Thread: Why i think the USA won't Nuke or invade Iran

The general consensus is that the 2nd amendment protects peoples rights to own guns. There is also a long standing tradition with people owning guns, and its considered a right. So even if they are wrong, the 9th amendment says, just because your rights are not writen down, doesn't mean they aren't protected under the law.

Thus anyone if someone argues, the right to own a gun isn't written down, you point first to the 2nd amendment and if they say thats wrong, you point to the 9th.

Anyway, its kind of silly to say your allowed to form a militia but your not allowed to own any weapons that are capable of defeating an oppressive government. You just said the point was to defend themself from an overbearing federal government, yet they are not allowed to own any guns?

If something is illegal for the government to own, of course the people shouldn't have them either. But if the government can have tanks and stuff I don't see a problem allowing the population to have machine guns.

Originally Posted by Alric

Anyway, its kind of silly to say your allowed to form a militia but your not allowed to own any weapons that are capable of defeating an oppressive government. You just said the point was to defend themself from an overbearing federal government, yet they are not allowed to own any guns?

If something is illegal for the government to own, of course the people shouldn't have them either. But if the government can have tanks and stuff I don't see a problem allowing the population to have machine guns.

I don't how the guns situation is there in the USA, but if people are allowed to have guns just because of a 200 hundred years old document, then it can't get any sillier.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I don't how the guns situation is there in the USA, but if people are allowed to have guns just because of a 200 hundred years old document, then it can't get any sillier.

Thats because you dont know anything about history. The people in the US believe they have a god given right to defend themself, and their property. Our rights don't come from any piece of paper, we are born with them. The paper is only there to protect our rights. It basicly tells the government, "Back off! We have rights and since you serve us, the people, you will not take them away!"

The age of the paper is utterly pointless. Some people, especially gun control advocates would like you to believe that owning guns is an outdated idea. Nothing could be further from the truth however. The right to defend yourself has been a right all throughout history. Had the US been created a 1000 years ago it may have said, your right to own a sword shall not be infringed. And if it did it would still apply to guns. Because its not about owning a gun, its about having a right to defend yourself and your property.

Doesn't it give people the idea that they can just shoot anyone they want?

Of course not, why would it?

Because people aren't always in control of their emotions...
A psycho with a gun is more dangerous than an unarmed psycho.

But whatever I don't feel like arguing forever.

We are not talking about psychos though. We are talking about normal everyday people. You use a steak knife to cut your food, but you never thought of running around stabbing people in the face with it did you? Of course not.

Besides, if there is a crazy person running around, why wouldn't you want to defend yourself? Its an odd idea that if you give up your weapon your some how safer when a nut case goes on a rampage. If you notice mass shooting always take place in areas where they ban guns. Theres never shootings at the gun range however. Hmm I wonder why? Maybe its because if people have guns they just shoot the psycho?

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Doesn't it give people the idea that they can just shoot anyone they want?

You have held a steak knife, did it give you the idea you could stab anyone you wanted?

Yes. I could. But of course, I'm a sane human, so I don't.

There is a ban on drugs and theres tons of people with drugs. Why do you believe if there was a ban on guns there would be no guns? The truth is, banning guns doesn't get rid of them, its just makes it very difficulty for normaly people to get them legally. Criminals and insane people will still have them either way.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats because you dont know anything about history. The people in the US believe they have a god given right to defend themself, and their property.

1. God isn't real
2. a 9 millimeter sidearm defends your property just as well as an uzi.

Doesn't matter if god is real or not. People still have the innate right to be free and to defend themself. It doesn't really matter why you believe that, the belief that you are born with certian rights are what we are talking about.

When does the innate right to own a killing device come from then? If all you want is self defense, why not get a taser instead?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

2. a 9 millimeter sidearm defends your property just as well as an uzi.

...

An uzi is much better than a 9 millimeter for defending yourself against a gang of attackers or intruders. A tazer only subdues sombody for a little bit, and it is not instantaneous. Watch the "Don't Taze Me, Bro" video to see how weak a tazer is. If somebody attacks you or breaks into your house, you deserve to be able to take the person completely out on the spot so you can be as safe as possible. You do not owe it to an attacker to make things riskier for yourself. Attackers owe you as much safety as you can have.

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

Originally Posted by Alric

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

A war on guns would be very successful. Just look at how good of a job they are doing with the war on drugs.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A tazer only subdues sombody for a little bit, and it is not instantaneous. Watch the "Don't Taze Me, Bro" video to see how weak a tazer is. If somebody attacks you or breaks into your house, you deserve to be able to take the person completely out on the spot so you can be as safe as possible.

Originally Posted by Alric

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

Some nice facts about tasers: http://www.safetygearhq.com/taser-facts-info.htm

If more than one armed person attacked you, having a gun yourself probably wouldn't help at all.