Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

[NFD]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller



Nobody's going to change the Bill of Rights. That's about the end of it. They were the first 10 ammendments of our country, and they never will be changed.

[N.T.M.]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

Nobody's going to change the Bill of Rights. That's about the end of it. They were the first 10 ammendments of our country, and they never will be changed.

I wish I was as confident as you are. Consider the NAU for example. That already infringes on US sovereignty, and although the two aren't directly connected, it's pretty evident that laws that built this country will probably fall in the not-too-distant future.

[NFD]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

If you have ever taken a look at history, you'll notice that most democracies last only about 200 years. All the major civilizations, just 200 years of democracy. England and the US are both over 200, so anytime soon, there will be a person to take over, instead of a president, and they will be a dictator. A dictator will lead to Fascism which in turn will lead to Communism. The end.

[N.T.M.]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

If you have ever taken a look at history, you'll notice that most democracies last only about 200 years. All the major civilizations, just 200 years of democracy. England and the US are both over 200, so anytime soon, there will be a person to take over, instead of a president, and they will be a dictator. A dictator will lead to Fascism which in turn will lead to Communism. The end.

Agreed (as I mentioned before).

[Afrobean]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

If you have ever taken a look at history, you'll notice that most democracies last only about 200 years. All the major civilizations, just 200 years of democracy. England and the US are both over 200, so anytime soon, there will be a person to take over, instead of a president, and they will be a dictator. A dictator will lead to Fascism which in turn will lead to Communism. The end.

Communism is an economic system, not anything directly involving politics, particularly fascism.

Anyway, fascism doesn't necessarily need to clash with democracy either. If people vote and decide they want Big Brother, that's still democracy.

[NFD]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

I loved that book. I had to write a 10 page paper on it describing dystopic themes, comparing it to Fahrenheit 451 and the movie Equilibrium.

[Relambrien]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

It seems like the conversation in this thread hasn't exactly generated the high-level discussion I had hoped. I'd love to see a debate between a couple people who are apparently well-versed in their particular opinions (e.g., devonin and afro), but if all this thread is going to permit now is just "Second Amendment exists, people can have guns" and unverified claims, it would probably be better to just let the thread die.

But as a last-ditch attempt at stimulating discussion, here's a scenario for you. Assume that ownership of handguns for personal protection is legal and accepted. To what extent could this be taken? Would people be allowed to carry handguns on their person when traveling to guard against attackers? Could middle and high school teachers have a weapon in case a student threatens them?

[Afrobean]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

Yeah, I think it's a good idea for teachers to be allowed to have guns. The only messed up thing would be if the teacher flipped their wig and decided to go on a killing spree...

But what would stop them in the current infrastructure from doing that anyway? If a person wants to bring a gun to their place of employ and go on a killing spree, they will do it, regardless of whether it is illegal for them to have the gun there or not.

[Cavernio]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

Yeah, I think it's a good idea for teachers to be allowed to have guns. The only messed up thing would be if the teacher flipped their wig and decided to go on a killing spree...

But what would stop them in the current infrastructure from doing that anyway? If a person wants to bring a gun to their place of employ and go on a killing spree, they will do it, regardless of whether it is illegal for them to have the gun there or not.

This is possibly the worst idea I've ever heard, and for so many reasons.

I dunno about you, but 'flipping their wig' seems like something that's not usually premeditative, and so they wouldn't want to bring a gun with them to school anyways. (This is totally aside from your argument that 'they'll do it anyways', which is not an really an argument about guns and teachers at all, but rather an argument about law and law enforcement.)

Then you'd also have to keep the guns away from the students. That wouldn't be easy, and would probably be impossible.

If you wanted teachers to bring guns to school, then you'd probably also want them to be able to shoot the things with some sort of accuracy, so they'd need training in that. (If you suggest that they wouldn't need training, that's ridiculous.) That'd have to be paid for by someone. Also, if you think it should be legislated or something stupid, the guns would have to be paid for. That's exactly what I want, to funnel my money I'd be spending on my child's education towards arming teachers. *rolls eyes*

If it became the norm for teachers to bring guns to school, then it's likely they'd be relied on in certain cases. That means a teacher who has decided to not bring a gun to school because they don't believe in using guns, is going to be at a huge disadvantage.

By allowing teachers to bring guns to school, you're also putting way more power into their hands. I dunno about you, but I've had enough teachers which like to abuse their power over students enough to not want the added fear of carrying a gun.

If you really want teachers to be able to have more control over extreme situations in school, then why choose guns specifically over any other type of training? Why not teach them all Judo or something, and give them the training that police officers have? Oh, wait, that's right. They're hired to teach, not be police officers.

You also haven't really said WHY it would be a good idea for teachers to have guns. Please, elaborate.

Finally, I don't think you've refuted my early statement in this thread, that the sole purpose of guns (for non-hunting reasons) is intimidation, fear, etc. From your own words, using guns (or anything else I assume) for those reasons is outright wrong. Do you disagree with my first statement? Have you thought about this at all? Wait, wait, I know what you'll say, "People are going to intimidate others and lord power over others anyways."

[Afrobean]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

This is possibly the worst idea I've ever heard, and for so many reasons.

I dunno about you, but 'flipping their wig' seems like something that's not usually premeditative, and so they wouldn't want to bring a gun with them to school anyways. (This is totally aside from your argument that 'they'll do it anyways', which is not an really an argument about guns and teachers at all, but rather an argument about law and law enforcement.)

Then you'd also have to keep the guns away from the students. That wouldn't be easy, and would probably be impossible.

If you wanted teachers to bring guns to school, then you'd probably also want them to be able to shoot the things with some sort of accuracy, so they'd need training in that. (If you suggest that they wouldn't need training, that's ridiculous.) That'd have to be paid for by someone. Also, if you think it should be legislated or something stupid, the guns would have to be paid for. That's exactly what I want, to funnel my money I'd be spending on my child's education towards arming teachers. *rolls eyes*

If it became the norm for teachers to bring guns to school, then it's likely they'd be relied on in certain cases. That means a teacher who has decided to not bring a gun to school because they don't believe in using guns, is going to be at a huge disadvantage.

By allowing teachers to bring guns to school, you're also putting way more power into their hands. I dunno about you, but I've had enough teachers which like to abuse their power over students enough to not want the added fear of carrying a gun.

If you really want teachers to be able to have more control over extreme situations in school, then why choose guns specifically over any other type of training? Why not teach them all Judo or something, and give them the training that police officers have? Oh, wait, that's right. They're hired to teach, not be police officers.

You also haven't really said WHY it would be a good idea for teachers to have guns. Please, elaborate.

Finally, I don't think you've refuted my early statement in this thread, that the sole purpose of guns (for non-hunting reasons) is intimidation, fear, etc. From your own words, using guns (or anything else I assume) for those reasons is outright wrong. Do you disagree with my first statement? Have you thought about this at all? Wait, wait, I know what you'll say, "People are going to intimidate others and lord power over others anyways."

Perhaps I should have elaborated before, because you seem to not understand what I meant. However, I don't feel much like taking the time to do it fully now, because I need to be getting to sleep shortly.

few notes:

That means a teacher who has decided to not bring a gun to school because they don't believe in using guns, is going to be at a huge disadvantage.

What the hell are you smoking? "At a huge disadvantage"? I guess ALL teachers are already disadvantaged then in that NONE of them have guns...? That makes no sense. What disadvantage does a gun-less teacher in this theoretical system have that is not a current "disadvantage" of gun-less (read: "all") teachers in the current system.

then why choose guns specifically over any other type of training?

I never suggested that teachers should be made to carry guns, nor that they should be required to take training on them, although I would say that extra care should be taken before allowing such a person a gun, or that job (potentially requiring that the teacher have special training if they choose to carry a gun). If FORCING teachers to take defensive training, yes, guns wouldn't be the best choice, but I am not saying teachers should be made to learn defensive things such as this, but rather that they should be able to choose.

You also haven't really said WHY it would be a good idea for teachers to have guns. Please, elaborate.

Do I need to? I've got the Constitution at my back. Might as well be asking me to justify why it's a bad idea to have soldier's quartered in my home during times of peace as far as I'm concerned.

[devonin]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

I've got the Constitution at my back.

But given the assumed original meaning of that amendment, and the growing number of people, Americans or otherwise, who disagree with that amendment as it is being practiced today, you -can- hide behind it rather than explain yourself, but it carries a lot less weight than it used to.

If someone were to write a thread about why marijuana should become legal, and you said it was a horrible idea, and when asked to explain why it was horrible said something like "Well, I have the force of law at my back, Might as well ask me to justify why it's a bad idea to be able to steal from other people without punishment" I think you'd see a similar reaction.

Just because the law supports it now doesn't mean it ought to, or that in so doing, that magically makes it "correct"

[Cavernio]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

No, teachers are not at a huge disadvantage right now, at least I don't think so. Although, seeing as you think they should be allowed to carry them, perhaps you think they are at least at a slight disadvantage right now? What I was talking about was a theoretical future if it were to become the norm and they were to be relied on. (And if they weren't relied on, why would you need them in the first place?) As soon as something is relied on as a tool and it becomes useful, anyone who does not use that tool is at a disadvantage. As to there actually being an advantage in having teachers have guns I'm imagining them using in circumstances like stopping someone from bullying someone else. I'm sure that'd work great, honestly. Isn't that something people in gangs do quite successfully to keep people in line? If guns were used in such circumstances regularly, a teacher who would opt not to carry one would be at a disadvantage compared to other teachers. I realize that this is quite a stretch, and might never happen. However, again, if guns were not actually useful to any beneficial degree, why would you bother allowing them seeing as their intent is only to harm?
As far as I'm concerned, the constitution is a non-issue in this discussion. People made it and people can change it. No, you don't have to justify anything if it's the law. But there's absolutely nothing to talk about with me then.

[Afrombean]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

But given the assumed original meaning of that amendment, and the growing number of people, Americans or otherwise, who disagree with that amendment as it is being practiced today, you -can- hide behind it rather than explain yourself, but it carries a lot less weight than it used to.

I think I said it in this thread. I do not believe the 2nd Amendment implies a conditional statement. They're not saying "if a militia is necessary, then the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

If someone were to write a thread about why marijuana should become legal, and you said it was a horrible idea, and when asked to explain why it was horrible said something like "Well, I have the force of law at my back, Might as well ask me to justify why it's a bad idea to be able to steal from other people without punishment" I think you'd see a similar reaction.

Simply owning a gun when it is not legally allowed is a victimless crime. Smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. Liberty.

Also: the 9th and 10th amendment should be what decides whether drugs are legally able to be used recreationally, but that's a whole other thing.

Just because the law supports it now doesn't mean it ought to, or that in so doing, that magically makes it "correct"

No, but just because one person doesn't like what another person does, that doesn't mean that the thing should necessarily be illegal.

No, teachers are not at a huge disadvantage right now, at least I don't think so. Although, seeing as you think they should be allowed to carry them, perhaps you think they are at least at a slight disadvantage right now? What I was talking about was a theoretical future if it were to become the norm and they were to be relied on. (And if they weren't relied on, why would you need them in the first place?) As soon as something is relied on as a tool and it becomes useful, anyone who does not use that tool is at a disadvantage. As to there actually being an advantage in having teachers have guns I'm imagining them using in circumstances like stopping someone from bullying someone else. I'm sure that'd work great, honestly. Isn't that something people in gangs do quite successfully to keep people in line? If guns were used in such circumstances regularly, a teacher who would opt not to carry one would be at a disadvantage compared to other teachers. I realize that this is quite a stretch, and might never happen. However, again, if guns were not actually useful to any beneficial degree, why would you bother allowing them seeing as their intent is only to harm?
As far as I'm concerned, the constitution is a non-issue in this discussion. People made it and people can change it. No, you don't have to justify anything if it's the law. But there's absolutely nothing to talk about with me then.

I never said that a teacher should use a gun to threaten anyone, particularly a student. Anyone who thinks that any reasonable person would ever make that argument must be themselves insane. The purpose of the gun is protection; anything outside that would be irresponsible.

And as far as me thinking they're "disadvantaged"... no. Like I said above, the thing here is liberty. It's not that they're currently "disadvantaged" or that they'd be "advantaged" in what I said. It's that limiting them from being able to keep a gun is a limit to their liberty.

Basically it comes down to the fact that I think preventative laws are stupid. Don't punish people who COULD do something bad. Instead, put stricter punishments on those who HAVE done something bad.

[Cavernio]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

Well you're making sense now afrobean :-p
However, I still think my argument that since the sole purpose of guns is to intimidate, harm, or threaten others, that that negativity trumps the fact that simply owning one is harmless.
I wish I could think of a good analogy to this, but I'm not sure I can. It's like saying drug use is illegal, but it's totally alright to go around carrying drugs. Or that whale poaching is illegal, but lots of people put whale harpoons on their boats. (Just using analogies, not trying to get onto a topic about drug use.)
I could see an argument, maybe, that using a gun against someone does not violate that person's rights in certain circumstances, but you haven't made that argument.

Something I just thought about, if people want to be able to protect themselves, why don't we just adopt tranquilizing guns as something people can go around carrying to protect themselves with, instead of ones with bullets that are much more likely to kill or maim someone?

[Afrobean]

Re: Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

Tranquilizers are not instantaneous. A bullet in their torso or head would be. This, though, is assuming that lethal force is an appropriate response.