|
Gun Control, what do you think?
|
| ODST |
Posted on 12/13/2012 08:40:58
|
Super Admin
Posts: 2047
Joined: 11.09.12
|
Well, i found an old essay of mine, but perhaps a debate? Gun Control, what do you think?
My opinion on it,
The Case for Guns.
Gun control is wrong because guns are needed to defend one’s homes, lives, and liberty. A person may wonder why. Guns, for as long as this country has existed, have been tools of freedom. They were carried by the patriots’ side when George Washington ended the Revolutionary War. They were there when the Civil War was fought. They were there at the Alamo. During these times, all citizens used guns to defend their homes, lives, and liberty. Guns were pivotal in the Revolutionary War. Most of the guns solders used were their own. They could not buy them from the British because they were at war with them. These guns were the only thing that let the thirteen colonies become a free country. In the Civil War, the government preferred that when a person joined the military, they brought their own personnel gun with them. A large part of America was still a frontier and guns were the only thing that citizens could use to defend themselves. At the Alamo, those heroic men used their own guns. The U.S.A did not want to help Texas, so they left them to be invaded by Mexico. Only a few brave men went to help, bringing their own guns. Even though they died, they were immortalized as heroes.
2
Texas was saved and joined the U.S.A. It became possible only because of people having the right to bear arms.
The historical evidence is clear: The Second Amendment was uniformly seen as an individual right by 18th and 19th century Americans. The idea that it was something else is a fiction of the 20th century, invented because even the gun-ban advocates realized that the Amendment has to mean something (Kates 1). Gun-ban advocates don’t stop there. They also don’t believe in the other most basic rights, including the freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. These people feel that the citizens of this country are just too irresponsible to be allowed rights and that it’s the government’s “job” to run every citizen’s life. These people have wormed their way into the seats of power, and have cleverly disguised their real intentions under masks of deceit. But their true colors are now starting to come out. They, of course, just can’t get rid of the Second Amendment, but they can make it almost impossible for most citizens to possess guns.
Say a person lived in New York, and they decided that they wanted to buy a gun. First, they have to fill out 10 pages of documents to apply for a gun license which costs hundreds of dollars. Then, when they get the gun, they need another permit to go hunting with this gun, a separate license for the use of the gun, and another one for possession of ammo. The list is almost endless. This all costs money. And after all that, they still can’t use the gun for protection because concealed firearms are banned in New York. (http://www.nyc.gov) In a way, New York has effectively banned the Second Amendment. They have not actually “banned” it, but they have made it unaffordable and extremely time consuming to get a gun license. Is there anyone in New York that has that much time on their hands? The answer is obviously no.
3
This process has made guns unaffordable for middle and lower class people. Why are the anti-gun groups doing this? They probably have ulterior motives such as they want to become dictators, they want to become rich or maybe they just want the feeling of complete power over the citizens of this country. Without guns, no one would be able to stand up against them or protest. In a way, a gun is like a voice. Or maybe the government just “cares” about the citizens and doesn’t want them to “hurt” themselves. And while they are not hurting themselves, the government can control them a little bit more. Yeah, they really care about the citizens.
While hearing a pro-gun control talk, one key fact that they quote is that every year, many people die in gun accidents, mostly shootings. They say that shootings could be prevented by implementing gun control. What they don’t quote is that 90% of the worst shootings are in areas where guns are already “banned” (Hoar 1). Yes, that’s right, 90% of the worst shootings are in areas where guns are already “banned”. But, if guns have been banned in these areas, then why did these shootings happen? Let’s use an example. A nine year old child wants to drink vodka. A parent can do one of two things: give him the vodka or hide it and tell him it is bad. If it is given to him, he will very likely spit it out and not touch it for a long time or maybe ever. On the other hand, if it is hidden, then the child will automatically want it. Why? It is human nature. It is the same with guns. If they are easy to get, no one will want them. Everyone would have them. When the government makes it harder to get guns, they are in fact making it harder for normal people to buy them. Gangsters have no problem getting guns because they go around the rules to acquire guns. Would a gangster want to spend 2 years in a gun course to get a gun? Definitely not!
4
Another argument pro-gun control group’s make is that 90% of guns from Mexican shooting accidents are U.S.A guns. Mexican President Felipe Calderon himself said this. Guess he’s a little under the gun. A lot of other government officials also have this fact wrong. They must be under the gun, too. They say that 90% of guns from Mexican shooting accidents are U.S.A guns. This sentence would be correct, except that it is missing one important word: traced. There is a big difference between traced and not traced. In fact, only 5000 guns out of 6000 guns are traced to the U.S.A from guns that are submitted for tracing. Oh; don’t forget the other 24000 guns that have not been submitted for tracing. That means only 17% of guns from Mexico are traced to the U.S.A. Most of the guns the drug cartels use are full automatic guns. These gun models are not even made or sold in the U.S.A (Hoar 2).
The two most popular viewpoints advocating gun control are the “collective rights” view and the “sophisticated collective rights” view (Kates 1). The collective rights view believes that everyone collectively has the right to bear arms so no one individual has or can assert it. Huh? This is a right that everybody has, so no one has it? They use fancy wording to confuse you. For example, unlawful death is another way of saying murder. The sophisticated collective rights view is even worse. This view holds that a person has the right to bear arms that can only be exercised ‘in the context of’ militia or military service. That sounds confusing, right? Let’s use an example. Let’s say that a citizen was to enlist in the army. Now, let’s say that he is assigned to be a bugle player. According to the sophisticated collective rights philosophy, he has a right to arms ‘in the context of military service,’ so does he get to sue the army for a gun? Of course not! Military personnel are not allowed to personally own guns for fear of unauthorized use. So what this theory says is that a person cannot own guns individually and that they cannot own them in
5
the context of military service. So, according to this viewpoint, a citizen cannot own guns anywhere, anytime, anyplace, anyhow. Ridiculous!
Gun control laws are only for the law abiding citizens. The bad guys simple go around the law. Guns are the ultimate defense a citizen has. If a person’s home gets broken into by a gun wielding burglar, are they going to ask him if his gun permit and license to burgle is current? Heck, no! They should shoot first and ask questions later. Likewise, if a person is walking down the street, minding his own business and a low life street thug jumps out to rob him, is he going to ask him if his gun paper work is in order? No way! Again, shoot first and ask questions later. When the government is no longer of the people, for the people, and by the people, it is every citizen’s duty to take up arms and take their country back. Without guns, homes would not be secure, lives would not be protected, and liberty would just be a dream.
Word Count = 1593
6
Works Cited:
Hoar, William P. "The Percentage of U.S. Guns Used in Mexican Gun Violence Is Exaggerated." Gun Violence. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Mexican Violence, Gun Controls." New American 25 (25 May 2009): 42-43. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 31 May 2012.
Document URL
http://ic.galegro...0460f3e971
Kates, Don B. "The Second Amendment Guarantees the Right to Private Gun Ownership." Gun Violence. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Who's on Second? In a Speech at UCLA, the Author Laws Down the Law." Handguns (Aug.-Sept. 2009): 16-18. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 31 May 2012.
Document URL
http://ic.galegro...52284a2655
7
www.nyc.gov. New York City, n.d. Web. 31 May 2012. http://www.nyc.go..._faq.shtml
Edited by ninja on 12/13/2012 14:02:07
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin
[C�R] Veteren
^Don't mess with ODST 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
| |
|
|
| ZA althor |
Posted on 12/13/2012 17:48:27
|
Wanker
Posts: 794
Joined: 07.03.11
|
i am never allowed to own a firearm or ammunition in the USA ever again. for a domestic charge i didnt commit. i plead guilty to the charge because i did not have bail money and you can wait in jail for over a year for a trial. *NOT HAPPY*
*in the fine print definition of being server active* ....{FC}[ZA]Althor, will no longer be server active |
| |
|
|
| Drkinferno |
Posted on 12/13/2012 21:53:18
|
Wanker
Posts: 908
Joined: 11.05.11
|
I own a .45 1911 auto, a 9mm hi point carbine, a glock 17 and a remmington 12 guage pump action shotgun. And i should be getting a tec 9 soon |
| |
|
|
| sureshot |
Posted on 12/13/2012 22:23:29
|
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: 13.04.11
|
im from Colorado and im sick of hearing all these stories about people being shot by some ticked off crazy person its like a simple backround check an 7 days then u got a gun I mean guns are great I own 1 but I mean cmon just a few more laws
 |
| |
|
|
| ZA althor |
Posted on 12/13/2012 22:33:13
|
Wanker
Posts: 794
Joined: 07.03.11
|
i cannot participate in a family tradition that has existed since before this country was founded because of "a few more laws" the men in my family have been teaching their sons how to hunt for centuries. and i may not.
*in the fine print definition of being server active* ....{FC}[ZA]Althor, will no longer be server active |
| |
|
|
| tim |
Posted on 12/13/2012 22:37:38
|
Member
Posts: 164
Joined: 09.10.11
|
I completely agree with what you had to say ODST.
Idealistcally, citizens should not own weapons if we lived in and idealistic world.
However this is reality, and the freedom to have a fire arm ensures our protection against things like tyranny to the simple home invader. I've been seeing so much gun hate from cases like Trayvon Martin, Virginia Tech Massacre, and Columbine. I don't have a specific answer for those since two out of those three scenarios come from men who were completely out of their minds and not healthy in the head.
I can understand skepticism towards the ability to have a fire arm, but me not being an idiot, I would certainly know better than to fire aimlessly into a crowd of people (like many anti-gun people say). |
| |
|
|
| JJX5 |
Posted on 12/14/2012 01:26:08
|
Numpty
Posts: 1350
Joined: 11.03.12
|
I think its fine tk own a 44 or glock but if you have machine guns auto or not them thats a problem
HotCoco is mean to ocelots.
I will not accept acts of such douchebagery ~~~
i am a troll nice to meet you 
QQ more, so i can float on your tears badkid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HgDkwsVDn8 |
| |
|
|
| Vulture |
Posted on 12/14/2012 10:07:01
|
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: 25.08.12
|
I think every citizen that don't have any sort of criminal records in their history/well educated/non-psychopath should carry a weapon for self-defense.
"Just incase of a zombie apocalypse"
Edited by Vulture on 12/14/2012 10:07:16
 Proud to be in the Jajaja group! |
| |
|
|
| soulcyon |
Posted on 12/14/2012 13:09:10
|
Senior Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 13.08.12
|
I personally believe gun control is futile. If somebody wants to do something bad, they will find a way to do it - may it be building a gun from a 3d-printer or stocking up supplies from family members.
From a realistic perspective, if nobody has guns, then its easier for any 1 person with a gun to go on a mass killing spree. Society would be much safer is people knew how to handle guns and properly defend themselves.
I could bring up millions of examples year round where this is proven true. The one big example that we can all agree with is the Colorado shootings earlier this year. If any ONE person in that theatre carried a gun, then so many people would not have died.
Then the advocates for MORE gun control will come in and say, "We need the TSA everywhere". I'd rather not lose my liberties just for security - not to mention screening lines just to walk into a theatre, like we do at the airports.
Fuck the TSA. |
| |
|
|
| soulcyon |
Posted on 12/14/2012 13:13:28
|
Senior Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 13.08.12
|
And honestly, the attitude in this country is becoming more and more despicable. "Just write another law to fix this problem"... is probably what most of the country is thinking for any of their own problems.
I could write a whole essay on the failures of PURE democracy and the Anatomy of the State. But maybe another day.
On topic: I like how you've written it ODST. I wouldn't put those numbers in a real paper though.
Edited by soulcyon on 12/14/2012 13:15:04 |
| |
|
|
| Vulture |
Posted on 12/14/2012 14:40:16
|
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: 25.08.12
|
Souless, if I was a zombie in real life, I know you wouldn't shoot me, but you would rather let me infect you by letting me eat your heart out. :3 <3
Edited by Vulture on 12/14/2012 14:40:46
Proud to be in the Jajaja group! |
| |
|
|
| ZA althor |
Posted on 12/14/2012 18:07:20
|
Wanker
Posts: 794
Joined: 07.03.11
|
tbh id rather be shot than stabbed. take away guns and that leaves primitive weapons. not so good at long range. but very ugly when used. anybody who wants my swords, axes, bows, sickles, ect. can come get em. 
*in the fine print definition of being server active* ....{FC}[ZA]Althor, will no longer be server active |
| |
|
|
| soulcyon |
Posted on 12/15/2012 11:37:49
|
Senior Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 13.08.12
|
Althor, did you read what happened in China? 22 children died from a knife attack. The gun laws there are more strict than USA. The results are equally disastrous.
Put the guns back in the hands of private security and responsible human beings. We can't afford crazy drug-induced freaks running around raining bullets on everyone. |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 12/15/2012 17:39:42
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
We need to educate the people more so they will be able to responsibly own a gun. |
| |
|
|
| ZA althor |
Posted on 12/15/2012 19:15:44
|
Wanker
Posts: 794
Joined: 07.03.11
|
i think you half got the point soul. take away guns people will use knives and such, take those away there be sticks and stones. you cannot prevent murder with control. you will only piss people off and make it more likely by even trying.
*in the fine print definition of being server active* ....{FC}[ZA]Althor, will no longer be server active |
| |
|
|
| Joe |
Posted on 12/15/2012 20:31:23
|
Senior Member
Posts: 386
Joined: 27.11.10
|
soulcyon wrote:
I personally believe gun control is futile. If somebody wants to do something bad, they will find a way to do it - may it be building a gun from a 3d-printer or stocking up supplies from family members.
From a realistic perspective, if nobody has guns, then its easier for any 1 person with a gun to go on a mass killing spree. Society would be much safer is people knew how to handle guns and properly defend themselves.
I could bring up millions of examples year round where this is proven true. The one big example that we can all agree with is the Colorado shootings earlier this year. If any ONE person in that theatre carried a gun, then so many people would not have died.
Then the advocates for MORE gun control will come in and say, "We need the TSA everywhere". I'd rather not lose my liberties just for security - not to mention screening lines just to walk into a theatre, like we do at the airports.
Fuck the TSA. My sentiments exactly. Where there is a will there is a way.
 |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 12/17/2012 19:41:23
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
Guns don't kill people... There is a person behind the gun.
So if we educate everyone to the point everyone knows better not to, then problem solved.
Knowledge is power. |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 12/18/2012 07:05:27
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
In a perfect society, it wouldn't really make any difference. However, we don't live in a perfect society, and if you let people get their hands on weapons, they'll inevitably use them and you can't control what they do with them.
The truth is, most people don't need a gun. Unleashing guns to the general public is just asking for trouble. Next thing you know, 20 school children are dead. Okay, not everyone goes on killing sprees, but some do, and this makes it easier for them.
Gun crime is preventable, and there's a very easy way to prevent it.
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| Drkinferno |
Posted on 01/01/2013 18:08:35
|
Wanker
Posts: 908
Joined: 11.05.11
|
"People who give up freedom in exchange for Security, deserve neither and lose both."- Benjamin Franklin |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 01/01/2013 20:58:58
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
Drkinferno wrote:
"People who give up freedom in exchange for Security, deserve neither and lose both."- Benjamin Franklin
DUDE! This makes perfect sense of how half/most the United States of America is. Amazing quote! |
| |
|
