Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

it seems like everyday my history teacher my friend and i get into a heated argument about the second amendment and how "obama's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • h2oskate
    replied
    Miller74, you've gotten a lot of good answers from folks, so I have nothing add...except that today's educators are really not interested in your opinions (or mine or anyone else's) regarding gun control. Most of our educational facilities bow down to liberal progressive ideas regarding guns and gun control. Not a week goes by where we don't hear about some grade school kid being suspended for a t-shirt or for pointing his finger like a pistol, etc. I wish you luck, but I'm not optimistic. There is a reason the liberal progressives want to disarm America and it has nothing to do with crime. If it were about crime, they'd be going into the ghettos and barrios and disarming the gang bangers. I'm really fearful about the 2014 election; if we lose the house, it's all over but the shouting (and probably the shooting). I live in NY and woke up on January 16th of this year to find I was a criminal by virtue of what I posessed legally the day before. My response is going to be to leave NY for a morge "friendly" state.
    h2oskate

    Leave a comment:


  • miller73
    replied
    thanks for all your opinions. i will defenitly bring up some of these arguments next time we get into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ontario Honker Hunter
    replied
    Sounds like a good teacher to me. He has got your interest and got you thinking about how to win the argument. At least you're not sleeping in class.

    Easy on those history teachers. I'm one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sourdough Dave
    replied
    Maybe your history teacher needs to be reminded that historically, national registration of privately owned guns has been followed by a confiscation of those guns, which was then followed by mass executions of those who did not agree with such confiscations or other government policies. Hitler did it, as did Mao, Stalin, Polpot, et. al. And they all started the process with registration in the name of public safety. I'm sure the occupants of those mass graves in the killing fields had said, "Oh, that could never happen here" just as your teacher will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hobob
    replied
    As a history teacher myself I can tell you you are probably wasting your breath. If he cannot see the Second Amendment you way don't sweat it too much. Good job for not letting one opinion stand just because its the instructors. We often are wrong. I had to bite my tongue a lot in college where you do pay academically for opinions contrary to the professors. If they cannot see how gun bans and despotism have gone hand in hand then try the power issue. When the government is givn power when has it ever willingly given it back? Also prohibition did not work for alcohol and that ban had enough support for an Amendment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sourdough Dave
    replied
    Perhaps a scholarly examination of the words "shall' (vs. may), and "infringed" as used in the Second Amendment language of "shall not be infringed". Then you could shift subjects to Civics for a discussion of how "the people" as used in the Second Amendment is the same "We the people" as used in the preamble of the constitution. Then maybe some History to examine how early America had no standing army so it fell to the "well regulated militia" of "we the people" to provide security for all things from personal defense of family and home to defense of the settlement against hostiles to defense of the country against foreign invaders. Then when the idiot teacher counters with the argument that now we do have a standing army and police, you counter with "when seconds count the police are only minutes away".

    Leave a comment:


  • Pray- hunt-work
    replied
    Good post.

    Leave a comment:


  • DakotaMan
    replied
    Really nice comments from Bioguy and CRM3006 as usual. These are worth thinking about! Thanks for taking the time guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    That takin' them guns away from everbody shore worked for those Brits and Aussies, did it not?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

    Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

    We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

    In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

    Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.

    Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

    After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

    Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

    The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

    Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defense to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

    In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British Special Forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
    ***

    Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

    At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.

    With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

    To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

    According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

    In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

    What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
    Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).
    A version of this article appeared December 27, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    miller73-
    Google Kyle Wintersteen and read his article in Guns&Ammo. Can't post it, keeps getting flagged for obscenity, and there ain't a dirty word in it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Devine
    replied
    The majority of the teachers in this country today are against gun ownership and the second amendment.
    The majority of the news media and the stinking democraps in this country are also against guns. It is very difficult to change the opinion of anti gun person.

    A perfect example we have gun owners on this website who are pro Obama and a diehard liberals. Many individuals on this site have debated and argued with these same misinform people in the Backlash and Blowback page. After all this time they are still true blue liberal Obama lovers.

    I would tell your teacher we both have philosophical differences on this issue and then start spending your time talking to the hot chicks in your class.
    Good Luck!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pray- hunt-work
    replied
    Pfffffffffffft..... That's the wind coming out of my sails after reading RockySquirrels post.... I say create a short, fact based response filled with ethical, moral, and staggering reasons why the 2A shouldn't be changed. Then express that you're not going to bring it up again, and thank your teacher and classmates for their time. Leave your heartstring opinions out of it for the sake of the conversation, as they are usually ignored in comparison to facts. Also, leave reasons with variables out, as they are easily cast aside as myth. Good luck, and thank you for being an advocate at such a young age.

    Leave a comment:


  • RockySquirrel
    replied
    I think you are there for an education and need to focus on that fact and leave politics, distractions and keep your attempts to beat your history teacher out of the classroom. History teaches the biggest expression is the ballot box. Use it. You are not going to win, quite possibly get a reduced grade and are cheating yourselves and your fellow students from the depth of an education you could be getting. You can’t judge a person as a litmus of 1 issue or his ability to teach or his opinion is invalid because his opinion is different then yours. Be the adult and move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • RJ Arena
    replied
    The point you are missing is that "winning" an argument with you teacher will not win the war-What you want to do is clearly make your case, in a calm manner, you want your teacher to think about what you believe, and over time his pondering of your points may(but don't hold your breath) change his way of thinking. build your case. He most likely says that "no one wants to take your guns away, we just want to stop bad people from getting them" and " you register a car, why not a firearm?". you then take your time and write out your arguments. your friend should play "devils advocate" and try to poke holes in your logic, your facts. address these weaknesses and the enter in to the discussion with your teacher.

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X