|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:23 pm
So, I read that the assault weapons ban has expired (I don't know if they have bans on assault weapons in Canada, or if Canadians are just too jolly from being so close to the North Pole that they don't ever think about shooting each other), and I'm not sure what to think about it.
On the one hand, I'm pretty much a laissez-faire person when it comes to government. I think government's two most important purposes, overall, are to keep the populace safe, from themselves and foreign threats, and to mediate disputes between citizens. Gun control strips people of their right to bear arms, and in general I'm against people having their rights restricted unless it threatens other people. And given that I'm known to enjoy marksmanship, I have to admit a bit of it is personal. The chance to fire something like an M16 or AK47 is back in my grasp with the ban gone.
But then I read about how the majority of the police were against the ban being lifted. Now what reason could the police have for not wanting more assault weapons available to John Q Public? Perhaps it has to do with an intense desire to not be shot by a better armed populace. They already have a fairly shitty job which is generally thankless, and I'm not sure making their job more dangerous is a good way to show our gratitude.
Also, I read the majority of the populace (something like 68% or like that) was for the ban. Which lead me to wonder - who the hell is the legislature being elected by, if they do things which may reduce the public safety and unpopular with the people who are supposedly their electorate?
So, what do you think? I'm torn between my own personal wish to fire an assault weapon someday and belief that government should not strip rights from people, and my more sensible belief that if the police think something is going to make things more dangerous for them, then maybe it is, and that we shouldn't make life harder (and more dangerous) for said police. I think I'm leaning towards wishing the ban was still in place.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:36 pm
I'm wishing the ban was still around because really... there are too many insane people out there to have AK-47's to be able to be shot. And though there are some people like you who want them just for marksmenship and fun, the danger of them outweighs the leisure of them in my mind.
As for it stripping of rights, well, it's also protecting people, because honestly I don't think anyone really needs an assault rifle to defend themselves. It just creates a safety hazard for law enforcement and the everyday joe.
I wasn't aware that most people were for the ban and it was lifted anyway, that bugs me more than anything else, it proves that special interest groups are all that congress is there for, not the majority. But for the past four years the government has had that nasty habit of ignoring the masses hasn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:38 pm
sybrid>> Phew...that's a tough question to answer.
I do believe that citizens have the right to bear arms, but I think it can get out of hand. Before the assault weapon, guns were a slightly lesser threat. I remember the infamous " going postal" stories that, as far as I know, were a factor in the ban on assault weapons. The bad apples in the bunch, so to speak.
The freedom to own a gun that can slaughter a good amount of people in a single round is a frightening idea, especially in the hands of one who cannot control their temper. (among other types) I think Peter Parker's uncle put it well when he said that "with great power comes great responsibility"
The other thing I consider when thinking about the "Right to bear arms" clause is the history of the times. Our forefathers had no idea that guns would become such an effective weapon, and in those times you needed that form of protection. Now it still applies today that you have a right to protect yourself and your family, but I don't think you need an assault weapon to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:52 pm
Ashram_VII The other thing I consider when thinking about the "Right to bear arms" clause is the history of the times. Our forefathers had no idea that guns would become such an effective weapon, and in those times you needed that form of protection. Now it still applies today that you have a right to protect yourself and your family, but I don't think you need an assault weapon to do that. Well, one of my problems with people saying, "you have the right to protect yourself, but not that much", is where do you draw the line then? Is two handguns about the right amount of firepower for a family to protect itself? A handgun and a shotgun? A shotgun in the larger rooms and a handgun in smaller rooms? Should it be a handgun per family member, instead? Handguns for family members over 16 and under 25, and a shotgun for family members 25 and older? Perhaps each family should also have one high-power rifle, just in case? I'm not sure its the government role to regulate how a person decides to protect her family. At the same time, I'm pretty sure when I read about the things that people do around me, that giving these morons access to assault weapons is not going to make me safer. It is, in fact, going to reduce how safe I am, which means the government is failing one of the two tasks I think it should hold above all others. EDIT: On a lighter note, there were some abortion protesters out today with pictures of dead baby fetuses. Is it a sign that I've completely lost my mind that I was tempted to stop, stare at the pictures for a while, and then declare that I would like to try a sample, and then point at the picture when they ask what I'm talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:02 pm
sybrid EDIT: On a lighter note, there were some abortion protesters out today with pictures of dead baby fetuses. Is it a sign that I've completely lost my mind that I was tempted to stop, stare at the pictures for a while, and then declare that I would like to try a sample, and then point at the picture when they ask what I'm talking about? What I wouldn't have given to see their faces if you had done that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:33 pm
has anyone else had the thread thingies not work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:34 pm
onifiredemon has anyone else had the thread thingies not work?
why? what kind of problems are you having? o.O;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:40 pm
its not turining orange, but now it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:47 pm
onifiredemon its not turining orange, but now it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:20 pm
ok just makin sure.
I had no idea what the hell you were talking about for a second there xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:00 am
sybrid So, I read that the assault weapons ban has expired (I don't know if they have bans on assault weapons in Canada, or if Canadians are just too jolly from being so close to the North Pole that they don't ever think about shooting each other), and I'm not sure what to think about it. On the one hand, I'm pretty much a laissez-faire person when it comes to government. I think government's two most important purposes, overall, are to keep the populace safe, from themselves and foreign threats, and to mediate disputes between citizens. Gun control strips people of their right to bear arms, and in general I'm against people having their rights restricted unless it threatens other people. And given that I'm known to enjoy marksmanship, I have to admit a bit of it is personal. The chance to fire something like an M16 or AK47 is back in my grasp with the ban gone. But then I read about how the majority of the police were against the ban being lifted. Now what reason could the police have for not wanting more assault weapons available to John Q Public? Perhaps it has to do with an intense desire to not be shot by a better armed populace. They already have a fairly shitty job which is generally thankless, and I'm not sure making their job more dangerous is a good way to show our gratitude. Also, I read the majority of the populace (something like 68% or like that) was for the ban. Which lead me to wonder - who the hell is the legislature being elected by, if they do things which may reduce the public safety and unpopular with the people who are supposedly their electorate? So, what do you think? I'm torn between my own personal wish to fire an assault weapon someday and belief that government should not strip rights from people, and my more sensible belief that if the police think something is going to make things more dangerous for them, then maybe it is, and that we shouldn't make life harder (and more dangerous) for said police. I think I'm leaning towards wishing the ban was still in place. Hmm while firing automatic machines of death is indeed fun the fact that humans aren't nearly perfect beings is sure to bring misuse from them, if anything the government should have rent-able firing ranges for assault rifles / mini guns and such. that provides a controlled environment to peruse their leisure time activity. but then again i don't really like to use guns for hunting or anything, i use antrax laden post cards and send them to dears as opposed to the barbaric way most hunters peruse their game. note to self court hearing on October 21st *EDIT* WTF IS MY CAT CHASEING !!! ITS FREAKING ME OUT !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:24 am
well in america their are shooting ranges where you cand shoot atomatic weapons.
hey my cat does that sometimes too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:39 am
sybrid Well, one of my problems with people saying, "you have the right to protect yourself, but not that much", is where do you draw the line then? Is two handguns about the right amount of firepower for a family to protect itself? A handgun and a shotgun? A shotgun in the larger rooms and a handgun in smaller rooms? Should it be a handgun per family member, instead? Handguns for family members over 16 and under 25, and a shotgun for family members 25 and older? Perhaps each family should also have one high-power rifle, just in case? I'm not sure its the government role to regulate how a person decides to protect her family. Ultimately, it is the government's job to protect its citizens (like you said earlier...I agree that it should be their main, if not only objective) and, more often than not, protect them from themselves. That, again, brings up the question of who decides and who regulates; and that question cannot come to a concensis solution. sybrid At the same time, I'm pretty sure when I read about the things that people do around me, that giving these morons access to assault weapons is not going to make me safer. It is, in fact, going to reduce how safe I am, which means the government is failing one of the two tasks I think it should hold above all others. Round and round and round it goes, where the decision lies, nobody knows!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:33 pm
onifiredemon well in america their are shooting ranges where you cand shoot atomatic weapons. hey my cat does that sometimes too. \ yea but do they rent out the weapons ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
