Question Political Spectrum

[sisterofmercy]

I'm liberal but not a Lib Dem anymore. I think I lean more towards Labour at the moment.

 

[Harley]

I dont hunt. I dont kill people. I have a gun for sport. I believe some animals were made to eat. I dont think animals were made to be tested on.
Posted via Mobile Device Also, where do you draw the line? Having a gun may increase your chance of being injured by it but so does owning a steak knife or a car. Should those be taken away? The constitution gives every American the right to own a gun. Denying that flies in the face of the foundation of the country.

 

[zobothehobo]

I'm a very anti-gun person. I shot a gun once when I was little (my grandfather wanted to teach me) and I said never again. I threw a fit when my mom's husband decided to bring his gun collection into my house. I don't care if it's for "protection." It supports violence and I don't.

 

[Mumrik]

Username, feel free to correct me here, but WA, I don't think that is exactly what is being got at here. I don't think she is trying to say that if you have a gun it signifies an intent to kill but rather if you have a gun there is a much greater chance of danger.

Does anyone have a statistic for how many accidental gun deaths there are in the U.S. every year? When I was studying in America one of my lecturers told us about her best friend's 16 year old son and his friends who were messing around with (what he thought was his fathers unloaded gun). One of the kids, joking, pointed the gun at the boy, pulled the trigger and blew his head off. If there hadn't been guns in the house, that kid would more than likely be alive now.

Regardless how innocent or pure the intent, the mere presence of guns creates a greater scope danger and violence.

I do agree with Kristine though, I think this is one of the main issues that can really show the difference between an European and an American in terms of social acceptability. In Ireland, for instance, our police force (apart from on special unit) do not have guns.

While horrible, it's mostly the parents' fault for just leaving a loaded gun lying around - which also should be illegal (if it isn't) and not teaching their kid why it's wrong and not "cool" at all to point a weapon at another person, let alone shoot it. I grew up around guns, knew they were dangerous and I've never even gotten the idea to do that, not even during my teenage years. This is one of the many reasons gun laws are so very strict here. People without a gun license who live in the same household as a gun owner aren't even allowed to know where the key to the weapons locker is.

Yes that's pretty much my opinion. Considering the damage that guns do, I would never want to have a gun in my home and I don't really understand people who do, for whatever reason they have them. you do hear horror stories like that all the time, there was boy here in Sweden a while ago who was like cleaning his dads rifle or something and it accidentally went off and he shot his younger sister to death.

Well, you don't clean a gun when it's loaded, plain and simple. You check if it's loaded before you clean it. You take the rounds out before you put it away. An empty gun can't accidentally go off. Of course I understand this is horrible, but you can't deny it happened due to plain stupidity.

 

[Username]

While horrible, it's mostly the parents' fault for just leaving a loaded gun lying around - which also should be illegal (if it isn't) and not teaching their kid why it's wrong and not "cool" at all to point a weapon at another person, let alone shoot it. I grew up around guns, knew they were dangerous and I've never even gotten the idea to do that, not even during my teenage years. This is one of the many reasons gun laws are so very strict here. People without a gun license who live in the same household as a gun owner aren't even allowed to know where the key to the weapons locker is.



Well, you don't clean a gun when it's loaded, plain and simple. You check if it's loaded before you clean it. You take the rounds out before you put it away. An empty gun can't accidentally go off. Of course I understand this is horrible, but you can't deny it happened due to plain stupidity.

That's right! people are stupid and that's why they shouldn't have guns.

 

[Harley]

People are stupid with everything that exists - that isnt good enough for me.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Kean]

I dont hunt. I dont kill people. I have a gun for sport. I believe some animals were made to eat. I dont think animals were made to be tested on.
Posted via Mobile Device Also, where do you draw the line? Having a gun may increase your chance of being injured by it but so does owning a steak knife or a car. Should those be taken away? The constitution gives every American the right to own a gun. Denying that flies in the face of the foundation of the country.

I've shopped around a few sites and it seems there are, on average, 30-35 thousand gun related deaths in the US every year. The reason I think this is different from the 40-45 thousand deaths that happen on American roads or knife deaths is that a cars serves purpose of its own. It is a necessity to a persons way of life. The same with knives, they are used for cooking etc. Guns though, outside of law enforcement, I just can't come up with a reason an ordinary person needs a gun. Sport isn't a big enough justification. For me at least.

Can you explain the second amendment a bit more clearly? I'm familiar with it but I'm not sure I understand the stance of the impingement of rights as well as I should.

 

[zobothehobo]

May I just say as an American who loves her Bill of Rights... I feel in this argument the second amendment is often taken so far out of context, it holds absolutely no value.

Here is the text of the second amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms refers to protection against government officials. It's written to be like "everyone has a gun because everyone's in the militia." We don't have state militias anymore... therefore the second amendment is kind of not relevant...

 

[Kean]

May I just say as an American who loves her Bill of Rights... I feel in this argument the second amendment is often taken so far out of context, it holds absolutely no value.

How'd you mean? That the amendment is abused?

 

[Harley]

In basic it says we have the right to keep and bear arms. There are state to state regulations that give qualifications - like where I live you have to be 21, you have to get a permit after taking a safety course, you cant carry it in a vehicle loaded, etc. I think people think its as simple as banning them and they will go away. If they are banned, criminals will still have them.
Posted via Mobile Device

---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------

May I just say as an American who loves her Bill of Rights... I feel in this argument the second amendment is often taken so far out of context, it holds absolutely no value.

Here is the text of the second amendment

The right to bear arms refers to protection against government officials. It's written to be like "everyone has a gun because everyone's in the militia." We don't have state militias anymore... therefore the second amendment is kind of not relevant...

Forming a militia and keeping arms are separate interpreted as separate clauses according to the supreme court.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Mumrik]

That's right! people are stupid and that's why they shouldn't have guns.

That's why such a thing as licenses exist, I'm not saying guns should be just handed out to everybody.

 

[VisionGirl]

People are stupid with everything that exists - that isnt good enough for me.
Posted via Mobile Device

Except when it has to do with a woman's reproductive rights- then it's obvious that we need laws to protect her from herself. [read: sarcasm]

 

[zobothehobo]

Forming a militia and keeping arms are separate interpreted as separate clauses according to the supreme court.
Posted via Mobile Device

I know, but they shouldn't be. If you put it into context of the time it was written (which is what you should do interpreting ANY written document), they're the same thing.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I'm not sure I understand the stance of the impingement of rights as well as I should.

This country was founded and came about as a result of the ordinary person being able to arm themselves, removing that right is also, in essence, removing ones own personal freedom. The right to bear arms has been around since the Roman Empire, Aristotle even called it a fundamental source of political power one which all should have. Thats the belief the country was founded on, so to remove our right to bear arms, is viewed by many as lessening the idea (at least to me) of a political system for the people and by the people.

The Declaration of Independence also supports the individual(s) rights to rise up and overthrow the government if it warrants (though the constitution ratified that saying in certain ways only) but it again points to personal power being the key (by the word key I do not mean dawn).

 

[zobothehobo]

This country was founded and came about as a result of the ordinary person being able to arm themselves, removing that right is also, in essence, removing ones own personal freedom. The right to bear arms has been around since the Roman Empire, Aristotle even called it a fundamental source of political power one which all should have. Thats the belief the country was founded on, so to remove our right to bear arms, is viewed by many as lessening the idea (at least to me) of a political system for the people and by the people.

The Declaration of Independence also supports the individual(s) rights to rise up and overthrow the government if it warrants (though the constitution ratified that saying in certain ways only) but it again points to personal power being the key (not dawn!).

But having a gun now is very different from having a gun when the constitution was written. You cannot over through this government now by having guns... The power given to you by owning a gun is different now. Like I said before, in the context it was written, the second amendment means your right to bear arms is to protect you from the government. Now, owning a gun is protecting you from other citizens... It's very different. Guns are more deadly now and the gun you can own does NOT put you on the same level as the government. we have outgrown the second amendment. I don't think we've outgrown the ideas of the second amendment... but we should be focusing more on those rather than the whole "I should have a gun" thing when talking about it.

 

[VisionGirl]

Im a prolife activist and would view voting a prochoice president into office as a stepback in those efforts. Also someone said Bush didnt make any difference in the prolife agenda when he was in office. Thats not true. He signed a ban on partial birth abortions. That was a HUGE deal for prolife supporters. Posted via Mobile Device

Huge deal? Late term abortions make up 1% of all abortions in the U.S. Also, Bush's act only restricted a very particular medical procedure, not all late-term abortions. Also, it's not unlawful when performed to save the mother's life.

 

[Harley]

Except when it has to do with a woman's reproductive rights- then it's obvious that we need laws to protect her from herself. [read: sarcasm]

Abortion is killing a living, innocent human being. The constitution protects the right to life. Allowing someone to have a gun doesnt automatically mean someone will die because of it. With abortion, someone always dies.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[zobothehobo]

Huge deal? Late term abortions make up 1% of all abortions in the U.S. Also, Bush's act only restricted a very particular medical procedure, not all late-term abortions. Also, it's not unlawful when performed to save the mother's life.

besides, when that's not an issue that's really important for the advancement of our country at the moment... why does it matter if you take a step back? It'd be a small step since Obama wasn't pushing the pro-choice thing AT ALL. I'd understand if he made it very clear that was something he wanted to work on in office... but it wasn't.

 

[VisionGirl]

Abortion is killing a living, innocent human being. The constitution protects the right to life. Allowing someone to have a gun doesnt automatically mean someone will die because of it. With abortion, someone always dies.
Posted via Mobile Device

The Constitution in no way addresses abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court weighed the right to privacy a higher right than the "right to life" in 1973.

But, I should no better than to debate this. I, too used to be a pro-life activist. It is next to impossible to change someone else's mind. Mine was an internal change that happened over time. So I guess I should bow out.

 

[Harley]

Huge deal? Late term abortions make up 1% of all abortions in the U.S. Also, Bush's act only restricted a very particular medical procedure, not all late-term abortions. Also, it's not unlawful when performed to save the mother's life.

Huge deal to prolife supporters. Any steps taken to protect the unborn is important to me.
Posted via Mobile Device