Author Topic: Shooting spree in German High School  (Read 1392 times)

Offline Voss

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
      • http://www.bombardieraerospace.com
Shooting spree in German High School
« Reply #75 on: April 29, 2002, 10:20:46 PM »
Had you responded like this originally, rather than going directly to the 'fear of everything government' route I would not have responded the way I did.

I do think the German school system accomplishes the goal of education very well. It's the freedoms denied their citizens that I have an issue with. We need more choices in our education system and I think this is about to become a major issue, if it isn't already.

No, I'm not a Libertarian.

I don't think the Dem's, the Rep's, nor the Lib's agree with me on gun control, abortion, religion, or gay issues. I am too conservative to get agreement from any of them. Well, some Rep's might agree, but they could never voice similar opinions and get elected.:D

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Only a popsicle needs/uses a gun.
« Reply #76 on: April 29, 2002, 11:36:33 PM »
Buncha slack jawed fairies just needed guidance from their parents, instead most let the Golly-geened TV raise their kids.

It's no wonder our society is crumbling, dumb bellybutton Americans have houses full of unsecured guns and let the diddlying TV teach their kids that its OK to use them.

The fault lies with the parents of these amazinhunks, anytime this toejam happens they should charge the adult who owns the gun used with the crime perpetrated.

I believe if the founding fathers could have seen the technological leaps made in armament the 2nd ammendment would have been drafted differently.

Offline Arcon

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Shooting spree in German High School
« Reply #77 on: April 30, 2002, 02:40:47 AM »
Ummm.... its a tragedy..

Gun control laws---useless.  Guns can and will be had by the most innocent, and surely, by the criminal perpetrators.

People want/don't want guns. It is not the machine (gun) that's the problem.

It is the people that use the guns for nefarious purposes. Or use swords, or bats, or just chocke the living stuffing out of their fellow man.
Unfortunately, as long as guns EXIST, there will be a way for this same type of tragedy to be carried out.
Another terrible incident.  But let us not belabor this.

It is a tragedy.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Shooting spree in German High School
« Reply #78 on: April 30, 2002, 12:21:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by -dead-
miko2D
Why are guns so easy to obtain illegally?
Are guns much easier to make or smuggle than nerve gas?
Why is it more difficult to obtain (legally or illegally) hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes?
Where in the second amendment does it state that Americans have the right to keep and bear reasonable weapons?
Isn't it unconstitutional to ban the sale and ownership of hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes?


 I will address those questions one by one.

Why are guns so easy to obtain illegally?
 Guns can be smuggled through the border whole or in pieces much easier then bulky drugs. Unlike drugs, metal/plastic guns cannot be sniffed by dogs or chemical analyzers. Guns are very low-tech devices that are easy to make.
 With a few thousand dollars anyone can buy shop equipment sufficient to produce working guns in a couple of weeks.

Why is it more difficult to obtain (legally or illegally) hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes?
 There is much lower demand on those items among criminals, that is why nobody cared to organise a supply. Hundreds of criminals need small concealable guns to shoot individual people or use for robberies, intimidation, etc. - they have no use for hand greanades, let alone tanks.
 Blowing a rival drug dealer with hand grenade will most likely hurt the one throwing it too. Installing a bomb in his car is much simpler. That is why it is much easier to get a bomb then a hand grenade. Criminals have no targets to use tanks/helicopters on and any tank/helicopter can be blown up by a maveric missle from a National Guard F16 as soon as it it detected.
 Chemical/biological weapons are much harder to use safely then even explosives.
 Demand for chemicals/biologicals in the world is counted by single units, that is why the consumers of it (political terrorists, religious groups, etc) have to produce those themselfves at enormous expence.

Where in the second amendment does it state that Americans have the right to keep and bear reasonable weapons?
Isn't it unconstitutional to ban the sale and ownership of hand grenades, tanks, helicopters, missiles, smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas or nukes?

 Theoretically "not to be infringed" means that anything considered "arms" should not be regulated by the federal governent. Of course they did not have weapons of mass destruction then but if some simpleton today decides to dispute teh limitations on unreasonable weapons, all we would do is to adopt another amendment clarifying the issue. After all, the Constitution is not a holy writ, it's just a living document made by a bunch of people.
 So we should really consider the goals of the founding fathers clearly described in the Federalist Papers - as long as they still reflect our interests.
 The need for citizens to have arms and for states to have militias was based on a danger of central government turning tyranical and using the army to subjugate people. So we need as much weapons and of such kind that a majority of the people could resist subjugation from the government or a minority.
 Even if the whole US army (<1 mil fighting troops?) supports the tyrant, half of the US population armed with handguns and rifles will be able to successfully oppose establishment of a dictatorial regime - provided they care to oppose it.
 On the other hand, owning weapons of mass destruction - nukes, gas, bio - removes that democracy in weapons - by allowing a minority to subjugate a majority. That is clearly a danger to our freedom as great as disarming the population.

 Ironically, neither constitution nor Federal Papers explicitly say anything about private citizens using arms for private protection against criminals. Most likely because they could not conceive of possibility that a person may be denied a right to defend him/herself against violence. They only expected that an aspiring tyrant already in government preparing a coup (to establish an autoritarian regime) would ever have a reason to disarm the population in order to subjugate it.

 miko
« Last Edit: April 30, 2002, 12:31:05 PM by miko2d »