Gun control (for school essay)

[Wackaman9001]

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

i consider the militia part fairly important. My old Gov't teacher was all for citizens owning guns, so long as there were regulations in place. The "assault rifle" bans are considered a form of regulation, yes? Now, because the bill of rights was added to show the states that they had rights too, and in order to show that the people would be able to defend themselves against tyranny. If said tyranny comes from the government, they are fully within their rights to take up arms in AN ORGANIZED FASHION, so as not to cause even more chaos than what they are fighting against. This is an extremely outdated example, but in the first Crusade, the organized military half of the expedition to reclaim the Holy Land was more successful and were better trained, and they did not cause chaos in their wake. The disorganized, borderline hordes that followed Peter the Hermit razed the land between them and Constantinople(Their destination until they met up with the organized force), killing thousands of Jews along the way. Like i said, outdated, but it is the principle that the organized force causes more good than harm, whereas the ones left without organization and order caused more pain than the ones they were trying to fight.

[Coffee Vampire]

Those who would dare take up arms against those they deem tyrannical shall learn a new definition of the word tyranny.

Lets get serious. You cannot support the second amendment based on its infringement to fight tyranny any more, and if you do - do you support those that have enacted that right? (Dorner, marathon bomber, 9-11 terrorists)?

I think you have a point that it may be largely irrelevant, but I don't think the examples you provided were very good. The ammendment only gives rights to US citizens, so the 9-11 terrorists would not be protected by it. It doesn't give them any rights to do anything. Also, the marathon bombers acted against civilians, and were not an organized militia. They did not raise up arms against the government. The latter is also a bad example for the issue of gun control because it supports the people who say that gun control won't stop crime because they will just use different methods (bombs). Like I said, though, your point has validity for sure. I am just not sure if the examples fit so well.

[Piotr]

I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.

You want to cut off my dick to prevent me from raping you, too?

[Wally]

I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.

You want to cut off my dick to prevent me from raping me, too?

Other than your logic being twisted, it would be quite effective.

[Piotr]

I also do not want to be shot in the street, therefore I am happy to deferr my rights to own an assault rifle if it means that the chances I will be shot will be dramatically reduced. I see this as a logical solution. If there are less guns in circulation I have a less chance of being shot. Less = less.

You want to cut off my dick to prevent me from raping me, too?

Other than your logic being twisted, it would be quite effective.

The logic simply folows yours. Next logical step, would you like to cut my head off to prevent any potential crime I can do to you?

[Wally]

I don't believe it does follow my logic.

"My logic" would suggest that where everyone agreed that it would be a safer place by surrendering our rights to something would make the place safer and we all agreed, then we all would abide by said choice. (All would obviously be a sufficient majority)

My penis would not be something I would happily surrender, nor expect anyone else to surrender, so it would not apply. (Pretty sure I would have the majority of people agree with my decision and make their own in the same fashion)

Surely you can see the logic when applied:
less dangerous things = less danger?

Applying it to random things would not produce the same result.

[Wally]

For your second example. No, that's what jail and mental institutions are for. Less dangerous people on the street = less danger on the streets.

[Piotr]

I don't believe it does follow my logic.

"My logic" would suggest that where everyone agreed that it would be a safer place by surrendering our rights to something would make the place safer and we all agreed, then we all would abide by said choice. (All would obviously be a sufficient majority)

My penis would not be something I would happily surrender, nor expect anyone else to surrender, so it would not apply. (Pretty sure I would have the majority of people agree with my decision and make their own in the same fashion)

Surely you can see the logic when applied:
less dangerous things = less danger?

Applying it to random things would not produce the same result.

It does follow your logic. Your logic is 'less dangerous things, less danger'. Your logic is absolutely in the opposition of iMtG Law, your logic advocates unlawful prevention.

My dick is not a random thing, it's a dangerous tool used to rape other people, fact. Same for my head, it can be used to plot and execute mayhem. There's nothing in your logic which makes a difference between the three, other than your arbitrary 'guns are different because I say so'.

Furthermore, you seem to be of an opinion that it is ok to break natural laws because majority says so. This is false.

[Wally]

Lol it is quite easy to differentiate between all 3.
A gun was created as a killing tool. Other purposes for this tool are null. Can be exploited to kill people. Goes along with actual primary intention.
A penis was created to aid in procreation, aka life. Can be exploited against its initial creation to cause harm.
A head, was created to hold brain and help being make sensible decisions, and preferable outcomes. Can be exploited to cause harm to others, going against its initial creation.

Also, I would not go against the law of my country. Laws are put in place to protect its people. Majority of votes is how laws are passed or changed. The people we have elected in power make those decisions on our behalf, as we have elected them to make those decisions for us. Hence why voting is actually quite important.

[Piotr]

Except your penis and head serve other purposes.

Guns serve only one purpose. To kill.

Quite obviously a lie: guns serve to deter crime, they are tools of defence and don't need to be fired to serve their purpose. This is not the first time you are making false statements in a debate, please be careful.

[Vyse]

For the love of all that is holy stop swinging your e-peen with the "your statement goes against mine, In my opinion your lying, careful or here comes the ban hammer!"

[Piotr]

For the love of all that is holy stop swinging your e-peen with the "your statement goes against mine, In my opinion your lying, careful or here comes the ban hammer!"

I beg your pardon? I called a lie and provided logic why it was a lie.

Edit: furthermore, there's a good number of people disagreeing with me in threads like this one later becoming mods, and no one was ever banned for disagreeing with me. I feel mildly offended

[Vyse]

That's not quite true though. Guns don't deter people for any other reason than the fact they can kill. Guns were designed and originally made to kill. On numerous occasions you've  pulled out the "lying" card, and more than once ive felt (and im guessing others have too) you used it as a silencer when things aren't going your way. I understand you are the owner of the forum, but don't use the ban hammer as intimidation in arguements. (And just so we are clear, I didn't say you have banned anyone in this fashion)

[Piotr]

A gun was created as a killing tool. Other purposes for this tool are null.

Also, I would not go against the law of my country. Laws are put in place to protect its people. Majority of votes is how laws are passed or changed. The people we have elected in power make those decisions on our behalf, as we have elected them to make those decisions for us. Hence why voting is actually quite important.

You seem to be fond of majorities, why do you ignore the fact that majority of the guns are not used to kill?

[Piotr]

On numerous occasions you've  pulled out the "lying" card, and more than once ive felt (and im guessing others have too) you used it as a silencer when things aren't going your way. I understand you are the owner of the forum, but don't use the ban hammer as intimidation in arguements. (And just so we are clear, I didn't say you have banned anyone in this fashion)

My way is the law way. You lie, I call the lie. I did it on numerous occasions and not always when the lawbreaker was in disagreement with me. #noided comes to my mind.