Gun discussion

[Dmanwuzhere]

Rights? I feel there is discrimination in play. Don't forget your lefts. No real boxer develops just one gun.

[Stan Rogers]

Love guns. Born and raised with them as tools for food and livestock protection.
What I hate is the careless accidental discharges that kill hundreds of children each year, usually by other children.
What I also hate is the fear of slippery slopes that Responsible laws would do to address the problem.

[Lana]

Lana wrote:
''Who take up the sword, will die by the sword'' ... old proverb, but so true and always actual.
Or better to say: ''Live by the gun, die by the gun.''
I will never understand why the weapons are so important to many of you...


It's about 2000 years old and was said by Jesus. The proverb by itself is out of context.

Judas had just betrayed Jesus with a kiss and an unknown disciple drew his sword and struck off the ear of a servant of one of the Pharisees. Jesus responded with "Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword."

My point exactly! (I didn't say that I don't know where the quote is from ) If you talk about ''Good given rights'', meaning about the weapon, then quote The New Testament and Jesus' words...I think you very freely interpret God's will.

''Who take up the sword, will die by the sword'' ... old proverb, but so true and always actual.
Or better to say: ''Live by the gun, die by the gun.''
I will never understand why the weapons are so important to many of you...

agreed, we should play rock paper scissors.

Exactly (Although ironically said)! Weapons are not a toy, but an asset of forfeiting other's life.

[Stan Rogers]

Next time you are in an airport, just casually mention you have a bomb packed away in your luggage in a calm and joking way and then use the argument that you are just exercising your right to free speech and see how far you get and how far the constitution protects you from prosecution.

Sorry Phoenix, seems your posts always get derailed by controversial topics. PK is buying Captains everyone !

Again, the words are not what you would be arrested for, thus not a restriction of free speech. Inciting a riot or a panic is illegal. You like others fail to understand that the arresting charge would be inciting a panic. It doesn't matter what is said, whether it be a bomb on an airplane or saying fire in a crowded theater, the issue is inciting a panic, not the actual words. Case and Point. Penn Jillette, from Penn and Teller, during one of his magic shows yelled "FIRE" in a crowded theater, no panic ensued as he didn't do it to incite a panic, and he continued on with his juggling act. If it were illegal, he would have been arrested for it.


Sorry, PK.

Are you telling me, in the USA, you can legally imply you have the ability or potential to hijack an aircraft and the only charge would be incitement of a panic ?
Sorry, that's a little too unbelievable for me to swallow but I would be very open to you demonstrating it to me next time I visit the USA.

[Most Lee Harmless]

But Deez is correct. The second amendmaent was put in place to prevent a tyrannical government from taking away all of our inherent rights.

Danik, that is what is meant by tyranny. The government taking away or infringing on your God given rights. The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution define and protect these rights.

In the USA.

Please be careful not to generalise local matters into global statements.

Lastly, if the US Constitution could be amended, as it has been, numerous times and more over, was designed to be amended with the means of doing so inherent in its framing : what makes any one part of it inviolate and thus unchangeable?

One of the less lauded aspects of UK Parliamentary Democracy is the simple yet iron-clad constitutional rule : No Parliament can bind a subsequent one to its will : every law passed is always subject to amendment or abolition : that's a pretty good defence against tyranny too. I fear the world has seen far too much of the pedantic adherence to ancient words made sacrosanct and much too much tyranny has arisen from such.

[Redish]

I can't see the point of buying a firearm and stashing it in a safe, unless you're an avid hunter, farmer or sportsman that actually uses the thing. The regulatory requirements of keeping it and the risk of it landing in the hands of criminals is simply not worth taking.

Having the constitutional right to own firearms does not necessarily mean its the smart thing to do.

[DezNutz]

Next time you are in an airport, just casually mention you have a bomb packed away in your luggage in a calm and joking way and then use the argument that you are just exercising your right to free speech and see how far you get and how far the constitution protects you from prosecution.

Sorry Phoenix, seems your posts always get derailed by controversial topics. PK is buying Captains everyone !

Again, the words are not what you would be arrested for, thus not a restriction of free speech. Inciting a riot or a panic is illegal. You like others fail to understand that the arresting charge would be inciting a panic. It doesn't matter what is said, whether it be a bomb on an airplane or saying fire in a crowded theater, the issue is inciting a panic, not the actual words. Case and Point. Penn Jillette, from Penn and Teller, during one of his magic shows yelled "FIRE" in a crowded theater, no panic ensued as he didn't do it to incite a panic, and he continued on with his juggling act. If it were illegal, he would have been arrested for it.


Sorry, PK.

Are you telling me, in the USA, you can legally imply you have the ability or potential to hijack an aircraft and the only charge would be incitement of a panic ?
Sorry, that's a little too unbelievable for me to swallow but I would be very open to you demonstrating it to me next time I visit the USA.

No, I didn't say that. Saying I have a bomb in a joking way is not the same as saying I have a bomb with the intent of hijacking a plane. They aren't going to throw you in federal prison for a joke, but there are consequences. The point I was making is that saying the words is not illegal. Context and intent play a part into any consequences that come from it.

[DezNutz]

But Deez is correct. The second amendmaent was put in place to prevent a tyrannical government from taking away all of our inherent rights.

Danik, that is what is meant by tyranny. The government taking away or infringing on your God given rights. The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution define and protect these rights.

In the USA.

Please be careful not to generalise local matters into global statements.

Lastly, if the US Constitution could be amended, as it has been, numerous times and more over, was designed to be amended with the means of doing so inherent in its framing : what makes any one part of it inviolate and thus unchangeable?

One of the less lauded aspects of UK Parliamentary Democracy is the simple yet iron-clad constitutional rule : No Parliament can bind a subsequent one to its will : every law passed is always subject to amendment or abolition : that's a pretty good defence against tyranny too. I fear the world has seen far too much of the pedantic adherence to ancient words made sacrosanct and much too much tyranny has arisen from such.

The discussion was in relation to the USA specifically the 2nd Amendment. Your response questioned what is defined as tyranny.

Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but to do so is difficult by design. The first 10 Amendments (The Bill of Rights) aren't going to be changed.

[DezNutz]

I can't see the point of buying a firearm and stashing it in a safe, unless you're an avid hunter, farmer or sportsman that actually uses the thing. The regulatory requirements of keeping it and the risk of it landing in the hands of criminals is simply not worth taking.

Having the constitutional right to own firearms does not necessarily mean its the smart thing to do.

Tell that to all the people who have used firearms in self defense that aren't in your above criteria. A lot of people wouldn't be alive today, if they didn't have a firearm in their home for self defense.

[Stan Rogers]

I can't see the point of buying a firearm and stashing it in a safe, unless you're an avid hunter, farmer or sportsman that actually uses the thing. The regulatory requirements of keeping it and the risk of it landing in the hands of criminals is simply not worth taking.

Having the constitutional right to own firearms does not necessarily mean its the smart thing to do.

Tell that to all the people who have used firearms in self defense that aren't in your above criteria. A lot of people wouldn't be alive today, if they didn't have a firearm in their home for self defense.

And a lot of children would be alive if proper storage was implemented. If you live in fear of someone busting down your door and need a loaded firearm beside your pillow, you really should consider moving to a less violent neighbourhood or, change your line of work.