"I think calling this anti-religious measure "secularism" is misleading.
Maybe this is just the American perspective, but secularism is a very fraught word. Perhaps you mean to implicate it in these events, but I do not believe it is…"
Your take on weaponry, arms, ect.
I am a Canadian but I follow American news for obvious reasons.
I could not help but notice the increase of school shootings being reported.
I am just curious what you men have to say about gun or weapons in general.
This is not to discuss so much the second amendment as it is to have you say what you think of arms.
I myself detest guns. I hate how some random street punk can kill an upright and great man at the pull of a trigger. It simply upsets me.
Before when one wished to kill someone else, poison and such may have been used, but combat was primarily up close and personal with melee based weapons.
I have a passion for melee weapons and the arts that accompanies them. Centuries have been spent in order to perfect various forms of martial arts. The human body, the movements, the elegance, the power and the speed. They're all so beautiful to me. That is why guns upset me, because a random punk can send a practitioner of one of these arts with a finger movement.
I realize that a similar argument would be that a simple punk can kill a man with a knife.
I also realize that I am simplifying the use of a gun, and I am making it sound easy to use, but in some ways it is. If you handle a gun with skill, that's something, but a street punk can use it by aiming in a general direction and pulling the trigger a few times.
I would like to hear everyone else's input. This is just my opinion. If you wish to argue against me, I'll be happy to read it. Make sure to post your own views.
Tags: Guns, Martial Arts, Weapons
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric P. on -
I am open to everything. I have different views. This is all subjective and opinion based. There is no right or wrong I think. If someone wants to go ballistic, well that's fine. They are passionate about that and I respect that.
Actually, I would be pretty impressed if someone were to change my views. I welcome it.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick Blackmon on -
i think that you should carry a gun so that you will be able to defend yourself from people with guns,
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on -
What makes you think the "upright and great man" would be more physically capable than the "random street punk"? Does it upset you that a small weak woman can kill a far more physically capable rapist at the pull of a trigger? Or that a frail old man can kill a young musclebound intruder at the pull of the trigger?
Is this entirely a matter of might makes right to you? Is the better melee fighter necessarily the good man?
God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal. That's a good thing. Lots of good brawlers in prison.
JB
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on
-
Case in point. An old man with a concealed handgun takes out two younger, faster, stronger armed robbers at a Florida internet cafe ...
If you had it your way, he wouldn't have had a chance.
JB
-
Permalink Reply by Hampton Kennedy on -
This is a topic I am very passionate about, because I am a hunter, recreational shooter and NRA member. I could go on and on on this topic, but i'll contain myself. Go look at the great debate, there is a great and fascinating thread about shootings and gun control.
Obviously guns are used in crime, but thats not always the weapon of choice for a criminal. For instance in Spain, I have a friend who is a police officer there, he barely ever carries a gun because gun crime is very low in Spain, but people have access to guns, they hunt, and they have had numerous riots and such, but they dont use guns because thats not what it is used for. It is a tool to hunt with
A gun is a tool, and that is it. In the hands of a responsible citizen, it is harmless and even useful. But like you said, if a criminal has it, it is dangerous. And why is it that when there is a shooting, we think to blame the gun (tool), but when a man drives drunk, we blame his mental state and not the car (tool)?
Finally I think that weapons are fine to have, most people know how to use them properly. And I do not like the government stepping in, if it gets the power to ban one type of gun, it has the power to ban whatever type of gun it wants.
I would also like some feedback on this topic, I am doing a gun control presentation for school, and I have most everything I need, but I am having a difficult time defining, "Arms'', as it is stated in the second amendment (or which arms the second amendment applies to), if anyone can help I would appreciate it.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric P. on
-
Excellent points!
Really great.
Well considering that the second amendment was made in the 1800's, I would say muskette guns and swords. I don't believe that they had semi-automatic rifles in mind...
-
Permalink Reply by Hampton Kennedy on
-
The Bill of rights was created in 1789 and i think ratified in 1791, and they obviously did not imagine some of the weapons we have today but they knew muskets would improve and weapons would advance. The revolver was only a few years away. The question is how far did they imagine weapons to advance...
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on
-
That's not the question. The question is "why it should matter?".
We don't ask whether James Madison envisioned internet pornography when we talk about the freedom of speech. He didn't ... but it doesn't matter. We simply say, we have the right to the freedom of speech ... in whatever form technology allows.
Why should we ask whether James Madison envisioned the AR15? He couldn't have. But it doesn't matter. Its not the government's business to use technology advances since the 1790s to try to create loopholes in rights. The founders need not have thought-up all the technology we've come up with in the last 225 years.The Bill of Rights was drafted with general terms like -- "arms", "speech", "religion", "press", etc. -- for a reason ... so they would be broadly applicable to whatever advances came about, whether they could imagine them or not.
JB
-
Permalink Reply by Jonathan Kascenska on -
Some of the best points I've seen made on this topic.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on
-
If that's true, then the first amendment didn't have television news or the internet in mind -- because the internet and television didn't exist -- so the government can Constitutionally silence internet speech and news stations.
And the fourth amendment didn't protect against unwarranted phone taps, or from searches and seizures in cars -- because phones and cars didn't exist -- so the government is free to breach at will.
Technology changes. The principles remain the same. That's how rights work.
JB
Latest Activity
Vytautas replied to Sean Grogan's discussion Opposing a Charter of Secularism in the group Catholic Men
Will replied to Sean Grogan's discussion Opposing a Charter of Secularism in the group Catholic Men"As an American, I'm appalled at the idea that the government could tell you what you are allowed to wear. Quite aside from the religious significance. The exception would be indecency or something that interfered with driving."
George H replied to Bill's discussion Shave of the Day - May 2013 in the group Wet Shaving (No Spam!)"May 19 Shave
Pre: Hot Shower
Prep: Art of Shaving Pre Shave oil (unscented)
Soap: Art of Shaving Shave cream (unscented)
Brush: Art of Shaving Badger
Razor: Rolls Razor
Blade: Rolls "Best Sheffield Steel"
Post: Hot Water,…"
Native Son replied to Nick H's discussion This is a stick-up! Now hand over your profits! in the group The Great Debate"It's been said that the only "business advantage" Texas enjoys is that "the Leg" only meets for one short session each term. Unlike California, where enough poor fools drank the koolade about the wonders of a…"
Native Son replied to Nick H's discussion This is a stick-up! Now hand over your profits! in the group The Great Debate"A Hypothesis. This particular set of hearings might be because the fellow is one of the folks lobbying for another loophole, in order to avoid paying taxes if that $100 billion ever gets back into the US. It's an unanticipated…"
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
