The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok To be honest about it, what's the difference overall between carrying a gun at a university and carrying a gun at a crowded mall? The opportunity for fatalities is high in either scenario.quote>

The difference is that people are at a mall to shop and have fun while people in a college classroom are supposed to be there to learn (although, outside on campus, that may not be the case).

It's not the same thing to be walking around a mall with a gun as it is to be sitting at a desk with a gun.

Still, I say it's up to the college. If they want to allow students to carry guns, they can do that. If they want to allow it but deny the privilege to students who have less than a certain GPA or have gotten in trouble for something, they can also do that. If they want to allow only staff to carry guns, they can do that. And if they want to forbid anyone from carrying a gun, they can do that, too. It's private property. What the owner says goes.

Of course, if the college is public (like a city or state school) then the appropriate legislature can step in.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Surely Americans can't be that terrified of life to constantly fear everyone and as such carry a gun?? quote>

Don't forget that, for years, people here routinely carried guns.  Most so in the west (as in the wild, wild west) than in the east but, as the country was being developed, many people wouldn't go outside without being armed.    The nearest people might be miles away and you wouldn't know what you might encounter.

They aren't consider as unusual here as they seem to be over there.  I remember picking one of my British friends up at the airport here and she said she was startled by a security guard with a gun.  I asked her what had happened.  She replied nothing, he was just standing there.   I was puzzled, thinking "so?".  but it unnerved her.  I hadn't even noticed it.  Armed guards are taken for granted.

[autoVino 26]

considering that they have a decnet looking system for determining who can be trusted with a gun or not, this seems to be a good idea.  Protection is important, and this can save lives.

Hell, driving a car is more dangerous than having the kid in front of you carry a hand gun... the point is that there is only a small percentage of people who would go as far as to kill students with guns, innocent students.  Chances of a school shooting are very unlikely, and if they do occure, you're going to have one shooter, and many defenders.  Although I'm not pro-gun, this plan sound decent and logical.

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 Yeah, this is just like that University Health Office that provided condoms for students or something like that... (I'm too tired to look it up )

Here's an idea, try actually learning instead of partying and.... "other things."

quote>

 

I don't see the problem with giving out condoms either.  It would significantly lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies.  Forcing someone to not follow human instinct will not work.  Having people to give in, with protection and prevention, will work.  One of my teachers once even proposed to give out free birth control, to help lower unwanted pregnancies.

Just as my doctor says: "When you go to work, make sure you wear a helmet."

[patriots_1228 51]

If virginia tech students had guns, they would have fought back at the death toll would have been 30 people lower probably. Good Call.

[spudnik 0]

The University of Utah is a state (and therefore public) university. The article is not entirely accurate either - the court case was concerning a state (public) university and the ruling applies only to the universities under state control. Private colleges in Utah, such as BYU, still have bans on firearms.

From the Utah State Code: 53B-3-103

Power of board to adopt rules and enact regulations.

(1) The board may enact regulations governing the conduct of university and college students, faculty, and employees.

(2) (a) The board may:

(i) enact and authorize higher education institutions to enact traffic, parking, and related regulations governing all individuals on campuses and other facilities owned or controlled by the institutions or the board; and

(ii) acknowledging that the Legislature has the authority to regulate, by law, firearms at higher education institutions:

(A) authorize higher education institutions to establish no more than one secure area at each institution as a hearing room as prescribed in Section 76-8-311.1, but not otherwise restrict the lawful possession or carrying of firearms;

The problem with the university banning (or regulating, if you will) firearms is that it is not within their authority to do so. Only the legislature has that authority. I am currently a student at the University of Utah and I have no problems with the concealed-carry rule. I know most people aren't carrying weapons any way and if they are they are completely within their right to do so (as long as they are doing so legally).

[your_adress_here 11]

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of...

Solving violence with violence... sounds a lot like something else I've heard of... what's it called again... oh, right, war.

[Palpatine001 57]

Wrong Patriots as usual, death toll would of been from 2 to 10x higher than what had happened. Civilians are not trained to discharge weapons under fire as police and the military are hence we have them to Protect and Serve. Paniced students fully armed would automatically equalled increase in friendly fire. And to back it up modeling from out Computer Science Dept backs it up.

Again this can all be minimised if America looked to her Commonwealth counter parts for inspiration pure and simple.

So then arm the students, I await the next massacare... maybe then American will learn the cold hard truth...

[Exethalion 4]

OK new poster here. I talked about this on other forums.

This is a classic example of what I like to call a vicous circle. It has stages.

1) Because our population is armed, gun crime increases.

2) We arm our population to defend against gun-wielding criminals.

3) OH LOOKIE! WE'RE BACK TO STAGE 1! Wow. Aren't we the brainy ones.

America, please get a grip. Wonder why you have significantly higher gun crime than many European countries?

[TRNSTN 0]

Originally posted by: hummer0328 We aren't talking about giving everyone a gun.  Concealed weapons permits aren't given out to anyone who wants one.  Only about 2% of the US population has a concealed weapons permit.  You also have to be 21 to have one so only a very small percentage of students could be carrying a weapon on them.  But it's a deterrent.  Just about all concealed weapons carriers are sane law abiding citizens.  Besides, if someone is crazy enough to want to massacre a bunch of people they are not going to bother with applying for a concealed weapons permit.  They will just break the law and carry and conceal it anyways.quote>

This brings up the question of what defines "self-defence" I mean this kind of law makes it seem like it's only addressing one issue, for students to stop deranged people killing too many students. What about other  threats? So if you get into a fight, the other guy grabs your gun then what? Or if someone throws a punch at you do you draw your pistol? What if there are some relationship problems and one party decides he doesn't like the third party? They don't really seem to clearly define self-defence except against other unstable individuals massacring in school. This mean they're expecting more of these rampaging killers to come. Shouldn't the problem be to accomodate these unstable individuals so they don't even start and take ONE life?

Cho took 32 students lives, but if he walked in and took 10 before he got shot to death, what do you say to those 10 student's families, at least 22 others lived?

The problem was that Cho had EASY access to firearms, and a lot of them. I'm sure there are checks to ensure buyers are legit and are stable and blah blah blah, but I believe one case of bad judgment and negligence to make proper background checks on Cho is unacceptable. It happened once it will happen again.

[TRNSTN 0]

Originally posted by: your_adress_here This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of...

Solving violence with violence... sounds a lot like something else I've heard of... what's it called again... oh, right, war.quote>

War is exactly what it is, but if injustice is armed well then everyone would be equal right? haha

Once again some ways of thinking cease to amaze me. Here, the second you mention guns or arms, you get this feeling on the back of your neck, something just isn't right. Now, if someone at school brought a gun to school I'd wouldn't soil myself but it's not the most enjoyable thing to have floating around, especially concealed. Guns are meant for killing people, they are weapons. You can say they're for defence, but they are in nature made for offence.

So what, now they're making guns  a part of their education? What happens to people who are learning history, oh yeah things would've been better off if they all had guns................

[hawkpride147 1]

Originally posted by: hymIn case you haven't noticed the over-arching connection, this campus, like most others, is secured by individuals who have the legal authority to kill you if you become a threat.quote>

umm in texas, if someone shoots at you, you have the legal authority to kill them... some places in the US still embrace the old west. honestly, why not let responsible students carry a gun into their classes. no law is gonna stop someone who wants to shoot up a school from doing it...

as for defining self defense...in texas it is defined as retaliation when fearing for one's safety. the law has been interpreted as your level of defense can not overly exceed the level of attack. basically if someone pulls a gun on you you can shoot them, but if someone is cussing you out or throws a punch at you, you can't. the only exception is if someone is trespassing on your property and has been asked to leave. at that point you may shoot them provided they are not in the process of exiting the property.

[hamsterTK 93]

Honestly I don't trust just anyone who is armed with a handgun so this is going to bother me regardless

Realistically though most people who get a permit to carry are going to harmless.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Wrong Patriots as usual, death toll would of been from 2 to 10x higher than what had happened. Civilians are not trained to discharge weapons under fire as police and the military are hence we have them to Protect and Serve. Paniced students fully armed would automatically equalled increase in friendly fire. And to back it up modeling from out Computer Science Dept backs it up.quote>

Modeling from the Computer Science Dept?  That proves absolutely nothing.

This doesn't actually prove anything, but at least its real evidence.

Luby's Massacre

Shoney's - Anniston, Alabama

Again this can all be minimised if America looked to her Commonwealth counter parts for inspiration pure and simple.quote>

Or, America's Commonwealth counter parts can look at America and realize that there's a difference of opinion on the subject.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Voar Tok To be honest about it, what's the difference overall between carrying a gun at a university and carrying a gun at a crowded mall? The opportunity for fatalities is high in either scenario.quote>

The difference is that people are at a mall to shop and have fun while people in a college classroom are supposed to be there to learn (although, outside on campus, that may not be the case).quote>

Well, yes, the intent is different, but I was referring to casualty opportunities.  What's the difference for casualty opportunity between a classroom and a mall?

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Yeah people here just aren't use to guns. Police at airports of course now have them but normal police in Great Britain don't carry them. I'm not too freaked out by them, but seeing people in a mall with them would freak me out somewhat and has when I visited the US. Though I very very rarely saw them when in Boston and NYCquote>

Yeah, it's a matter of whether you're used to it.  I know at least a few of the people I've been in the same room with at some point in my life have had a gun and I didn't know it.  It doesn't bother me in the slightest.  I'm not saying that because I'm thinking that everyone else should be that way, but just as an example.

[vistla 3]

It's far better to have one and not need it, then to need one and not have it.

[hummer0328 6]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN

Originally posted by: hummer0328 We aren't talking about giving everyone a gun.  Concealed weapons permits aren't given out to anyone who wants one.  Only about 2% of the US population has a concealed weapons permit.  You also have to be 21 to have one so only a very small percentage of students could be carrying a weapon on them.  But it's a deterrent.  Just about all concealed weapons carriers are sane law abiding citizens.  Besides, if someone is crazy enough to want to massacre a bunch of people they are not going to bother with applying for a concealed weapons permit.  They will just break the law and carry and conceal it anyways.quote>

Cho took 32 students lives, but if he walked in and took 10 before he got shot to death, what do you say to those 10 student's families, at least 22 others lived?quote>

And what would you say to the family of the 22 others who could have lived?

-States who's citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons see violent crime reductions of about 7%.

-States that disallow concealed weapons have violent crime rates 11% higher than national average.

-Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

-Only about 0.02% (1/5000) of citizens issued a concealed weapons permit ever commit a violent crime.

-In states without “right to carry” laws, there have been 15 school shootings. In states that allow citizens to carry guns, there has been only one.

The point is is that it's not someone carrying a concealed weapon that I'm worried about.  It's the other nuts out there that I'm worried about.  Allowing concealed weapons does reduces crime.  Like I already said, I don't want to put concealed weapons into the hands of just anyone, just law abiding citizens who can show they can properly handle a weapon.  By putting concealed weapons in the hands of these law abiding citizens we see crime reduction.

[hummer0328 6]

We aren't talking about giving everyone a gun.  Concealed weapons permits aren't given out to anyone who wants one.  Only about 2% of the US population has a concealed weapons permit.  You also have to be 21 to have one so only a very small percentage of students could be carrying a weapon on them.  But it's a deterrent.  Just about all concealed weapons carriers are sane law abiding citizens.  Besides, if someone is crazy enough to want to massacre a bunch of people they are not going to bother with applying for a concealed weapons permit.  They will just break the law and carry and conceal it anyways.

[Micah 16]

Wonder why you have significantly higher gun crime than many European countries? quote>

Because the culture is far different?

[hummer0328 6]

Originally posted by: Micah

Wonder why you have significantly higher gun crime than many European countries? quote>

Because the culture is far different?quote>

Exactly.  The majority of gun crime in the US is inner city crime (gangs).  Most of these are used by repeat offenders (convicted felons released on parole) and therefore can't even legally be in possession of a gun.  The vast majority of the guns they used were also obtained illegally.   Out in the suburbs and rural areas (where the majority of the pop lives) gun crime isn't nearly as common. 

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved guncrimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there.

Here are Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000):

4161 - US

7736 - Germany

6941 - France

9927 - England and Wales

Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime.

Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of

robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

From the inception of firearm confiscation in Australia to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:

    • Gun murders up 19%

    • Armed robbery up 69%

    • Home invasions up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before national gun confiscation:

    • Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%

    • Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

[TEG24601 32]

If the criminals don't have to worry about their victims fighting back, they are more likely to commit crimes.

Also, in those nations with strict gun ownership laws, alternative weapons are used, such as baseball bats/cricket bats, hockey sticks, etc. I know for a fact that the gangs of Vancouver, BC roam the city with Aluminum Softball bats to beat their enemies to a pulp.

TEG

[hamsterTK 93]

^^^

yeah but a gang walking around holding weapons is going to attract attention. Handguns are useful for criminals because they are easy to conceal.

Anyways, debate this all you want but it's proven in the real world. Extremely strict gun control works fine in Japan and results in some of the world's lowest crime rates.

I suppose the lesson though is that going half-ass won't cut it...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK debate this all you want but it's proven in the real world. Extremely strict gun control works fine in Japan and results in some of the world's lowest crime rates.quote>

I don't feel like retyping something I've said before, so you get some yummy copypasta from this thread:

Originally posted by Psycho_Teddy Explain the crime rates in places like Japan, who have some of the lowest crime rates in the world... With a gun ban in place...  eh?

It's their culture. Crime and non-conformity are huge taboos there... whereas the western world is far more accepting and forgiving of it. Bear in mind, the crime rate is really low for all crimes, not just violent ones, for which a gun ban won't help- and might in fact hurt since the criminal won't need to worry about his victim puling a gun on them.

Yes, Japan has a very low crime rate. Yes, Japan has a gun ban. But that does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship (or any relationship) there. Japan is also the only country where Japanese is the standard language.... quick! everyone! Learn Japanese! It'll lower our crime rate!

(Originally from February 15, 2008, in discussion following the shooting at Northern Illinois University)

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK ^^^

yeah but a gang walking around holding weapons is going to attract attention. Handguns are useful for criminals because they are easy to conceal.

Anyways, debate this all you want but it's proven in the real world. Extremely strict gun control works fine in Japan and results in some of the world's lowest crime rates.

I suppose the lesson though is that going half-ass won't cut it...quote>

As explained, they have a different culture in Japan; and a different sociolgical structure. They have a more homogenous state, they have different policies towards education, the common good, etc. Bear in mind that this also produces other results, which may not be as desirable; e.g. suicides, those people who never leave their rooms before well into their twenties, etc.

Besides, having a lot of guns and having a high crime rate are two different things. It has more to do with which guns that are acceptable (not accepted!), and the priorities of the government. While Schengen focuses both on closing the outer borders and border points, and generally leaves drug users alone as long as they themselves are not dealing, the US pours much money into a "war" on drugs both home and abroad, and "securing" the borders to the extent that it's easier to import from Asia than Canada, instead watching its coast, et. al.

But this isn't just the government's fault; the average constituent are more concerned about the local drug addicts roaming the neighbourhood streets than catching the big fish down in Colombia. Foiling an alleged terror plot is a message easier to get across than a five percent rise in illegal weapons seized.

[hamsterTK 93]

The place can't be perfect. The culture may be different but surely if just anyone could get a gun there would be almost certainly be an upswing in crime.

I think the culture difference is a better explanation of why we don't have any gun control now, not necesarily what effect it would have in the long run. Also just the existance of politicians and regular people like me who would support gun control should be a sign that maybe american culture is changing...

[screamingman12 30]

Why do people think that fighting violence with violence is the awnser to this issue? It's clearly not. Supplying more people with guns will only increase the percentage of gun crime, as it will cause people to act on shear impulse rather than take time to think if usung a gun against a person is the right thing to do.

I would have no problem banning handguns/concealed wepons, as the legal equivalent would be knives, which are much, much safer than guns, for the following reasons:

They weren't invented to kill people
using them involves close contact, meaning that you can fight the person who is attacking you
Knives are not as leathal as guns, getting stabbed doesn't necessarily mean that you will die, but if you get shot, your chance of dying increases rapidly.

No ammount of mental health laws could equal adiquate gun control, and as long as those @$$holes that we call the NRA exist, gun control won't even be given a chance.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

I would have no problem banning handguns/concealed wepons, as the legal equivalent would be knives, which are much, much safer than guns, for the following reasons:

They weren't invented to kill people

using them involves close contact, meaning that you can fight the person who is attacking you

Knives are not as leathal as guns, getting stabbed doesn't necessarily mean that you will die, but if you get shot, your chance of dying increases rapidly. quote>

Nearly every college guy I know would disagree with that last point (and these guys cover the gambit from your ideal perfect citizen to guys that have been incarcerated in both state and federal prisons).  Knives and bullets kill on the same principle.  Penetrate the skin and rip things up inside.  Knives are quite capable of doing that.  In fact, in some situations, knives are the preferred means of killing someone.

Now, consider the following.  Guns are regulated and not just anyone can buy one.  Knives are not.  I know several teenagers and young adults that carry 3-4 inch knives with them, simply because they either can't legally carry a gun with them, or they can legally carry a gun on their person, but the regulations in place are more than they want to deal with.  That said, they chose to carry something like a retractable/folding hunting knife with them.  A few years ago, I remember being in a dorm room with about 8 guys (oldest guy is 17).  One of the invited guys in the room was admiring two retractable hunting knives that a guy had set on his desk.  The owner of the knives saw the other dude looking at them and explained he was given both of them by family for separate birthdays.  This prompted the other guy to ask who else was carrying a knife on him.  Four other guys reached into their pockets and pulled out hunting knives also.  Five out of 8 guys had knives with them, and one more had a knife but didn't bring it with him to the gathering.  And in case you're wondering, that isn't an isolated incident.  Last year, in a group of about 40 guys, 8 or 9 of them had knives of varying lengths.  In college, nearly every guy I know owns a knife, bar one dude.  He doesn't own any weapon-quality knife because he figures that two 36 inch katanas should suffice if he needs a weapon to defend himself.

[hummer0328 6]

Guns used by civilians to protect themselves result in fewer deaths per incident than police with guns. The majority of criminals say they are more afraid of an armed victim than an armed cop and are therefore more likely to comply.

As far as knives go, they can be just as deadly as a gun, there are far fewer regulations controlling them, they are usually small and easy to conceal, and they are silent.

I always find it amusing that all of the anti-gun people I personally know have never even held a gun in there life and every pro-gun person I know grew up around them.

[hymewales 13]

"Solving violence with violence... sounds a lot like something else I've heard of... what's it called again... oh, right, war."

I rarely post here because I'd rather be shopping for some good mods or buildings I can't make myself.  So here goes:

I am a government agent Krbe. I'm offended by your statements on if it is OK to shoot a government agent. That's like me asking if it would be OK if your nations troops could be shot. Dumb statement. Gov't agents usually do not do anything without the checks and balances; i.e. a judge issued search warrant. Legislative vs Judicial branch...Don't bring up any "War on Terrorism" policies because that is not what I'm referring to.

The right to bear arms is not "solving violence with violence". The right to bear arms in case of <you fill the blanks in for whatever violence you want> is like the current deterrent system we've had <being the US> since the invention of the atom bomb; our nuclear arsenal to prevent any country from attacking the US because of the fear of mass retaliation. The right to bear arms is the same type of deterrent. These deterrents prevent war or the government from becoming too strong handed in the wake of any failed checks and balances <i.e. a Revolution>. That is the effect the fore fathers wanted; deterrence. Take those deterrences away, and we're no better than say Japan who relies heavily on the US for protection. Where would our protection lie then? With Australia or Europe? I hope not...

The militia is NOT the National Guard. The National Guard is a government run military entity. The militia is the people or citizens of our great nation with no affiliation to the government run military entity. If another nation were to invade the U.S. and deplete our military resources, the fall back for national defense would rely on the fellow citizens of our great nation. That is the militia as the fore fathers intended.

Those who say one country does not have much crime <i.e. Japan> because of the ban on weapons does not understand the complexity of the issue. Our Constitution is not your Constitution.  This is not Europe's or Asia's issue. It is the United States' issue; and hers alone.

The problem has never been guns. It has always been the people.  There will always be a black market to purchase guns from and/or to smuggle them across the borders. With 300 million people, there is bound to be crime. It doesn't matter if you put a gun or chainsaw in the hands of the criminal. The crime will happen. Guns are meant to kill. However, they do not shoot by themselves. It takes a human with a brain, no matter how warped, to pull the trigger. The problem lies with society. Japan's society is not the United State's society; nor Europe's, Australia's, or Asia's. The mass school shootings involved people that had a warped mind to kill others; not much different than today's suicide bombers. They want to die; but think they need to glorify it by taking others with them. Gun control will not solve the issue. If guns were rendered useless in the U.S., then there would be other means. Explosive devices are banned but that has not prevented the 1991 World Trade Center bombings or Oklahoma City now did it? Or the Atlanta Olympics bombing or the numerous abortion clinic bombings or...I could go on. Name another country as complex as ours and you will see you have issues with crime as well...in different forms and fashions.

I'll keep my gun, as will my father, brother, uncles, nephews, and other relatives because we are the deterrence; we are the militia in case of foreign aggression on our soil or by a rogue government who attempts to dissolve our rights as our fore fathers intended.

End of rant.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK The place can't be perfect. The culture may be different but surely if just anyone could get a gun there would be almost certainly be an upswing in crime.quote>

If most anyone could get a gun, the odds of a crime upswing are still unproven, and there's evidence to support that it wouldn't necessarily work that way.  Look at what happens when a bank is being robbed.  The thieves make a specific point of taking out the security guards because they know that those guys have guns.  Then they worry about anyone else, because, as any thief knows, the biggest threat to them is encountering someone else who's armed and willing to confront them.

I think the culture difference is a better explanation of why we don't have any gun control now, not necesarily what effect it would have in the long run. Also just the existance of politicians and regular people like me who would support gun control should be a sign that maybe american culture is changing...quote>

Maybe it is, but the current cultural evidence doesn't elude to that being the case.

[Palpatine001 57]

Originally posted by: hymewales "Solving violence with violence... sounds a lot like something else I've heard of... what's it called again... oh, right, war."

Those who say one country does not have much crime <i.e. Japan> because of the ban on weapons does not understand the complexity of the issue. Our Constitution is not your Constitution.  This is not Europe's or Asia's issue. It is the United States' issue; and hers alone.

The problem has never been guns. It has always been the people.  There will always be a black market to purchase guns from and/or to smuggle them across the borders. With 300 million people, there is bound to be crime. It doesn't matter if you put a gun or chainsaw in the hands of the criminal. The crime will happen. Guns are meant to kill. However, they do not shoot by themselves. It takes a human with a brain, no matter how warped, to pull the trigger. The problem lies with society. Japan's society is not the United State's society; nor Europe's, Australia's, or Asia's. The mass school shootings involved people that had a warped mind to kill others; not much different than today's suicide bombers. They want to die; but think they need to glorify it by taking others with them. Gun control will not solve the issue. If guns were rendered useless in the U.S., then there would be other means. Explosive devices are banned but that has not prevented the 1991 World Trade Center bombings or Oklahoma City now did it? Or the Atlanta Olympics bombing or the numerous abortion clinic bombings or...I could go on. Name another country as complex as ours and you will see you have issues with crime as well...in different forms and fashions.

I'll keep my gun, as will my father, brother, uncles, nephews, and other relatives because we are the deterrence; we are the militia in case of foreign aggression on our soil or by a rogue government who attempts to dissolve our rights as our fore fathers intended.

End of rant.quote>

 

Name another country as complex as yours - America, sure thing, lets try every Western Commonwealth Nation, the EU nations oh and Japan, they are ALL complex societies with their own unique set of problems. So don't try that amercian-centric crap this end with me the same crap that has got America in a bind onthe world stage, AND especially after finishing a full doctrine thesis on Structuralism, Political Economy and the Abortion Debate in the USA. I think what is often is needed is an outsiders prospectives to offer a fresh or different input or insight to such a debate.  As for keeping you gun, you do that, just hope you don't hit an innocent person on the way out when you discharge that weapon against a "criminal." 

By the way a question for you.

You say America is complex and we outsiders could never understand.

Ok since 1995 how many School or University Shootings have you had

Then how many have the 4 main commonwealth nations (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) had.

Oh by the way, Aussie cops carry guns too you know.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: hymewalesI am a government agent Krbe. I'm offended by your statements on if it is OK to shoot a government agent. That's like me asking if it would be OK if your nations troops could be shot. Dumb statement. Gov't agents usually do not do anything without the checks and balances; i.e. a judge issued search warrant. Legislative vs Judicial branch...Don't bring up any "War on Terrorism" policies because that is not what I'm referring to.quote>

Please be. However, the right to bear arms is often cited as a protection from government too, and not just as defence against foregin aggression: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356" Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government, Section V, The Soverginity of the People, University of Virginia

It is of course futile to take to arms against the state today unless you have a sizeable army with you. If you do take to arms against the state, you'll likely just be caught, and rot away in prison or be killed after a number of years.

Any nations troops can be shot. That's why we got them. Some of them are now deployed in Afghanistan, and I doubt the Taliban is wondering wether they might be killed or not.

And why can't the "War on Terror" policies be brought up? Because they're not covered by the normal "checks and balances"?