A Poll About Gun Control

[FA_Q2]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

sorry, no gun control.

if the other 99% want to give up their guns..... that is their right to do so.


and just an fyi..... the most dangerous person is usually the one you would never suspect.

You make that last statement as if it were a proven fact: it isn't. It isn't true and it is not a fact. If it is, then prove it. Where is your empirical evidence of such a 'fact'?

Mass shootings are a good place to start.

They are almost never committed by those that we are suspecting of such behavior. Almost to a tee, those events are done by people no one expects but all know are a little out of place.

 

[FA_Q2]

They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.

Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:

Should everyone give their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?

SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.

Irrelevant.

Do you agree with everything that the court says? Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?

SCOTUS is NOT right all the time. They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on. I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional. I think I have a damn good argument for that as well. My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.

Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly. All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side. Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.

Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American. I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.

Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.

Yes and those people are VERY responsible to acknowledge that simple fact. It is why no one actually pushes for everyone to be armed – some people just should not have a weapon. The problem occurs when those that are not capable want to demand that no one is armed.

Personally, I don’t have one atm because I don’t have the proper storage for it and I have many young children in my home all the time (and many that are not mine so I don’t have control over their responsibility).

In any case, I don’t think that anyone actually thinks that being an American somehow implies that you are armed. The implication is usually (as the quoted poster pointed out his point was) that true Americans don’t want to remove the rights of others including the right to bear arms.

 

[eflatminor]

Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one

It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:


Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent


Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics

Now you stop that! Facts, logic and reason have NO place in a gun control debate. It's about feelings...don't you know that?

 

[eflatminor]

I would argue the most dangerous person in our little hypothetical town is the one that would disarm otherwise law abiding citizens.

Just sayin'

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:

Should everyone give their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?

SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.

Irrelevant.

Do you agree with everything that the court says? Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?

SCOTUS is NOT right all the time. They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on. I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional. I think I have a damn good argument for that as well. My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.

Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly. All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side. Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.

It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.

Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.

 

[asaratis]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

Your hypothetical scenario cannot be extended to argue that all dangerous people in the world population could be recognized. There are approximately 100,000,000 guns in the USA.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The constitution is absolutely clear on this type of issue. The 'right to bear arms' is an individual right and whether or not 99 out of 100 turn in their guns or not is immaterial. If one man decides to keep his, then no one else can force him to turn in his weapon.

You say that the only man who didn't turn in his weapon is 'dangerous' and can't be trusted. Dangerous, how? Is he a convicted felon? If so, he cannot legally own a weapon in any case. If it is thought by the 99 that he is just 'potentially' dangerous, then that line of thinking is even more dangerous than anything else in your situation. Dangerous because he doesn't go along with the 'crowd' and believe the same way as the majority? Is this why he can't be trusted because he doesn't 'go along to get along'? If that's the case, then he's my kind of guy.

This is the fallacy in liberalism. For liberalism to work ALL must believe the same way and all must do as the 'collective' believes they should. The thought that if you could get everyone to just go the same way, to believe in the same 'approved' line of thought, then everything will be much better. For liberals, these rights that conservatives speak of are available for restriction and modification based upon the current line of 'approved' thinking. This is also why non-Americans are so confused about America in general.

American conservatives have and will continue to celebrate the individual and those individual rights as defined in the constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms. All of these are guaranteed to the individual. I absolute DETEST the Westboro Baptist Church and believe that those who protest at funerals are nothing but maggots. But they have that right. The Supreme Court was right when they declared their activities protected free speech. Disgusting, but protected.

In the middle of the 1800's, my ancestors settled in the Kansas/Oklahoma area. At the time, Oklahoma was still the "Indian Nations" and Kansas was bleeding red from the battle over slavery 10 years before the civil war. I remember that my grandmother literally spit on the ground when "Bushwackers" from Missouri were mentioned. I mention this because where my grandmother was born was 100 miles from the nearest sheriff. For a lot of Americans at the time, there was no government, no infrastructure, nothing other than what you carved out for yourself. This independence lives on in a lot of us. The liberal utopia of the 'collective' telling you what to do is very offensive.

I own weapons and I will continue to own weapons, regardless of what the collective wants. If Washington passes laws that I disagree with, I will probably, like most of the people around here, ignore them. We ignored Clinton's ban on large magazines and made our own. Obamacare does not affect me because I have chosen to go with a doctor who does not take medicare or any insurance what so ever. I pay a small monthly fee and get my regular visits to the doctor. I have insurance for the time I might need to go to the hospital, but it is very cheap because there is no need for them to deal with doctor visits. When Obama raised the taxes and regulations on retirement accounts I moved most of my money out of the country.

I am an American and I absolutely, positively REFUSE to stand in line, to go where you want me to go or to do what you want me to do. If you don't like that, then you have a problem, don't you?

 

[FA_Q2]

SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.

Irrelevant.

Do you agree with everything that the court says? Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?

SCOTUS is NOT right all the time. They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on. I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional. I think I have a damn good argument for that as well. My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.

Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly. All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side. Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.

It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.

Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.

I’ll remember that next time you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling as apparently their word ends all debate as they are always correct.

Ill also take that as a yes to my first point. You would defend the new ‘right’ of arms as a communal right (and therefore the government can take away your weapons) if the SCOTUS so deemed it tomorrow.

 

[Meister]

Irrelevant.

Do you agree with everything that the court says? Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?

SCOTUS is NOT right all the time. They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on. I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional. I think I have a damn good argument for that as well. My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.

Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly. All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side. Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.

It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.

Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.

I’ll remember that next time you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling as apparently their word ends all debate as they are always correct.

Ill also take that as a yes to my first point. You would defend the new ‘right’ of arms as a communal right (and therefore the government can take away your weapons) if the SCOTUS so deemed it tomorrow.

Not to get into this debate, but.....what difference does it make if the SCOTUS IS right or wrong? Their decision is the end all on the issue and is deemed correct in the eyes of the law......correct?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Irrelevant.

Do you agree with everything that the court says? Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?

SCOTUS is NOT right all the time. They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on. I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional. I think I have a damn good argument for that as well. My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.

Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly. All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side. Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.

It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.

Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.

I’ll remember that next time you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling as apparently their word ends all debate as they are always correct.

Ill also take that as a yes to my first point. You would defend the new ‘right’ of arms as a communal right (and therefore the government can take away your weapons) if the SCOTUS so deemed it tomorrow.

My agreeing or disagreeing has no bearing on the ruling.

That's one of the reason I think we need a Constitutional convention and make an amendment that gives the people the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Tell me when has a Supreme Court decision not been upheld?

 

[RKMBrown]

The only logical answer is B

Only if you use twisted logic.
The only reasonable answer is, A

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

 

[Meister]

The only logical answer is B

Only if you use twisted logic.
The only reasonable answer is, A

How can you say that with such restricted parameters given?
There is no reasonable answer because it's not reality.....not even close.

 

[PaulS1950]

Our rights do not extend from the constitution. We have those same rights with or without the constitution. Our rights are birth-rights not some privilege granted by the federal government.

Where in the constitution is the supreme court granted the power to determine what our rights are? The supreme court is part of the federal government and restricted by the powers enumerated within the constitution. If the constitution doesn't spell out the power for some part of the federal government then that power is left to the states and the people.

We live in a republic wherein governments are granted their power by the people and are revokable by the people. Look at the preamble of the constitution.

We the people... do ordain and establish..."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Our rights do not extend from the constitution. We have those same rights with or without the constitution. Our rights are birth-rights not some privilege granted by the federal government.

Where in the constitution is the supreme court granted the power to determine what our rights are? The supreme court is part of the federal government and restricted by the powers enumerated within the constitution. If the constitution doesn't spell out the power for some part of the federal government then that power is left to the states and the people.

We live in a republic wherein governments are granted their power by the people and are revokable by the people. Look at the preamble of the constitution.

We the people... do ordain and establish..."

Who has argued that our rights were from the Constitution?

 

[PaulS1950]

When the actions proposed in the poll ask if 99% give up their guns should the 1% have their guns removed forcibly it implies that it may be ok to do that. I was just pointing out that it would be wrong to do so with or without the constitutional protections in place.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not to get into this debate, but.....what difference does it make if the SCOTUS IS right or wrong? Their decision is the end all on the issue and is deemed correct in the eyes of the law......correct?

Come on – get into it
That is the point after all, I need a good challenge!

Anyway, the point is that the first amendment protections over speech exist because speech is by far the most powerful tool in changing the government. IOW, if I think the SCOTUS is wrong, I am going to bring my case before the people and debate this until they either change my mind or I change enough of others mind to have real influence. The public discourse has real power to effect change no matter what the SCOTUS decides at one point or another. There is always debate and public discourse. Beyond that, perhaps through speaking more about the subject, I will see the light and understand what the court was stating to the point that I agree.

I will always take agreement through real and honest debate rather than submission just because someone said so. Just because the court makes a ruling does not mean there is an end to all debate; that only occurs when we all agree or the majority get tired of dealing with us damn annoying outliers

My agreeing or disagreeing has no bearing on the ruling.

That's one of the reason I think we need a Constitutional convention and make an amendment that gives the people the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Tell me when has a Supreme Court decision not been upheld?

It’s not a matter of ‘upheld.’ The SCOTUS has overruled itself on several occasions. That is not unheard of thought it is rare. The court tries its damndest to get the ruling right the first time but that is not always the case. I can also state that the people DO have the ability to overturn the court – its called an amendment. We have that power but it is a really high bar to pas – for good reason. Right now you don’t see that possibility but I believe that is only because our politics has gone so far off the deep end. Most people would not recognize freedom if it smacked them in the face let alone be willing to fight for it. Servitude is much simpler, to our great detriment. At least IMHO. Or opinion, I might not be all that humble

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When the actions proposed in the poll ask if 99% give up their guns should the 1% have their guns removed forcibly it implies that it may be ok to do that. I was just pointing out that it would be wrong to do so with or without the constitutional protections in place.

I didn't get that from the poll question. None of the 99 were ask to relinquish any rights, however you are free to not exercise any one of your rights at anytime and it's perfectly constitutional to do so.

 

[KissMy]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

This is an absurd premise.

- First of all - Half of the people will not give up their guns.

- Second - Just who exactly is going to take them away? We have more gun owners than soldiers in all standing armies or police.

- Third - You will never get all the guns by force.

- Fourth - If the majority ever disarm, the thugs will rape, rob & kill at will. Guns are easily hidden away & can be easily made. You can never get them away from thugs.

Why not focus on getting rid of thugs, that is much better & simpler.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not to get into this debate, but.....what difference does it make if the SCOTUS IS right or wrong? Their decision is the end all on the issue and is deemed correct in the eyes of the law......correct?

Come on – get into it
That is the point after all, I need a good challenge!

Anyway, the point is that the first amendment protections over speech exist because speech is by far the most powerful tool in changing the government. IOW, if I think the SCOTUS is wrong, I am going to bring my case before the people and debate this until they either change my mind or I change enough of others mind to have real influence. The public discourse has real power to effect change no matter what the SCOTUS decides at one point or another. There is always debate and public discourse. Beyond that, perhaps through speaking more about the subject, I will see the light and understand what the court was stating to the point that I agree.

I will always take agreement through real and honest debate rather than submission just because someone said so. Just because the court makes a ruling does not mean there is an end to all debate; that only occurs when we all agree or the majority get tired of dealing with us damn annoying outliers

My agreeing or disagreeing has no bearing on the ruling.

That's one of the reason I think we need a Constitutional convention and make an amendment that gives the people the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Tell me when has a Supreme Court decision not been upheld?

It’s not a matter of ‘upheld.’ The SCOTUS has overruled itself on several occasions. That is not unheard of thought it is rare. The court tries its damndest to get the ruling right the first time but that is not always the case. I can also state that the people DO have the ability to overturn the court – its called an amendment. We have that power but it is a really high bar to pas – for good reason. Right now you don’t see that possibility but I believe that is only because our politics has gone so far off the deep end. Most people would not recognize freedom if it smacked them in the face let alone be willing to fight for it. Servitude is much simpler, to our great detriment. At least IMHO. Or opinion, I might not be all that humble

In other words you can't find one instance where a SCOTUS decision has not been upheld.

You really should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

I stated the fact that whether you or I agree or disagree is irrelevant. The decision has been made. I never said the decision couldn't be challenged or even reversed. I simply stated that agreeing or disagreeing does absolutely nothing to effect change.

You may not agree with any number of the laws on the books or decisions SCOTUS has ruled on but you are obligated to follow them or suffer the consequences.