren't you?

Gun-control is for Nazis, you silly rabbit!

What is that Machevelli said those many centuries ago?

More guns than people here, and that's not going to change in your gun-grabbing lifetime. There's dozens of ways to lower the murder rate that won't get you killed when you try them.

So you want complete un-restrictions? Should someone be able to purchase a nuclear weapon? Should there be any restrictions on weaponary that someone can own?

Perhaps I just want to 'collect' various nuclear rockets for my 'collection'. I will only use them recreactionally for 'target practice'!

 

[Vic C.]

So the main arguments against gun control/ reform in the US:

1. citizens may need to take up arms against the government.
2. everyman's right to defend himself.
3. its anti-constitutional (2nd amendment).
4. fight against a foreign invader (?)

Correct, especially #'s 1 and 4. 8-)

Some of you are being a bit melodramitic. We aren't talking about the procurement of the weapons aLoneVoice mentioned; of course they should be regulated. Besides, the US forefathers weren't prophets. They could have never imagined such weapons would exist. We are talking about handguns, hunting rifles, etc.

I don't like the idea of being legislated at every turn for some wrongdoing or mishap. The problem isn't with gun control, it's with "heart control".

Every time this issue is brought up, I post a speech made in front of our Congress in 1999 by a Darrell Scott, father of the slain Rachel Joy Scott, who died at Columbine. ... and since the anniversary was last Friday... and we have some new members since the last time I posted it... here is a portion of it again as it was originally posted at http://www.columbineredemption.com :

(Please take the time to read)

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers. The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field.

The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.

I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room.

Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. "I wrote a poem that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.

Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"

You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God! As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA- I give to you a sincere challenge.

Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... lscott.htm

 

[Vic C.]

lawhammer, please try and refrain from displaying any attitude in your posts and do something about your siggy. Our siggys aren't for expressing one's political gripes. I think that should apply to everyone, to be fair.

Thanks.

 

[lawhammer]

So you want complete un-restrictions? Should someone be able to purchase a nuclear weapon? Should there be any restrictions on weaponary that someone can own?

Perhaps I just want to 'collect' various nuclear rockets for my 'collection'. I will only use them recreactionally for 'target practice'!

What do nuclear weapons have to do with:

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.

This isn't about hunting. You do realize that someone has to pull the trigger? Keep it up, though, it's backfiring and will continue to do so.

Vic C.: fixed. Now I think I'll take my attitude and leave again, talking about this is useless.

 

[Drew]

I find the argument that "this is a heart control problem and not a gun control problem" to be misleading despite its rather obvious element of truth.

I want to preface what I am about to write with the following statement: It is indeed possible that an armed citizenry makes the US a safer place than it otherwise would be. I would bet a paycheck that this is not actually the case, but I admit that it could be. I suspect that there is no clear evidence either way.

Given what we know about human nature - how we all are subject to fits of anger and even, for some, uncontrolled rage, and given our tendency to sometimes to be careless - the idea of tens of millions of armed citizens seems quite bizarre to many of us who live outside the US.

I think that arguments to the effect that if we restrict guns, only the "bad guys" will get guns are probably incorrect. If the government got really serious, they could make it exceedingly difficult for anyone to get a gun. And I find the "deterrence to tyranny" argument more than a little questionable given the nature of modern military technology. Back in 1776, I can imagine that an armed citizenry was a deterrent to the government taking advantage of its citizens. But if the US military, as it exists today, were to turn against it citizens, I suspect that handguns and rifles would be not much of a deterrent.

In the end, I am in favour of whatever works - whatever reduces suffering and death. That could turn out to be an armed citizenry, but I am quite skeptical.

The "its a right in the Constitution" argument is very weak since that document was written in another time. The real issue is what is best for today.

 

[Guest]

This isn't about hunting. You do realize that someone has to pull the trigger? Keep it up, though, it's backfiring and will continue to do so.

Vic C.: fixed. Now I think I'll take my attitude and leave again, talking about this is useless.

Then you agree that the 2nd amendment is dealing with strictly a "well regulated militia" - as such citizens are granted freedom to be armed within the confines of a 'well regulated militia' - you are correct, with this understanding nuclear weapons has nothing to do with it.

However, if you are suggesting that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to be armed regardless of the confines of a well-regulated militia, then it has everything to do with it. If the 2nd amendment allows for citizens to have 'arms' - then at what point is there a limit as to the type of arms protected under the 2nd amendment?

 

[Vic C.]

I think that arguments to the effect that if we restrict guns, only the "bad guys" will get guns are probably incorrect. If the government got really serious, they could make it exceedingly difficult for anyone to get a gun.

Where's Gabby? LOL

Drew, you seriously underestimate the power and "will' of those who set out to do evil things against each other. Drugs are illegal, yet they proliferate our neiborhoods and kill our children and the adults alike. Do we ban motor vehicles, since they kill more people than gun?

Reality check:

In the end, I am in favour of whatever works - whatever reduces suffering and death. That could turn out to be an armed citizenry, but I am quite skeptical.

No Jesus, no peace...

The "its a right in the Constitution" argument is very weak since that document was written in another time. The real issue is what is best for today.

Drew, Drew, we can apply that to any number of the amendments... we can say that about the Bible. Is that your solution? What about:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[stranger]

In a society that ranks Number 1 in the world for firearm deaths what can be done to drop the US to number 10 in the world? This would satisfy the aim of the OP to a substantial degree.

 

[Guest]

It's said that if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

However, that just isn't that case - in the past 5 years or so, most massacres or mass killings have been from weapons that have been legally purchased. It has made it easier for them to purchase weapons.

Yet it most of the cases there were plently of warning signs that should have stopped them from purchasing the firearm.

Proliferation doesn't make communities, socieities, nations or the world safer. If it were to be true, then we must live in the safest time in history because weapons are everywhere.

 

[Fnerb]

However, that just isn't that case - in the past 5 years or so, most massacres or mass killings have been from weapons that have been legally purchased. It has made it easier for them to purchase weapons.

The unfortunate part of it is, no matter how difficult you make it to legally buy guns, the people who want them are going to get them.

And the people who want them and get them by any means necessary, are typically not going to be using them for a good reason.

 

[Drew]

Drew, you seriously underestimate the power and "will' of those who set out to do evil things against each other. Drugs are illegal, yet they proliferate our neiborhoods and kill our children and the adults alike. Do we ban motor vehicles, since they kill more people than gun?

Reality check:

The motor vehicle analogy is obviously invalid. Motor vehicles are a necessary part of life in a technologically advanced country in the 21st century country. Without cars (or some kind of equivalent), the fundamental nature of life in America would dramatically change for the worse. This is obviously not the case with guns.

And the drugs analogy is not very good either. Guns and ammunition, unlike drugs in most cases, are relatively complex items of technology and are difficult to build in your basement. If the government forced gun manufacturers to prove that they only sold their products to the military or to the police, and if these agencies in turn were heavily punished if they could not account for all their weapons, it would indeed be very difficult for the bad guys to get guns. International cooperation would also be required.

We have the technology and information systems required to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys.

 

[Drew]

The "its a right in the Constitution" argument is very weak since that document was written in another time. The real issue is what is best for today.

Drew, Drew, we can apply that to any number of the amendments... we can say that about the Bible. Is that your solution? What about:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The argument that "if they take away our right to guns, they will take away our other rights" is invalid. I hope that people will think a little a bit and not let this slogan be taken seriously. Here is why this argument has no validity. Let's suppose that in 1776, the constitution writers felt that it was important to enshrine the right to build fires along with other rights like free speech, voting, etc. Now suppose that in the late 1980's some Americans developed a strange allergy to fire - 10 % of the population will drop dead simply at the sight of fire.

Obviously the right to build fires needs to be removed from the Constitution in this hypothetical scenario - the world has changed from 1776 (or whenever) and what was a good idea then is a terrible idea now. Would any reasonable person object as follows "after they take away our right to fire, they will take away our right to free speech"? Of course not.

The same thing might be true in respect to guns. And if it is, if America would be better off the right to bear arms were repealed. And there is no reason to assume that the right to free speech will be next. Free speech is an entirely different issue.

Please, people, think a few thoughts beyond the immediate appeal of this "they'll take away our other rights too" fearmongering.

 

[Drew]

The unfortunate part of it is, no matter how difficult you make it to legally buy guns, the people who want them are going to get them.

Even if this were true (that the bad guys will always find a way to get guns), it does not follow that the general citizenry should be armed.

Even though "common sense" might suggest that the "good guys" should also be armed, the "common sense" argument cuts both ways. I submit that the idea of tens of millions of citizens walking aroung with guns makes little common sense, given our penchant for acting rashly in a moment of anger and / or being careless.

I was a college student once and the thought of a whole whack of 20 year-olds packin' heat sends shivers up my spine.

 

[Fnerb]

Even if this were true (that the bad guys will always find a way to get guns), it does not follow that the general citizenry should be armed.

Even though "common sense" might suggest that the "good guys" should also be armed, the "common sense" argument cuts both ways. I submit that the idea of tens of millions of citizens walking aroung with guns makes little common sense, given our penchant for acting rashly in a moment of anger and / or being careless.

I was a college student once and the thought of a whole whack of 20 year-olds packin' heat sends shivers up my spine.

So pardon me if I missed it, but what is your solution? No more guns for anyone?

 

[Guest]

In regards to a solution, we first need to agree on the problem.

I believe that the problem is two-fold: 1) too many guns and 2) lack of value placed on life

Proliferation of weapons will not make us a safer society. I believe the solution is both short-term and long-term. In the short term, there needs to be a reduction on the amount of guns produced and sold. And in the long-term human life needs to be valued (from reduction of abortions, violent video games/movies/tv shows, and a reduction of the death penalty).

While the answer is sometimes easier in hindsight, I would ask: Should the VT murderer have been able to purchase a firearm?

However, I would ask that you answer the question not in the hindsight that it would stop the shootings, but should he have been able to purchase one in the first place - based on his medical mental health. etc.

 

[Drew]

So pardon me if I missed it, but what is your solution? No more guns for anyone?

I would be willing to bet that indeed "no more guns for anyone" is probably the ideal solution. I am not sure, though, and if you have read my posts carefully, you will know that I am open to the possibility that allowing people to have guns might actually be the best solution (although I clearly have leanings in the other direction).

The point being that I think this issue should be settled on a calm dispassionate analysis of what system minimizes death and suffering, not through emotional appeals appeals to the "right to bear arms" (on the pro-gun side) nor on an overly simplistic "if we all disarm everything will work out fine" (on the gun control side). I believe that people have the right to self-defence (although I think one could make a reasonable case that Jesus might have taught otherwise). I just suspect that guns are not the answer.

 

[stranger]

The Civil War continues.

As I searched a few web sites about American 'casualties in wars' and 'deaths from firearms' I could not reconcile the figures. They did not add up.

While we think of wars as beginning and ending - this may not be the case in every instance. Specific hostilities may in fact continue in the very midst of a general peace. Some of the men who fought in the civil war continued to 'kill' others with the same weapons they used in the war - after the war had ended (supposition). Over time one could imagine the blurring of distinctions and so on as this countinued. In countries where weapons were collected after a civil war - a different gun culture developed. I suggest that this was not the case in the US as is attested to by the 2nd amendment.

As I looked back over the wars that America has been involved in the thought that: the 'civil war' continues today with a blurring of distinctions came to mind. It seems that the nature of warfare has changed and we have been slow to realise it.

Call this a theory about firearm violence - the one thing in its favour is that it explains the high casualty rates of firearm related deaths. The word 'civil' is also fully appropriate because firearm violence is a civil matter.

Has American society ever really known peace even to the extent that other nations have?