The Worldwide Gun Control Movement

[DonnieDarko]

The second amendment is old and needs some fine-tuning. What do they mean by a well-regulated militia?

I feel ya, jams .... but the constitution was not meant to be taken forever literally .... and it's a good thing ... the founding fathers were OK with slavery, women not voting, and a militia popping up whenever the govt raised taxes.

The forefathers knew that over time, the constitution would need to be interpreted in future generations and built in an interpretive body .... the Supreme Court.

The people, through their state legislatures, have the ultimate say, with power to amend the constitution. Changing the constitution is a difficult process, and most will argue that it should be.

You're right, the genie is out of the bottle wrt gun control ... and I would argue that the related problems are not the fault of the constitution, or it's interpretation, it's the fault of society.

[pisshead]

the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of government, and that idea doesn't change over time. governments always become corrupt and only seek to further a dictatorship. if you read the federalist papers, the things that cause revolutions don't change over time. it's mainly property rights and taxes and anything you'll find in the bill of rights.

it's not a good sign when we're not allowed to know what our secret government is doing and people are in protest zone cages miles from the emperor.

free countries like our republic once was don't last for that long in the grand scheme of things. and our country's now being dismantled in favor of a global government dictatorship where you're taxed and tolled out of everything.

the really bad stuff won't start happening until we're all disarmed, whether peacefully through sham gun buybacks, getting paid to be a slave, or forcefully like in new orleans.

[jamstigator]

Armed or disarmed, the people will always have the greater power. Look what Gandhi did without using any weapons: he brought the British Empire to its knees and ultimately saw them removed them from power in India. Look what Martin Luther King did in Birmingham and, a couple of years later, Selma, using non-violent means: he ultimately convinced Congress and the president that life was just going to suck until blacks got equal treatment (or some acceptable semblance thereof).

Here's a quote from an article titled, "Why Gandhi Drives The Neoconservatives Crazy", published in Washington Monthly, September 1983:

"Neoconservatives seem to fear that America -- by braving the perils of
dissent and democracy -- will be similarly weakened. Part of what makes
America "great" is, theoretically at least, its reluctance to use force
against other nations. Yet, fearful that standards such as this place us
at a disadvantage in the real world, some neoconservatives advocate that
America needs to win a war somewhere, to use violence successfully.
Their insecurity would have us violate American values -- to mirror the
hideous brutality of less open societies -- in order to preserve them."

That paragraph is eerily prescient, considering what has transpired since 1983, and especially given the current state of affairs.

We need to look long and hard before we go rampaging around the world with our military. If we give up that which makes us great, in an attempt to preserve our greatness, then we aren't that great. Weapons and violence shouldn't be the first or second option when confronting a problem. If they are an option at all, they should be the absolute last option available. Gandhi and King both proved that you can disable powerful governments without ever lifting a gun. It's sad that our own citizenry hasn't learned that peace can triumph over force, and instead cling in fear to their guns, paranoid that someday they may need to use those guns against their government. Even if our own government were to turn tyrannical, we could defeat them without guns.

[Doctor mj]

^^ nicly said.

[graymatter]

Armed or disarmed, the people will always have the greater power. Look what Gandhi did without using any weapons: he brought the British Empire to its knees and ultimately saw them removed them from power in India. Look what Martin Luther King did in Birmingham and, a couple of years later, Selma, using non-violent means: he ultimately convinced Congress and the president that life was just going to suck until blacks got equal treatment (or some acceptable semblance thereof).

Here's a quote from an article titled, "Why Gandhi Drives The Neoconservatives Crazy", published in Washington Monthly, September 1983:

"Neoconservatives seem to fear that America -- by braving the perils of
dissent and democracy -- will be similarly weakened. Part of what makes
America "great" is, theoretically at least, its reluctance to use force
against other nations. Yet, fearful that standards such as this place us
at a disadvantage in the real world, some neoconservatives advocate that
America needs to win a war somewhere, to use violence successfully.
Their insecurity would have us violate American values -- to mirror the
hideous brutality of less open societies -- in order to preserve them."

That paragraph is eerily prescient, considering what has transpired since 1983, and especially given the current state of affairs.

We need to look long and hard before we go rampaging around the world with our military. If we give up that which makes us great, in an attempt to preserve our greatness, then we aren't that great. Weapons and violence shouldn't be the first or second option when confronting a problem. If they are an option at all, they should be the absolute last option available. Gandhi and King both proved that you can disable powerful governments without ever lifting a gun. It's sad that our own citizenry hasn't learned that peace can triumph over force, and instead cling in fear to their guns, paranoid that someday they may need to use those guns against their government. Even if our own government were to turn tyrannical, we could defeat them without guns.

Yes, some excellent points; there's no doubt our image as a waring nation is real and the majority of EU nations perceive us as the biggest threat to world peace...

But I take exception to being lumped into this "our own citizenty" statement. I'm not paranoid or paramilitary. I obey just laws and fight to change unjust ones, peacefully. I own a gun because it's the easiest way to kill an intruder in my house. If they're in my house and not telling me why then I have enough evidence to know they're not a member of the U.N.

[Great Spirit]

I don't know if they will succeed easily with taking our guns away. In my house alone, my step-dad has quite a number of rifles. We have a German Shepherd too, so if the gun doesn't get ya, the dog will!!

But mass murderers agree...GUN CONTROL WORKS!

[Nylo]

guns are ment to kill humans, whats the point in having one?!
If no one had a gun, it would be alot safer in the streets.

Wrong..

You sound like a decent person. But not everyone in this world is like you. If the world were a perfect place we wouldn't need guns.

History shows that those who don't have guns get conquered by those who do. And Canada doesn't even have a fraction of the gun-crimes the United States does, and you guys have just as much guns as we do.

[jamstigator]

Well, history shows a lot of things. History also shows that a determined group of completely unarmed people can achieve victory over a heavily-armed force too. In other words, those with guns were conquered by those without guns. Whether that is possible or not depends on the level of determination of the unarmed force, and the goals of the armed force. If the goal is simple extermination, the guys with guns pretty much always win, yes. But if the goal is anything else (occupation, enslavement, whatever), then victory for the armed force is not at all guaranteed and really depends on how determined the unarmed force is to resist. This is how Gandhi and Martin Luther King won their respective battles: not with guns, but with sheer determination to thwart the goals of the armed forces oppressing them, at any cost except using violence themselves.

If you are an occupying force, and your goal is subjugation of the indigent population (for example), but that population disobeys your every order, what can you do? You can shoot them or bash their skulls in, of course (lots of Gandhi's followers died this way, not even ducking to avoid the killing blows rained upon them). But if the population still resists, then the goal of the occupying force is thwarted nevertheless, even if they have a hundred million guns and the oppressed population has zero. Britain vacated control of India not because those resisting them were heavily armed (they weren't armed at all), but because those resisting them were simply determined not to bow to British rule. In the face of that resistance, the British took their guns and left.

The human spirit can be far more powerful than mere guns.

[WalkaWalka]

Hrm you get bashed in the head I'm going to do some sniping. You have to look at guns in a common sense sort of way which is that the gun is just another tool. And also with your point of the musket it was the technology of the time in fact the general populace probably had better guns than the armies. The human spirit + guns makes better sense to me. The way I invision a take over is the more things change the more people will stay the same. Their will be roadblocks and curfews I plan to obey neither and my gun is just another force of persuasion.