-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
Just playing devil's advocate though: What if someone who wants to legalize hand grenades, rocket launchers, mortars, etc... starts using the same argument?
"Grenades/rocket launchers don't kill people! People kill people! Let's blame people being overweight on spoons and ban spoons!"
Wouldn't those counter arguments be just as valid for someone wanting to unban/legalize ALL weapons?
"Grenades/rocket launchers don't kill people! People kill people! Let's blame people being overweight on spoons and ban spoons!"
Wouldn't those counter arguments be just as valid for someone wanting to unban/legalize ALL weapons?
Absolutely agree. 
U
Not unless you were just trying to find any little thing to say to argue against it.
People that want to kill will find a way. Guns or not. People who want to use guns for the wrong motives will find a way to get guns, even if they are illegal. Cocaine is illegal but it seems pretty easy to get for people willing to take the risk. Making cocaine illegal didn't stop it. Criminals and addicts still get it. Same with banning guns. If guns are banned, and someone wants to shoot up a nightclub, he will find a way to get a gun.
But there's no way to ban murder. People who murdered in the dozens and 100's, in the past, did so without guns.
Using the 'overweight' comparison isn't really valid. People don't go crazy and start shoving food in others mouths in the mall. People who are overweight (and not all of them) are being willfully Self Destructive. Psychopaths are out to hurt others against their will, with or without guns. So it's not even a close comparison.
People that want to kill will find a way. Guns or not. People who want to use guns for the wrong motives will find a way to get guns, even if they are illegal. Cocaine is illegal but it seems pretty easy to get for people willing to take the risk. Making cocaine illegal didn't stop it. Criminals and addicts still get it. Same with banning guns. If guns are banned, and someone wants to shoot up a nightclub, he will find a way to get a gun.
But there's no way to ban murder. People who murdered in the dozens and 100's, in the past, did so without guns.
Using the 'overweight' comparison isn't really valid. People don't go crazy and start shoving food in others mouths in the mall. People who are overweight (and not all of them) are being willfully Self Destructive. Psychopaths are out to hurt others against their will, with or without guns. So it's not even a close comparison.
Our current gun laws allowed a bipolar radical Muslim to legally purchase an AR-15. Everybody is freaking out saying Obama is trying to take our guns away but he never said that. I have a stepmother who is bipolar and schizophrenic. The thought of her with a gun in her hand is pretty scary. So would it not make sense to pass some type of legislation to keep dangerous individuals from being able to purchase firearms?
Don't take this post personally. I understand that you may not be familiar with American law and culture. I mean to respond to all who are like-minded, because I feel that your post embodies many liberals' (and most Europeans fit that bill) views on reality.
First off, the best the police can do is respond within several minutes' time. By then if you don't have the capacity for self-defense, you've already gotten (as those in Orlando discovered) 50 people dead. Contrast this with the death count in a situation with armed citizens who are capable of protecting themselves. And if you need reference material for this, please visit one of the websites dedicated to gun-defense stories.
Secondly, weapons are already banned from many public places in the USA. There are things such as gun-buster signs that ban anyone (including those with concealed weapons permits) from legally carrying arms into those areas. Unfortunately such bans do not deter criminals, because criminals don't care about what is legal. There are only two things a gun-buster sign logically does: 1. it prevents law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from criminals who do have firearms, and 2. it may prevent a hot-tempered (and sociopathic) person from going on an impulsive and unplanned shooting spree. Also I would add to this that guns were banned in Washington, D.C. a long time ago, and as a study and legal case involving crime in the city discovered, the rate of violent crime actually increased after the gun ban.
So whether or not this is how it works in the rest of the world, this is how it works in America: more gun freedoms = increased deterrent of violent crime and better ability to defend oneself. This is especially the case for women who work late, aren't well-connected and who walk alone at night. The gun is the great equalizer. It makes a 5'4" woman as strong as two 6' men. And my guess would be that in a big city such as Orlando there are already very strict gun laws. And it's likely that there was a gun-buster sign outside the Pulse club where the shooting took place, including hundreds of liberals inside (seeing how a conservative would not be caught dead in a gay bar) who "do not like guns" but probably wished they had one when they were lying on the floor, bleeding, waiting for this extremist Muslim to end their and their loved ones' lives.
First off, the best the police can do is respond within several minutes' time. By then if you don't have the capacity for self-defense, you've already gotten (as those in Orlando discovered) 50 people dead. Contrast this with the death count in a situation with armed citizens who are capable of protecting themselves. And if you need reference material for this, please visit one of the websites dedicated to gun-defense stories.
Secondly, weapons are already banned from many public places in the USA. There are things such as gun-buster signs that ban anyone (including those with concealed weapons permits) from legally carrying arms into those areas. Unfortunately such bans do not deter criminals, because criminals don't care about what is legal. There are only two things a gun-buster sign logically does: 1. it prevents law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from criminals who do have firearms, and 2. it may prevent a hot-tempered (and sociopathic) person from going on an impulsive and unplanned shooting spree. Also I would add to this that guns were banned in Washington, D.C. a long time ago, and as a study and legal case involving crime in the city discovered, the rate of violent crime actually increased after the gun ban.
So whether or not this is how it works in the rest of the world, this is how it works in America: more gun freedoms = increased deterrent of violent crime and better ability to defend oneself. This is especially the case for women who work late, aren't well-connected and who walk alone at night. The gun is the great equalizer. It makes a 5'4" woman as strong as two 6' men. And my guess would be that in a big city such as Orlando there are already very strict gun laws. And it's likely that there was a gun-buster sign outside the Pulse club where the shooting took place, including hundreds of liberals inside (seeing how a conservative would not be caught dead in a gay bar) who "do not like guns" but probably wished they had one when they were lying on the floor, bleeding, waiting for this extremist Muslim to end their and their loved ones' lives.
Last edited:
The Second Amendment was not written with the sole purpose of self-defense. Our Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms for the defense of a free state. I imagine in order to defend your state the type of weaponry entailed would be something more than a single handgun with an 8-bullet clip (in fact such a paltry defense would not guarantee your safety except if the aggressor has no firearm, in which case it would likely be illegal to shoot him since you could run away from him). The defense of not just one's state but free state is pretty broad in its meaning. It can refer to defending one's freedoms against tyranny at the federal level, the defense of one's home, the defense of one's family, the defense of freedoms from a foreign aggressor, etc.
Now Americans can own a lot of military-grade weaponry (such as automatic rifles). But such weaponry is heavily regulated. You have to register those weapons, pass FBI checks, and pay considerable fees. But to put the Second Amendment into perspective, in the 1970s a governor had the National Guard (an official, state-run military organization similar to the Army) put down a peaceful protest by shooting dead some of the protestors. What owning military-grade weaponry does is instill in our politicians a healthy respect for the citizenry, so that they know they cannot just put down a peaceful protest by, say, running tanks over the protestors as happened in the Tiananmen Square Massacre in China. And Americans can own military-grade hardware. It would just be a hassle to acquire and maintain.
So the issue is not just about self-defense but also about freedom. And I would assume that Europeans would understand this, because they did not fight World War II for self-defense and security but rather to maintain their national identity and way of life. Millions died in that war so that each country could continue to enjoy their own peculiar freedoms. Why is this suddenly taboo in our modern age?
Now Americans can own a lot of military-grade weaponry (such as automatic rifles). But such weaponry is heavily regulated. You have to register those weapons, pass FBI checks, and pay considerable fees. But to put the Second Amendment into perspective, in the 1970s a governor had the National Guard (an official, state-run military organization similar to the Army) put down a peaceful protest by shooting dead some of the protestors. What owning military-grade weaponry does is instill in our politicians a healthy respect for the citizenry, so that they know they cannot just put down a peaceful protest by, say, running tanks over the protestors as happened in the Tiananmen Square Massacre in China. And Americans can own military-grade hardware. It would just be a hassle to acquire and maintain.
So the issue is not just about self-defense but also about freedom. And I would assume that Europeans would understand this, because they did not fight World War II for self-defense and security but rather to maintain their national identity and way of life. Millions died in that war so that each country could continue to enjoy their own peculiar freedoms. Why is this suddenly taboo in our modern age?
V
I really liked what you said and the points you've made. But seeing as the 2nd amendment was written for more than defense, do you disagree on any weapon bans (tanks, rocket launchers, hand grenades, even privately own nuclear bombs)? It would definitely put a greater amount of respect if a citizen could blow up a portion of their own country. If it's not a slippery slope, then it's an all out allowance for weapons.
J
A long time ago the mismatch between the weapons being used by the gov't and the weapons being used by the citizens was not that big. You can say that the 2nd amendment isn't up to date no more. The federal gov't has long since been way more powerful than the people, contrary to the founding fathers constitutional intentions. The people have already accepted this by not uttering a single word against this development. The 2nd amendment is due to this being heavily ignored by the folks in DC. In a few decades it'll hardly make people eligible for purchasing soft guns...