| Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Virginia Tech and Gun Laws; Someone had to do it | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM (3,146 Views) | |
| Pestiferous | Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM Post #1 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
So, now the debate about gun laws is back with perhaps more strength than it had after the Columbine tragedy, as now Americans have seen that no change really means no change. Sadly, I'm still seeing redneck idiots on television maintaining that if Virginia Tech hadn't been a gun-free campus, perhaps more people would have survived. In reality, this crime happenned due to availability of guns...not the other way around. How easy is it for a psychotic to walk into a gun shop in Virginia and get a 9mm? Easy! 3 forms of ID and they do a criminal check on you right there on the spot. As long as you're not a dirty illegal immigrant, you can get a gun in Virginia in less time than it takes to get a haircut. 47% of guns used in gun crimes in New York come from Virginia. My question is, what does a civillian need a 9mm Glock for? Why are these types of guns, that are so easily concealed, being sold to regular people? How far does your Right to Bear Arms go? Are we straying from the original purpose of this constitutional right? Owning a gun should require more time and background checks. A government permit per individual should be mandatory - wanna buy a gun? Show us you're allowed. Getting this permit should include more than being free of misdemeanors. It should include a psychological assessment, references, a residential address of longer than one year, and even a family background check...Your brother shot up a bank? Maybe you don't really need a gun then. Americans won't let go of their guns. Fine. I understand that. But why so pissy about stricter gun laws? I nearly gagged when I saw Bush say that now isn't the time to change gun policy - now is the time to mourn and heal. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| Evil_Henry | Apr 18 2007, 03:44 PM Post #2 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
I don't think it'll make any difference. There are such vast numbers of guns freely available, clamping down on purchases will likely just push people to buy them from other sources. How many guns are currently in the US? Millions probably. Sadly I think it's much too late. The horse has bolted, raised a family and died a long time ago. |
![]() |
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Apr 18 2007, 03:55 PM Post #3 |
|
Satan Valid
|
Who are you to question their cultural heritage?
|
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 18 2007, 03:55 PM Post #4 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
What a horribly apathetic viewpoint. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| Evil_Henry | Apr 18 2007, 04:03 PM Post #5 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
It's not my fault they chose the option they did. I really don't see what can be done at this stage. Even if all gun sales ceased in the US, you'd only limit firearm use with law abiding citizens. |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 18 2007, 04:12 PM Post #6 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
No one is saying it's your fault - you're claiming it's a problem, but it's too big and can't be fixed. People have more encouragement over recycling than changing gun laws. It's disturbing. As for limiting firearm use among law-abiding citizens, that would sort of be the point. Up until the shooting, the gunman WAS a law-abiding citizen - it was this that allowed him a 9mm Glock in the first place. So fine. You don't think laws making it harder to get guns makes a difference. Why are citizens being sold 9mm handguns? |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 18 2007, 04:52 PM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
Because we recognize the right every individual has to arms. Sure, there are mis-steps, but more government regulation is not the solution. There really is no solution. Crazy people will do crazy things, and limiting the rights of the law-abiding and sane won't stop that. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 18 2007, 05:10 PM Post #8 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
But this wasn't an illegally-attained gun. Had the "rights" of this former law-abiding citizen been limited, he wouldn't have been able to legally purchase a 9mm Glock pistol...Purchasing a gun would have been much more difficult for him. Which still leaves the question - why are handguns designed to be concealed being sold to regular citizens? Obviously, there is a very different mentality towards guns in Canada than the US. The argument that there are just too many guns in the States is crap - we have just as many guns in our country as the US. However, our sales and permits are heavily regulated... Why does this make a difference in Canada when the US claims it won't work there? So, who convinces you that citizens need guns, and restricting laws won't help? Gun advocates, lol. And everyone buys it, hook line and sinker. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 18 2007, 05:17 PM Post #9 |
|
Unregistered
|
It's just a recognition of a fundamental human right, with too much government interferrence as it is. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 18 2007, 05:33 PM Post #10 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
The right to bear arms does not equal "The right to bear arms absolutely, with no question or legislation from the government whatsoever". When did it turn into that? And, out of curiousity Plague, why are you avoiding the main questions I'm asking? |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Apr 18 2007, 06:20 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
But should it be a "human right" to bear arms? A gun is a man made killing machine... why is it a "right" in the first place? |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| serendipity | Apr 18 2007, 06:58 PM Post #12 |
|
Cyber Valid
|
the BIG problem in my opinion is that the laws vary from state to state. i know my ex could not obtain a permit to carry a handgun in NY when we lived there... he tried for years and was denied every time. we moved down here to pennsylvania and he had a permit in less than a week. in virginia you can obtain the gun immediately but you can only buy 1 handgun in a 30 day period... which is why the guy at virginia tech bought both his guns a month apart. i think there should be some kind of "cooling off" peroid for each step. apply for the licence.... wait 30 days. purchase the firearm... wait 30 days to pick it up. along with background checks, etc. but i also think if someone is crazy, they're crazy.... no amount of time or law is going to change it.... this kid in virginia was obviously messed up long before he started buying guns. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 18 2007, 07:46 PM Post #13 |
|
Unregistered
|
The fundamental principle here is that one should not be obliged to "prove" to the governemnt that they are worthy of possessing a weapon, or that they have to demonstrate a "need" for one. Unless one shows that they are NOT responsible or law-abiding (i.e. felons, court commited, etc) , then they should be able to get a gun without the government breathing down their neck. Basically, the onus is on the government to demonstrate that someone should not have a gun, not the converse. It's one of the few freedoms that is actively and vigorously defended in this country, and though I don't own a gun, I support any individual freedom being upheld. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 18 2007, 08:59 PM Post #14 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Wait, proving to your government that you are worthy of possessing a firearm doesn't actually interfere with your right to bear arms. Plague, by your logic guns should be given to people upon birth. Why should a store be allowed to deny the basic fundamental human right of gun ownership based on a customer's inability to pay? This is a gun. It's not water, air, healthcare or education. Education is a basic human right...not gun ownership. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| Lea | Apr 18 2007, 09:57 PM Post #15 |
|
Unregistered
|
After Martin Byrant (Tasmania..35 people were shot by Bryant - horribly we still have the highest number world wide) the Australian Government started a buy back plan. You bring in your unregistered/registered guns, you get money, the guns are destroyed. Police officers/people who shoot as a sport are not allowed to carry their firearms when they are not on the job/on the shooting range. They are also not allowed to take them home with them. Farmers are allowed to have guns on their property clearly for obvious reasons. The american logic of "have to have a gun, laws wont help us.. have to have a gun have to have a gun.. it's my consitutional right! have to have a gun" just doesn't make any sense at all. Not only does it make no sense.. it isn't working very well. How many American school shootings now? When does the American Government start to protect it's peoples from themselves? When do the American citizens start to say "this might not be the best idea we've ever come up with"? From an outsiders perspective.. it doesn't look like your gun laws are doing any good at all. |
|
|
| RevWolf | Apr 18 2007, 10:59 PM Post #16 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
Plague said it- nothing further I could add. but
this has turned out to be bullshit. those guns that were 'destroyed' are turning up in the most unlikely places - Lebanese gangs and two outlaw motorcycle gangs have been found in possession of these 'destroyed' guns. At least the bikers only kill each other. |
![]() |
|
| Lea | Apr 18 2007, 11:10 PM Post #17 |
|
Unregistered
|
And do you have proof of that? But lets ask a couple of questions: How many shootings have occured in Australian Schools? How many shootings (large numbers of peoples) outside of Byrant have occured? How many Australian gun related deaths occur each year? Removing sucide/accident how many gun related Murders occur in Australia each year? Now Remove Australian/Australia and put in the USA instead and answer those questions. |
|
|
| RevWolf | Apr 18 2007, 11:58 PM Post #18 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
A NETWORK of firearms dealers has rorted the $600 million national guns buyback scheme, and weapons supposedly destroyed years ago have resurfaced in criminal hands in NSW. The Herald can reveal that at least two of the so-called "phantom guns" - both pistols written off by the Queensland Firearms Registry - have been fired at the scene of separate unsolved robberies in Sydney in the past six months. Police believe there are hundreds more like them. source |
![]() |
|
| staci | Apr 19 2007, 12:11 AM Post #19 |
![]()
|
I agree, everyone has the right to bare arms!! Summer's coming. We have the right to bare arms, bare legs, bare backs, and even bare tummies. Why should the government be able to tell us we don't have the right to bare arms? |
![]() |
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 19 2007, 01:14 AM Post #20 |
|
Davros Valid
|
Wait a month, and you'll see even more no change. A majority of Americans don't want change. A value judgement has been made in favor guns, at the cost of a Columbine or VA Tech every few years. Until our values change, our public policy will not.
To defend against other civilians who own 9mm Glocks. You see the uniquely American logic?
If you interpret the US Constitution strictly and literally, our "right to bear arms shall not be infringed." That means that laws prohibitting the sale of landmines, missiles and nuclear warheads are unConstitutional. Thus are the implications of the logic employed by the NRA. As for the "original purpose" of the Second Ammendment, the majority of Americans don't care too much about that. The purpose was obviously to insure that the US would always have "a well-regulated militia" to defend us from King George or any other invader, but this qualfying clause is rarely mentioned in legislative discussion.
I stopped listening to Bush in 2003. All but 30% of my countrymen have stopped listening to him by now. We're all basically just waiting for him to leave. He's got just under two more years to drive the country into the ground, and, we're resigned to him doing just that.
Again, according to strict constructionists, it does. Though, their reasoning fails to account for that legislation with which they do not take issue. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that, and a law is an infringement. Logically, we should either revoke all laws pertaining to arms sales in the US, or ammend the Constitution to meet the needs of our post-industrial nation. But, neither of those will happen. |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |











7:14 PM Jul 11