NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?

Has anyone quoted this:


Guns Up Testosterone, Male Aggression
Testosterone Spikes After Handling a Gun, Making Men More Aggressive
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

July 28, 2006 -- Handling a gun makes men's testosterone levels rise -- and makes them more aggressive.

......

http://www.webmd.com/news/20060728/guns-up-testosterone-male-aggression


So, it is MORE LIKELY that wide spread gun usage will increase deaths and the arguments that "people kill, not guns" or "you can kill with a kitchen knife as well" seem irrelevant. That's why guns are a public issue as well as a personal freedom issue.

Has anyone quoted this:


http://www.webmd.com/news/20060728/guns-up-testosterone-male-aggression


So, it is MORE LIKELY that wide spread gun usage will increase deaths and the arguments that "people kill, not guns" or "you can kill with a kitchen knife as well" seem irrelevant. That's why guns are a public issue as well as a personal freedom issue.

Ah, just like the "porn=violence" study.

"Although our study is clearly far from definitive, its results suggest that guns may indeed increase aggressiveness partially via changes in the hormone testosterone."

And the FACT that an increase in firearm ownership in the US did NOT lead to an increase in violence sort of proves otherwise.

Ah, just like the "porn=violence" study.

"Although our study is clearly far from definitive, its results suggest that guns may indeed increase aggressiveness partially via changes in the hormone testosterone."

In modern psychology, NOONE makes any definitive statements. So the "poor wording" does not indicate inconclusive results, but more likely a psychological jargon. That doesnt mean the study is definitive but it means it is more solid than you may think.

Has anyone quoted this:


http://www.webmd.com/news/20060728/guns-up-testosterone-male-aggression


So, it is MORE LIKELY that wide spread gun usage will increase deaths.

Deaths from what? Hot sauce poisoning? Despite their hormone levels, none of the men in the study went on a murderous rampage as a result of handling the guns.

Deaths from what? Hot sauce poisoning? Despite their hormone levels, none of the men in the study went on a murderous rampage as a result of handling the guns.

It means that if you find a burglar at your home, you are more likely to kill him if you have a gun despite the fact that you can also make him go away without a gun (for ex.). Or if you confront him with a gun, he may panic and shoot you first. So, when guns are involved in violent situations, men are more agressive and that may yield to higher casualties.

It means that if you find a burglar at your home, you are more likely to kill him if you have a gun despite the fact that you can also make him go away without a gun (for ex.). Or if you confront him with a gun, he may panic and shoot you first. So, when guns are involved in violent situations, men are more agressive and that may yield to higher casualties.

And the study proved no such thing. You're really reaching strawmen from one study.

Rights are not a matter of "deserving" them.


That's what you say. I see no reason to believe it.


Then you reject the very concept of rights, in which case you are nothing more than a brute beast--a subhuman animal.


Another person flaming? You call me a 'subhuman animal' and 'a brute beast' simply because I think 'rights' originate somewhere other than you appear to?

I do reject the very concept of rights - as anything other than an aspect of societies. And, since you've brought literally nothing to the table to debate that point, I feel I can dismiss your flames and indignation with nary a pause.


On the contrary, it is only in the context of society that rights have meaning--for when man is alone, his actions affect no others so rights are of no practical issue.

That is not to say that he lacks rights outside of society--simply that they are of no practical import.

Again - this is your opinion, I see nothing to back it.

I disagree completely. I think you are looking at the world through rose-coloured spectacles if you think there are any kind of 'rights' which are obtained from any source other than who you are willing to fight, or who is willing to fight for you.

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?

Yeah, I agree. I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against illegal gun ownership.

I do reject the very concept of rights - as anything other than an aspect of societies. And, since you've brought literally nothing to the table to debate that point, I feel I can dismiss your flames and indignation with nary a pause.


Do you just believe that they are subjective, or do you actually believe people should not have rights?

It means that if you find a burglar at your home, you are more likely to kill him if you have a gun despite the fact that you can also make him go away without a gun (for ex.). Or if you confront him with a gun, he may panic and shoot you first. So, when guns are involved in violent situations, men are more agressive and that may yield to higher casualties.

You talk about killing criminals like it's a bad thing.

The 'right' to a gun is not universal.
When the government decides your right to life is not universal, nor that you are worthy of it, do not complain. You will deserve being killed. What can you evoke in your support? I have a righ... oh wait, you don't. Herr bureaucrat decided to take it away.

The right to a gun is not universal. The right to defend yourself is. Using a gun is one such means.

The right to a gun is not universal.

Gee, I could have sworn I just said that... :rolleyes:

Gee, I could have sworn I just said that... :rolleyes:
I did say the right to self-defence is though. And using a gun is a means of self-defence. So whilst using a gun may not be a right in and of itself, defending yourself is - and that may include a gun.

I did say the right to self-defence is though. And using a gun is a means of self-defence.

So's a flamethrower. What's your point?

So's a flamethrower. What's your point?
Why should I be banned from using one in self-defence?

So's a flamethrower. What's your point?

Flamethrowers are pretty useless when attempting to defend your home...you'd be more likely to torch the house than harm the illegal entrant.

Why should I be banned from using one in self-defence?

That's your point?!

To be honest, I don't know. Why shouldn't you be allowed to defend your home with a flamethrower? Heck, if you can afford it why not install an MG-nest or even better, buy a tank?

Ask an American I suppose. I live in a society perfectly happy and secure without the 'right' of carrying firearms.

*shrug*

That's your point?!

To be honest, I don't know. Why shouldn't you be allowed to defend your home with a flamethrower? Heck, if you can afford it why not install an MG-nest or even better, buy a tank?

Ask an American I suppose. I live in a society perfectly happy and secure without the 'right' of carrying firearms.

*shrug*

I'd rather err on the side of liberty, than on the side of the state.

That's your point?!
Indeed it is.

To be honest, I don't know. Why shouldn't you be allowed to defend your home with a flamethrower? Heck, if you can afford it why not install an MG-nest or even better, buy a tank?
I would say you should be able to - it'd be highly impractical, costly and likely to get you thrown into jail, but hey, go ahead. And this is also one of the worst reductio ad absurdum arguments I have yet to see. Are you trying to imply that gun use will lead unfailingly to the death of the aggressor? Even if that were the case, the defendant could be go to jail for using excessive force.

Ask an American I suppose. I live in a society perfectly happy and secure without the 'right' of carrying firearms.
Great, I'm ecstatic in my rapture for you.

you've a right to own whatever you like. but everyone else has the right to know that you aren't a fucking nutjob about to try and kill someone or just an idiot who doesn't know where to point the thing. so owners of devices designed expressly for killing or maiming people can expect very strict vetting procedures and requirements for annual or six-monthly checks on gun safety knowledge, mental stability and first aid knowledge. in a society like we all live in today this can be done by a government organisation, alternatively this can be done by a council of local community members picked randomly but excluding family members and friends and including at least 1 gun expert and one medical/psychiatry professional. if you are judged stable and capable according to their criteria you can own a killing machine for your own sane purposes, whatever they may be.

People have the right to make all decisions regarding their own bodies and property so long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

The primary purpose of government should be to protect this right.

Seriously, read the Declaration of Independence sometime.

Just for the record you do therefore support the legalisation of ALL drugs, weapons etc?

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

I don't mind people having guns if gun owners would get themsleves licenced to show they have gone through gun safety (we do it with hunting licences and cars) and I still don't accept your need to own military grade equipment.

Yeah, it LOOKS cool, but I also think tanks and cruise missles look cool, but there's a reason why I shouldn't have any.

Define Military Grade Equipment?


Bolt Action Rifles are Military Grade Equipment.........

A pointed Stick is military grade Equipment.....

I'd rather err on the side of liberty, than on the side of the state.
I have as much 'liberty' as you, and I don't have the 'right' to carry a gun.

Although I fail to see what 'liberty' has to do with this.

And this is also one of the worst reductio ad absurdum arguments I have yet to see.
...says the person who finds it ok for anyone to own heavy weaponry at home.

Are you trying to imply that gun use will lead unfailingly to the death of the aggressor?
Where have I even touched on that? Nowhere have I even mentioned death or gun related stats. I'm talking about the 'right to carry a gun being fundamental.'

you've a right to own whatever you like. but everyone else has the right to know that you aren't a fucking nutjob about to try and kill someone or just an idiot who doesn't know where to point the thing. so owners of devices designed expressly for killing or maiming people can expect very strict vetting procedures and requirements for annual or six-monthly checks on gun safety knowledge, mental stability and first aid knowledge. in a society like we all live in today this can be done by a government organisation, alternatively this can be done by a council of local community members picked randomly but excluding family members and friends and including at least 1 gun expert and one medical/psychiatry professional. if you are judged stable and capable according to their criteria you can own a killing machine for your own sane purposes, whatever they may be.

Hee, hee, gov't organization. That's funny.

...says the person who finds it ok for anyone to own heavy weaponry at home.
And now an ad-hominem. How quaint.

Where have I even touched on that? Nowhere have I even mentioned death or gun related stats. I'm talking about the 'right to carry a gun being fundamental.'
The right to carry a gun isn't. It isn't even a right. The right to defend yourself is, by whichever means you choose, including a gun. It is therefore a means of exercising a right that is fundamental.

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

I'm sorry, but your argument became stupid at that sentence. Show me a gun growing out of the ground, like a coca plant, or a field of poppys, or marijuana, and then this argument will make sense, not one second before.

I have as much 'liberty' as you, and I don't have the 'right' to carry a gun.

Although I fail to see what 'liberty' has to do with this.




Given that you aren't permitted to do something, then it would seem to me that you don't have as much liberty as I do.

Define heavy weaponry.


Because a .50 Cal machine gun is still classified as "small arms"

And now an ad-hominem. How quaint.
Sorry, where exactly? You dispute the fact you agreed with me that someone should be allowed set up an MG nest in their premises for 'defence'? That's not heavy weaponry? You dispute you agreed with me that someone should be allowed to defend themselves with a flamethrower? That's not considered heavy weaponry?


The right to carry a gun isn't.
That's my only point.

Given that you aren't permitted to do something, then it would seem to me that you don't have as much liberty as I do.

Ok then, what are you freer to do than I am?

I'm sorry, but your argument became stupid at that sentence. Show me a gun growing out of the ground, like a coca plant, or a field of poppys, or marijuana, and then this argument will make sense, not one second before.

Start digging in random fields in Ireland and tell me if you don't find any weapons covered in cosmotine that have been stockpiled there for almost a century.

Ok then, what are you freer to do than I am?

Own a gun, for whatever personal purpose I may choose, so long as I don't bring it to bear against another human being. From my point of view, my right to own a gun is little different from my right to be permitted ownership of a baseball bat, automobile or vast quantities of booze.

Sorry, where exactly? You dispute the fact you agreed with me that someone should be allowed set up an MG nest in their premises for 'defence'? That's not heavy weaponry? You dispute you agreed with me that someone should be allowed to defend themselves with a flamethrower? That's not considered heavy weaponry?
Citing this as a reason to discredit me is though.

That's my only point.
So you're completely unopposed to the use of guns in self-defence?

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right? Amen brother, preach on. i`ve spent some time on the other thread:headbang: trying to make the lefties see the light of day:headbang: and quite frankly my head hurts:headbang: so i would like to make the following statement "Dear liberal, left-wing, anti-gun douchebags. if you do not want guns , fine. would all of you kindly re-locate yourselves to the Politically-Correct land of make-believe or whatever mythical place it is that you all believe would happen if the world were gun free. also please take with you all the criminals, who have these "rights" and who are really just misunderstood by those of us in the "pro-gun" side of society, with a little bit of love and care they`ll be productive people. upon your arrival to this destination, notify the rest of it where it is so we will be sure to never visit. please do not plan on coming back here as we do not want you. Yours Truly , Aschenhyrst :upyours: " i`ve said my piece.

Start digging in random fields in Ireland and tell me if you don't find any weapons covered in cosmotine that have been stockpiled there for almost a century.

I said "Growing", as in actually sprouting from the ground from a germinated seed. Duh...:rolleyes:

I said "Growing", as in actually sprouting from the ground from a germinated seed. Duh...:rolleyes:

I want an AK-47 tree. :p

Citing this as a reason to discredit me is though.

Let me get this straight.

Me quoting you to prove my point...... and discrediting you (although I did not intend it to be so) is an ad hom. attack?.

Riiight.
That's like saying "Na-uh. You can't use my own points against me. That's not nice." *stomps foot*


So you're completely unopposed to the use of guns in self-defence?
I couldn't give a shit what anyone uses to defend themselves with so long as they stop thinking its a fucking universal and fundamental 'right'!

I said "Growing", as in actually sprouting from the ground from a germinated seed. Duh...:rolleyes:

My point is that Firearms are so profilific at this stage in history they would be as hard to get rid of as Drugs or Alcohol.



Not only is there a vast supply of firearms, but a vast supply of machine tools and people knowledgable in their operation that even if there were no more civilian gun manufactures there would still be an illicit gun trade throughout the world.



There are 100 millionish AK-47's in circulation........

Own a gun, for whatever personal purpose I may choose, so long as I don't bring it to bear against another human being. From my point of view, my right to own a gun is little different from my right to be permitted ownership of a baseball bat, automobile or vast quantities of booze.

So owning a gun makes you freer than me... how exactly? Explain in detail, please.

Own a gun, for whatever personal purpose I may choose, so long as I don't bring it to bear against another human being. From my point of view, my right to own a gun is little different from my right to be permitted ownership of a baseball bat, automobile or vast quantities of booze.

Hey man if your back in the North Canton Area, your more than welcome to come shooting with me some time.


I've a Sig Sauer P220 .45 ACP

and a Ruger Mini-14 .223

Hey man if your back in the North Canton Area, your more than welcome to come shooting with me some time.


I've a Sig Sauer P220 .45 ACP

and a Ruger Mini-14 .223

Blast. Now I'm in Washington, DC.

Although come June I'll be back in North Canton, and if you're around, I'm all for.

So owning a gun makes you freer than me... how exactly? Explain in detail, please.

That I'm free to own a gun without restrictions.

Jesus, are you so thick to not understand that any restriction is inherently a restriction on freedom?

So owning a gun makes you freer than me... how exactly? Explain in detail, please.

Someone comes to take you away for one reason or another, a regime takes away one of your rights, or whatever, you get to make them pause because they don't know who's armed and who's not, and it would make taking another one of your rights immensely stressful and difficult as they would have to spend more and more resources per house.


Now if you can reasonably assume that 90+% of the houses on a block are unarmed, though you would have to remain vigilant, you can use less resources to enforce whatever edict you chose to.

Battery is dead, gotta run.

Blast. Now I'm in Washington, DC.

Although come June I'll be back in North Canton, and if you're around, I'm all for.

No problem man, I'll still be here.

Though I have to spend a week in michigan at the End of June for whatever, but while your around you should come out for a night of shooting, and then drinking and we could even drag Ed and Kelso along.

That I'm free to own a gun without restrictions.

Jesus, are you so thick to not understand that any restriction is inherently a restriction on freedom?

No, it's simply maybe that I'm missing the invisible chains that I'm bound with in my day to day life here - that owning a gun would suddenly release me from my bonds of servitude.

Oh wait..... there are none. Because owning a weapon doesn't make one any more or less free. Since you brought liberty and freedom into this in the first place, I think you should dig a little deeper into the meaning of the concepts behind the words.

Me quoting you to prove my point...... and discrediting you (although I did not intend it to be so) is an ad hom. attack?.
I didn't say you can't use them against me - I just pointed out it does nothing to answer the point I was making.

I couldn't give a shit what anyone uses to defend themselves with so long as they stop thinking its a fucking universal and fundamental 'right'!
The right to defend oneself certainly is. The problem with the pro-gun group is that they obfuscate the debate by calling it a "right to bear arms."

Own a gun, for whatever personal purpose I may choose, so long as I don't bring it to bear against another human being. From my point of view, my right to own a gun is little different from my right to be permitted ownership of a baseball bat, automobile or vast quantities of booze.

Just out of curiosity, since I don't necessarily disagree, what about vast quantities of Cocaine and Opiates?

I was going to say it's kind of hard to murder someone with Cocaine, but then I remembered that scene from Ong-Bak.

Hee, hee, gov't organization. That's funny.

how's that? the oxymoron or some other irony that might suggest you didn't read my post correctly?

Someone comes to take you away for one reason or another, a regime takes away one of your rights, or whatever, you get to make them pause because they don't know who's armed and who's not, and it would make taking another one of your rights immensely stressful and difficult as they would have to spend more and more resources per house.
Erm, the jist of this, I think, is in relation to a despotic regime. As I don't live in one - it's not applicable.

(For the sake of argument though, in your scenario all that would happen is that you would end up dead a lot quicker)


Now if you can reasonably assume that 90+% of the houses on a block are unarmed, though you would have to remain vigilant, you can use less resources to enforce whatever edict you chose to.
Preparing for the installation of an Emperor or totalitarian dictator in the US are we...?

Just out of curiosity, since I don't necessarily disagree, what about vast quantities of Cocaine and Opiates?

I was going to say it's kind of hard to murder someone with Cocaine, but then I remembered that scene from Ong-Bak.

Guns are NOT an addictive item, though they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot(as are fireworks and such)


It is also easier to harm yourself by an accidental overdose of a drug of unknown purity than with a firearm.


Don't point the thing at your self or anyone else and always treat it like its loaded and you'll be fine.

I didn't say you can't use them against me - I just pointed out it does nothing to answer the point I was making.
Yes it did. You said it was one of the worst 'slippery slope' arguments you had seen. Yet you agreed with me on the flamethrower and MG nest points. Anyway, I fail to see what this has to do with any of the matters at hand. Let's leave it.


The right to defend oneself certainly is. The problem with the pro-gun group is that they obfuscate the debate by calling it a "right to bear arms."
I agree. *nods*

In the US, every registration scheme has been used to prevent ownership and/or confiscate.
Prove it.

Erm, the jist of this, I think, is in relation to a despotic regime. As I don't live in one - it's not applicable.

(For the sake of argument though, in your scenario all that would happen is that you would end up dead a lot quicker)



Preparing for the installation of an Emperor or totalitarian dictator in the US are we...?

you would either A. End up dead quicker but at least you stood up for yourself and fought

B. Get to live longer if they are unprepared for such an eventuality as you could depending on your skill shoot your way out of your house and escape to somewhere else.

C. The Regime might not have the resources to enforce the edict so they might rescind it or ignore it.


And I find your last comment an ad hominum(sp?) attack and an insult especially to someone who's only desire in life is to serve my country and its people either as a soldier or a civil servant(aka Police officer) Since I've already accomplished the first and I'm working on the second......


Oh well I guess this is your style of debating.

Guns are NOT an addictive item, though they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot(as are fireworks and such)
.

ANYTHING can be an addictive item. Especially NSG to which all other addictions are mere gateways.

ANYTHING can be an addictive item. Especially NSG to which all other addictions are mere gateways.
Meh, I should be in bed now... I'm on past 3 AM again. :rolleyes:

you would either A. End up dead quicker but at least you stood up for yourself and fought

B. Get to live longer if they are unprepared for such an eventuality as you could depending on your skill shoot your way out of your house and escape to somewhere else.

C. The Regime might not have the resources to enforce the edict so they might rescind it or ignore it.
See the first part of this thread, I've already pointed out just how silly an argument this actually is.

And I find your last comment an ad hominum(sp?) attack and an insult especially to someone who's only desire in life is to serve my country and its people either as a soldier or a civil servant(aka Police officer) Since I've already accomplished the first and I'm working on the second......


Oh well I guess this is your style of debating.

No. An ad hom. attack would be me calling you paranoid gun nut. That would be attacking you, not your point.

I, however, commented on your overall post as an imaginary scenario that people often use to justify carrying of weapons. You obviously have zero faith in your government and in that (even at the worst of times) I pity you.
A despotic regime is all well and good in such a make believe scenario, it is however, not applicable to either myself, you, or this argument.

And you know not of my 'style' of debating.

Secondly, I frankly don't give a shit whether you are or are not a 'soldier', milita member or police officer. To me you're just another forum user.

So it isn't one granted by government then, despite what 1010102 and Risi claim?

Show by saying that the Government doesn't give you the right to have weapons, is just like saying that the government doesn't give us the right to free speech. it is in the Constitution for hevens sake!

Show by saying that the Government doesn't give you the right to have weapons, is just like saying that the government doesn't give us the right to free speech. it is in the Constitution for hevens sake!

(Not that I can completely make sense of your first sentence there, but anyhow...)

Your second amendment is part of your Bill of Rights, which was a document created by your United States government, yes?

And the study proved no such thing. You're really reaching strawmen from one study.

The study found that men are more agressive with a gun. This means that they will be more agressive in situations when they hold a gun. These situtations include breaking in. So men with guns will be more agressive when they encounter a burglar. When you are more agressive, you are MORE likely to hurt or kill someone. My conclusions were valid.

You talk about killing criminals like it's a bad thing.

OK.

Edit: This does not only apply to criminals. For ex: A man confronts her wife. He thinks she is cheating but actually she isnt. So she is totally innocent. That innocence part is for you, I dont care either way. Anyway. If he has a gun, according to the study, he will be more agressive. And more agressive people are more likely to kill. So with a gun, he is more likely to hurt or kill her.

This is just a one situation. You can think of thousands of situations similar to this per year in which existance of guns make a difference. That's why gun ownership is a public concern.

No. An ad hom. attack would be me calling you paranoid gun nut. That would be attacking you, not your point.

I, however, commented on your overall post as an imaginary scenario that people often use to justify carrying of weapons. You obviously have zero faith in your government and in that (even at the worst of times) I pity you.
A despotic regime is all well and good in such a make believe scenario, it is however, not applicable to either myself, you, or this argument.

And you know not of my 'style' of debating.

Secondly, I frankly don't give a shit whether you are or are not a 'soldier', milita member or police officer. To me you're just another forum user.



If I had zero faith in my government you would see sitting up in a cabin in Montana instead of placing myself in a postition that if we had a totaltarian government I'd be receiving orders to oppress my fellow americans. There is a tad of a difference.


I'm guessing your from Europe, there is a different history where you had opressive regimes throughout your history that kept their populace with minimal weaponry and you had to rely on your local lord to keep you safe.


As opposed to the United States where the colonists were landing in someones backyard and since a lot of the original colonies were charter and not crown colonies they had to rely on each other for a defense.


The point I'm trying to make is Europeans have historically(with some exceptions) had to rely on their government for defense while the American colonists had to rely on themselves for defense. And it wasn't just in the colonial period, the USA has never maintained a large standing army until the last 50 years. The Bulk of US fighting forces had been Militia before the early part of the 20th century(yes we had regular army to fight indians, different subject for a different time) And even with the Formation of the National Guard system and the Federaliziation of it, States still maintain a Military Reserve, or militia depending on the state.



And let us not forget the US Code specifically mentions the Unnorganized Militia as the entire male population from the age of 16-45. That is the "well Regulated militia" that the 2nd amendment talks about.

The problem with the pro-gun group is that they obfuscate the debate by calling it a "right to bear arms."

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They are merely citing their interpretation of the Constitution.

Do you just believe that they are subjective, or do you actually believe people should not have rights?

No.

I'm not talking about what people 'should' have - I am talking about what can be demonstrated as innate that they 'do' have.

I do believe that people should be deprived of some societal priviliges (which many consider to be 'rights') should be limited in their scope.

That I'm free to own a gun without restrictions.

Jesus, are you so thick to not understand that any restriction is inherently a restriction on freedom?

Bad choice of assertion, I think - unless you think there is a legitimate claim on 'freedom' to rape and maurder...

'Freedom' is just one more of those nebulous concepts that doesn't really mean anything, except in a purely subjective way.

OK.

Edit: This does not only apply to criminals. For ex: A man confronts her wife. He thinks she is cheating but actually she isnt. So she is totally innocent. That innocence part is for you, I dont care either way. Anyway. If he has a gun, according to the study, he will be more agressive. And more agressive people are more likely to kill. So with a gun, he is more likely to hurt or kill her.

This is just a one situation. You can think of thousands of situations similar to this per year in which existance of guns make a difference. That's why gun ownership is a public concern.

And your assertion is that knives, crossbows, etc. would be somehow different in this respect?

Bad choice of assertion, I think - unless you think there is a legitimate claim on 'freedom' to rape and maurder...

Most people who own guns do not rape and murder.

Many people who rape and murder do not own guns.

No, it's simply maybe that I'm missing the invisible chains that I'm bound with in my day to day life here - that owning a gun would suddenly release me from my bonds of servitude.

Oh wait..... there are none. Because owning a weapon doesn't make one any more or less free. Since you brought liberty and freedom into this in the first place, I think you should dig a little deeper into the meaning of the concepts behind the words.

Maybe you should try to understand the concept first. :rolleyes:

The freedom comes from being able to own a gun if I want to, not that I have one, dumbass.

They are merely citing their interpretation of the Constitution.
I realise this, but it doesn't seem to be very productive. I assume you're pro gun rights - would you argue for their use as a means of exercising the right to self-defence or as a standalone right? Personally, the former makes more sense to me.

I realise this, but it doesn't seem to be very productive. I assume you're pro gun rights

Ardently so.

would you argue for their use as a means of exercising the right to self-defence

That.

But you miss the point. The gun lobby isn't making a philosophical argument. It's making an appeal to authority - and in a country as rigidly nationalist as this one, it works.

Why not just ban handguns? Statistics show that more crimes are commited with handguns than with any other firearm. They're not really used for hunting so that wouldn't be a problem, and you can still keep rifles and or shotguns. But handguns and automatic weapons should be strictly for police and military use.

Here is a link for some firearm-related homicide statistics. It shows that homicides are mostly commited with handguns.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Why not just ban handguns? Statistics show that more crimes are commited with handguns than with any other firearm. They're not really used for hunting so that wouldn't be a problem, and you can still keep rifles and or shotguns. But handguns and automatic weapons should be strictly for police and military use.

Britain and Washington DC both tried it. It was made of phail.

Meanwhile, Texas and a bunch of other states recently legalized concealed carry, and the crime rates have been going down ever since.

Hmmmm.

Heck yes, I love guns! I don't have a real gun but I have a BBQ gun, which is almost the same thing.

If I had zero faith in my government you would see sitting up in a cabin in Montana instead of placing myself in a postition that if we had a totaltarian government I'd be receiving orders to oppress my fellow americans. There is a tad of a difference.
Yet you show such a lack of trust in your government that you arm yourself for your 'protection'. *shrug* To me it seems like you have no faith in the institution at all.


I'm guessing your from Europe, there is a different history where you had opressive regimes throughout your history that kept their populace with minimal weaponry and you had to rely on your local lord to keep you safe.
Europe is not one country. You fail on history.


As opposed to the United States where the colonists were landing in someones backyard and since a lot of the original colonies were charter and not crown colonies they had to rely on each other for a defense.
Fail as you base this on your previous assertion.


The point I'm trying to make is Europeans have historically(with some exceptions) had to rely on their government for defense while the American colonists had to rely on themselves for defense.
Ibid.

And it wasn't just in the colonial period, the USA has never maintained a large standing army until the last 50 years. The Bulk of US fighting forces had been Militia before the early part of the 20th century(yes we had regular army to fight indians, different subject for a different time) And even with the Formation of the National Guard system and the Federaliziation of it, States still maintain a Military Reserve, or militia depending on the state.
I...don't care.

Maybe you should try to understand the concept first. :rolleyes:

The freedom comes from being able to own a gun if I want to, not that I have one, dumbass.

How cutting. You've bowled me over with the breadth and strength of your argument.

"Na huh. You're a poopy head".

And you still haven't explained how that makes you "freer" than me.

A fear of legally armed people is an irrational fear. Policemen in most countries are legally armed, they are not better morally qualified to carry arms than holders of concealed weapons licenses (both require complete criminal background checks, including juvenile delinquency, in most American states) nor are they necessarily any more proficient in the handling of their arms.
i disagree, a lot. the police that do carry guns (and unlike the US, the in the UK it is rare for police to carry weapons) are highly trained. that's how it is in this country anyway. if its not the same in the US then that's terrifying.

A fear of... armed people is an irrational fear
take one word out and you get the gist of the problem. i disagree.


I'm an Australian. I'm 22, and I've never seen a gun other than on TV. None of my friends or my family have ever seen a gun, let alone touched or fired one.

I think (and someone might correct me here, and I'm cool with that) Australia has one of the tightest gun control systems in the world.

I have no objection to farmers having a gun to shoot rabbits, or foxes on their land. It is less harmful (both to crops and domesticated animals) than poisoning the pests. In certain circumstances, I don't mind police using their guns to kill a suspect (but I would personally prefer if they used a tazer or capsicum spray).

Guns are inherently an offensive (as opposed to defensive) weapon. A gun is NOT a weapon owned for self-defense reasons. A gun is only taken out to threaten, or make your opponent cower.

I object to a society in which having a gun is nothing to be shocked about. I believe that we should be shocked about people walking down the street, sitting on your train, dancing next to you in a club, carrying a weapon whose sole purpose is to maim and kill others.

You might believe that you have a right to carry a gun. You might be right. However, I definitely have the right not to be afraid of everyone around me carrying weapons of destruction in their pockets.
i agree :)

Yet you show such a lack of trust in your government that you arm yourself for your 'protection'. *shrug* To me it seems like you have no faith in the institution at all.

Government can't be everywhere at once. It can't always be counted on to save you. Government is very rarely reliable. I bet if your house was being robbed and you called 9/11 and called for a pizza, the pizza would arrive first. The robber would then enjoy piping hot pizza while he pillaged your place.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)



Um. The purpose of a gun is to shoot things dead. The purpose of a car is to get you from place to place. That's a big distinction.

I'm for the total banning of guns, but failing that unrealistic step, here are a few things I'd like to see.

No armor piercing ammo.
No automatic weapons.
Limit of 1 weapon per person.
Hunting rifles only.


Furthermore, your poll is loaded. The 'right' to own a gun is just about as inalienable as the 'right' to own a tank. Increasing security at the cost of the right to vote, or the right to choose your life partner is unacceptable. Increasing security at the cost of the 'right' to own something is an entirely different matter.

Guns are inherently an offensive (as opposed to defensive) weapon. A gun is NOT a weapon owned for self-defense reasons. A gun is only taken out to threaten, or make your opponent cower.
No, it is not an inherently offensive weapon (even if it were created for such a purpose). How it is used is crucial in this context. I can use a gun to kill, but also to incapacitate, as well as provoking fear in the person aggressing me. In any of these cases it serves me well in defending myself. If I must kill in order to preserve myself, the absence of a gun will not disincline me from doing so.

Use and proportionality are what matter here.

I'm for the total banning of guns,

Then you're a retard.

Britain and Washington DC both tried it. It was made of phail.

Meanwhile, Texas and a bunch of other states recently legalized concealed carry, and the crime rates have been going down ever since.

Hmmmm.

Ummm I know I'm getting older and shit, and I realise that language is an ever evolving thing also, but 'made of phial' What the fuck does that mean? Made of a small glass container similar to a test tube!?!

Ummm I know I'm getting older and shit, and I realise that language is an ever evolving thing also, but 'made of phial' What the fuck does that mean? Made of a small glass container similar to a test tube!?!

phail = fail.

"Made of phail" = the idea failed.

you have an absolute right, as much as does any nation, to possess a cruize missle and an abrahm's tank capable of launching from. but you are also a complete idiot if you expect the possession of deadly force to protect you from anything.

governments, at the same time, when doing so with a mandate from their populas, have an equal right to ban the sale, mass production and wholesale importing of balistic projectile fire arms, and their munitions. NOT the possession of these items, if you possess the skill and means to make them for your self and only in personal, say quantity one, or not more then three.

to be moraly responsible they must not discriminate between civilian individuals, other nations and themselves, but if they ban sale, production and so on, must likewise do so for themselves and neither stockpile for themselves nor sell them to other nations.

=^^=
.../\...

but you are also a complete idiot if you expect the possession of deadly force to protect you from anything.

Right. Just having the stuff laying around won't protect you; you have to pull the trigger for it to work :)

I have to say, living in a country where it is very difficult to get hold of firearms, not once in my life have I ever felt I needed one or ever been in any sort of situation where it would have helped to have been armed. And I don't think I'm at all unusual in that regard. It's a horrible world the gun lobby seems to inhabit, one of endless danger and people breaking into your homes to rape your family (has that even ever happened outside a warzone?)

You guys need to calm the fuck down

I have to say, living in a country where it is very difficult to get hold of firearms, not once in my life have I ever felt I needed one or ever been in any sort of situation where it would have helped to have been armed. And I don't think I'm at all unusual in that regard. It's a horrible world the gun lobby seems to inhabit, one of endless danger and people breaking into your homes to rape your family (has that even ever happened outside a warzone?)

You guys need to calm the fuck down

Better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

But if that something can kill people, maybe a little caution is advised

Better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

Nuclear warheads all around, then, eh?

But if that something can kill people, maybe a little caution is advised

Yes. That's what safety classes are for.

Nuclear warheads all around, then, eh?

For nations that aren't run by genocidal whackos, yeah, sure.

For nations that aren't run by genocidal whackos, yeah, sure.
Shit, I was talking about private citizens. You really think your handgun is going to protect you if The Man decides to impose tyranny? If you really want any chance of defending yourself or your family, you've got to have some much more serious fire power.

Shit, I was talking about private citizens. You really think your handgun is going to protect you if The Man decides to impose tyranny? If you really want any chance of defending yourself or your family, you've got to have some much more serious fire power.

Ah. No, overthrowing the government is what the militia is for. But then again, we haven't had a real militia for a few decades now...

Yes. That's what safety classes are for.



For nations that aren't run by genocidal whackos, yeah, sure.

Bottle makes a very good argument.

Nobody will ever start the much feared WWIII, so why not let countries that can develop nuclear capabilities have them?

Bottle makes a very good argument.

Nobody will ever start the much feared WWIII, so why not let countries that can develop nuclear capabilities have them?

So you think countries w/ a history of being unstable and being run by fanatics wouldn't use nuclear weapons or let them fall into the hands of those that will? Really?

So you think countries w/ a history of being unstable and being run by fanatics wouldn't use nuclear weapons or let them fall into the hands of those that will? Really?

Do you belive other wise? Its plain and simple, nuclear war means we all die.

Do you belive other wise? Its plain and simple, nuclear war means we all die.

So you agree w/ me. Good. Of course using nuclear weapons /= nuclear holocaust/WWIII

Parker vs. DC, a recent decision in the US, holds that gun ownership is an individual right. Perhaps not an "absolute right", but an individual right subject to scrutiny (in much the same way that freedom of speech is an individual right, but you aren't permitted to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire).

It’s not every day a federal circuit court rocks the political, legal, and academic worlds. But on March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did just that, ruling in the biggest gun-control case in nearly 70 years and perhaps placing a Supreme Court case smack in the middle of the 2008 presidential race. Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for a 2-1 majority in Parker v. District of Columbia, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” The court rejected the District of Columbia’s argument that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun ownership rights but merely protects states’ rights to form armed militias, and the court invalidated the District’s ban on handgun ownership and registration (except for guns registered prior to 1977), its prohibition on carrying pistols in the home without a license, and its requirement that all guns, including rifles and shotguns, be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

So you agree w/ me. Good. Of course using nuclear weapons /= nuclear holocaust/WWIII

Naaa I of course meant everybody knows this, so who would start it ummm?

Some regimes in this world are quite eager to incur its destruction.

Naaa I of course meant everybody knows this, so who would start it ummm?

Right. "Everybody". That's a compelling arguement. Let's start w/ some of those lovely groups that blow up cars w/ children in them, shall we? You don't think that one of those would use a nuclear device in NY?

Naaa I of course meant everybody knows this, so who would start it ummm?
Which brings us to the question: if everyone possesses nukes and is too afraid to use them in fear of retaliation, what is their bloody point?

Of course, I doubt that they would not be used, especially when the intended victim is a good distance away from the country in question.

Right. "Everybody". That's a compelling arguement. Let's start w/ some of those lovely groups that blow up cars w/ children in them, shall we? You don't think that one of those would use a nuclear device in NY?

CAN YOU PLEASE TYPE WITH AND NOT w/....

sorry it's just bugging me now.

Which brings us to the question: if everyone possesses nukes and is too afraid to use them in fear of retaliation, what is their bloody point?

Of course, I doubt that they would not be used, especially when the intended victim is a good distance away from the country in question.


But wait. Peep said "everybody knows they won't be used by anyone". I guess "everybody" = Peepelonia.

CAN YOU PLEASE TYPE WITH AND NOT w/....

sorry it's just bugging me now.

I really don't care. It's proper shorthand.

I really don't care. It's proper shorthand.Proper? According to what standards?

Meh.. One of these days I really should start work on a greasemonkey userscript to just rewrite people's posts to acceptable (for me) standards..

Some regimes in this world are quite eager to incur its destruction.

Bwaaahahah what of the whole world? Name them, and then show my your proof?

Right. "Everybody". That's a compelling arguement. Let's start w/ some of those lovely groups that blow up cars w/ children in them, shall we? You don't think that one of those would use a nuclear device in NY?

....and if they did what would happen?

....and if they did what would happen?

lots of people would die. What do you think would happen?

Proper? According to what standards?

Meh.. One of these days I really should start work on a greasemonkey userscript to just rewrite people's posts to acceptable (for me) standards..

Never heard of shorthand, have you?

What a nicely biased poll, Risi. Very smooth. :rolleyes:

lots of people would die. What do you think would happen?

Nope I was thinking along the lines of the USA geting right back at them. Do you think that would happen?

Never heard of shorthand, have you?Not in any sense that would make it appropriate here.
Is it the kind of shorthand secretaries uses when taking dictations because otherwise they can't write fast enough to keep up? They'd still type it out in full when sending out the memo/letter..

lots of people would die. What do you think would happen?

Nope I was thinking along the lines of the USA geting right back at them. Do you think that would happen?

Proper? According to what standards?

Meh.. One of these days I really should start work on a greasemonkey userscript to just rewrite people's posts to acceptable (for me) standards..


Hehe or you could just stop whingeing about it. I mean you can understand what is being communicated huh?

Bad choice of assertion, I think - unless you think there is a legitimate claim on 'freedom' to rape and maurder...

'Freedom' is just one more of those nebulous concepts that doesn't really mean anything, except in a purely subjective way.

There's a very fundamental difference between ownership of a gun, and running around and pillaging. Ownership of a gun harms no body, intrinsically, whilst rape and pillage does.

Your argument is somewhat strawmannish.

No, it's simply maybe that I'm missing the invisible chains that I'm bound with in my day to day life here - that owning a gun would suddenly release me from my bonds of servitude.

Oh wait..... there are none. Because owning a weapon doesn't make one any more or less free. Since you brought liberty and freedom into this in the first place, I think you should dig a little deeper into the meaning of the concepts behind the words.

You are not able to own a gun, therefore, you experience a specific restriction on your liberty. You are therefore less free on that singular point alone. Conceptually, it's not that hard.

There's a very fundamental difference between ownership of a gun, and running around and pillaging. Ownership of a gun harms no body, intrinsically, whilst rape and pillage does.

Your argument is somewhat strawmannish.

Owning a penis doesn't mean I'm automatically a rapist.

Owning a penis doesn't mean I'm automatically a rapist.

I heard a talk by someone who would make that claim, though.

Ugh.

Why?
A "Right" that you are unable to defend is not right it is a gift from your ruler that can be withdrawn at any time. anyway having the ruling powers a little nervous is good for them:mp5:

Hehe or you could just stop whingeing about it. I mean you can understand what is being communicated huh?I usually don't say anything about it, but since it was brought up..
Besides, jst bcs ts ndrstndbl dsnt mk it prfrble..

I usually don't say anything about it, but since it was brought up..
Besides, jst bcs ts ndrstndbl dsnt mk it prfrble..

Hahah very funny. Still prefrable or not this here place is not a fuedal system, and nor are you it's lord. So I guess he can actulay write in any manor he chooses!

Hahah very funny. Still prefrable or not this here place is not a fuedal system, and nor are you it's lord. So I guess he can actulay write in any manor he chooses!Unless he's tresspassing in said manor ;)
But certainly, he's free to write as he wishes. And likewise I'm free to complain or not. And anyone is free to respond to that as they like too.
But once I rule the world I shall rain firey death upon you all, muahAHAHAAAA!

Nope I was thinking along the lines of the USA geting right back at them. Do you think that would happen?

Would the US automatically start popping nukes? No. Would they retaliate? Yes.

A "Right" that you are unable to defend is not right it is a gift from your ruler that can be withdrawn at any time. anyway having the ruling powers a little nervous is good for them :mp5:


I agree, especially when the executive branch of the government is trying to undermine the legislative right now. It would be much easier for a would be dictator to gain full control if the populations guns were somehow taken away from them. As far as I am concerned they will get my gun when they pull it from my cold stiff fingers.

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)

Plus, you can never get rid of all the guns - just look at the drug trade, how is that working out?

Even if there is a majority that feels unsafe and pisses their pants whenever they see a gun, it is still my right to own one.

For example - say that men decided that women should not have any rights and maybe should just be sexual servants for guys. If this were put to a vote and it passed (because the men voted for it and they are a majority) would that make it right?


You are right, taking the legal fire arms will open the door for many more illegal untracable weapons, so what would be the point?

The right to bear arms may well be the most important right of all.

I agree, especially when the executive branch of the government is trying to undermine the legislative right now. It would be much easier for a would be dictator to gain full control if the populations guns were somehow taken away from them. As far as I am concerned they will get my gun when they pull it from my cold stiff fingers.




It most certainly is, for the reasons stated above.

Yet you show such a lack of trust in your government that you arm yourself for your 'protection'. *shrug* To me it seems like you have no faith in the institution at all.



Europe is not one country. You fail on history.



Fail as you base this on your previous assertion.



Ibid.


I...don't care.



How cutting. You've bowled me over with the breadth and strength of your argument.

"Na huh. You're a poopy head".

And you still haven't explained how that makes you "freer" than me.




The Reason I keep firearms, is that accurately using them requires practice, the best way to practice is to go down to a range and put holes in a sheet of paper. And I can practice varying shooting drills, drawing out of a concealed holster, out of an unconcealed holster, Double tap drills, etc, you get the idea. As for the Rifle, I use it to hunt squirrel and Beaver.

No shit Europe isn't one country, but by and large the Feudal system was dominate in all of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. I was referring to it as a region, since it tends to have a collective history.



Not all of the colonies were crown colonies, they were settlers with only scant allegieance to any government in Europe. Massachuesets is a perfect example, as is Pennsylvania. So they had to rely only on themselves for defense. And both fought their share of Indian Wars without the help of any organized European Army.



All male Americans are still part of the Unorganized Militia(I noticed you neglected to reply to that), which can be called at any time of national crisis to organize into a Militia under control of the state or federal authorities.

Just a few thoughts about the right to bear arms....

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense... -- John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law. -- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --- Thomas Jefferson in "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. -- Edward Abbey in Abbey's Road, p.39 (Plume, 1979)

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power. -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, author of Japanese best-seller Strawberry Road

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington


Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty; the first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us to do something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed by the first and then the rest of our freedoms. -- Andrew Ford

I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

If those in government are heedless of reason, the people must patiently submit to Bondage, or stand upon their own Defence; which if they are enabled to do, they shall never be put upon it, but their Swords may grow rusty in their hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it. -- J. Trenchard & W. Moyle, An Argument Showing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarch (London, 1697).

The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. -- Edward Abbey

To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form. -- Roy Innis, National Chairman of Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), The Washington Post, September 5, 1988

Some princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects.... But when you disarm them, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred against you. And because the government cannot remain unarmed, it follows that the government turns to hired police. Therefore a wise prince has always distributed arms to the general population. -- Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 20 (L. Ricci translation, pg. 105, 1952)

The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob. -- Malcolm X, in Malcolm X at 337, J. Clarke ed. (New York, N.Y., 1969)

And last, but not least...

Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed. -- Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996.

Y'all be safe out there.

Vic

To borrow a few words from vic ... thanks vic

The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as an American, I shall not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of ruthless and violent would be dictator/s.

Then you're a retard.

Wow, way to respond to the actual point I made and not pick out an unrepresentative statement to base a character judgement on.

Let's try this again.

Having the freedom to do a thing is not intrinsically good. The value of a freedom is dependent upon the value of the thing you are free to do. For example, voting is a good thing, therefore the freedom to vote is good. Killing someone is a bad thing, therefore the freedom to kill someone is a bad thing.

Let's take a look at the value of owning a gun.
It can be described as protection against violence because it dissociates your capability to do harm to another person from your physical strength.
It can be used for hunting.
They... look cool?
However, they can also be used to kill a person as a premeditated crime, in the commission of another crime such as theft, or to kill a person as an act of passion.

It seems to me that the cons far outweigh the pros. Owning a gun, particularly guns not used for hunting is not a 'good thing'. Therefore, the freedom to own one of those guns is also not a 'good thing'.

If people need something for protection, use a tazer.
If they want to display historical arms, fine. No ammunition though.

You are not able to own a gun, therefore, you experience a specific restriction on your liberty.
I do?! Damn. I feel really oppressed now.

Oh now, wait. I still don't. Guess what? My life is not impacted upon by the lack of the 'right' to carry a weapon. Ergo, I am as free as you.

You are therefore less free on that singular point alone. Conceptually, it's not that hard.
No, being locked up unjustly would make me less free.
Being forced to be without water would make me less free.
Being forced to be without shelter would make me less free.
Being forced to work in a particular job because of my gender would make me less free.
Being forced to practice a religion would make me less free.

Those impact on freedom. Not carrying a gun, does not.

No shit Europe isn't one country, but by and large the Feudal system was dominate in all of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. I was referring to it as a region, since it tends to have a collective history.

No, it really doesn't and the feudal system has nothing to do with this. (By the by, you fail really badly at history.)



Not all of the colonies were crown colonies, they were settlers with only scant allegieance to any government in Europe. Massachuesets is a perfect example, as is Pennsylvania. So they had to rely only on themselves for defense. And both fought their share of Indian Wars without the help of any organized European Army.
Erm, ok? Relevance?


All male Americans are still part of the Unorganized Militia(I noticed you neglected to reply to that), which can be called at any time of national crisis to organize into a Militia under control of the state or federal authorities.
I didn't 'neglect' to respond to anything. I also didn't bring up Albania. You know why? Relevance to the point at hand.

Most people who own guns do not rape and murder.

Many people who rape and murder do not own guns.

Can you prove either of those things?

But - on to more important things: "any restriction is inherently a restriction on freedom", was the quote I was responding to.

The problem with that assertion is that it automatically assumes that 'restriction' is a bad thing. On the contrary, I believe that - for example - rape and murder should be restricted.

Follow the logic.

Britain and Washington DC both tried it. It was made of phail.

Meanwhile, Texas and a bunch of other states recently legalized concealed carry, and the crime rates have been going down ever since.

Hmmmm.

Can you prove it?

Better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

Not strictly true.

It isn't that unusual to hear of weapoms never fired in anger, that are accidentally discharged whilst being cleaned, or that a child accidentally blows their own head (or part of a friend) to hell with.

In those cases, it is very much not "better to have something and not need it".

Then you're a retard.

Someone is 'a retard' just because they believe in a negative gun law?

I'm trying to decide if it's worth continuing trying to debate with you, when you seem so intently set on getting yourself deleted first...

There's a very fundamental difference between ownership of a gun, and running around and pillaging. Ownership of a gun harms no body, intrinsically, whilst rape and pillage does.

Your argument is somewhat strawmannish.

Not, at all - the statement I was retorting to, suggested that restriction was somehow intrinsically bad. That one can justify a thing just by suggesting that opposing it 'restricts freedom'.

Can you prove either of those things?

But - on to more important things: "any restriction is inherently a restriction on freedom", was the quote I was responding to.

The problem with that assertion is that it automatically assumes that 'restriction' is a bad thing. On the contrary, I believe that - for example - rape and murder should be restricted.

Follow the logic.

I own a firearm, and I have never raped or killed anyone. While I am only 1 person, I also know that my uncle, my brother in law, and his father also have never raped or killed anyone.

I own a firearm, and I have never raped or killed anyone. While I am only 1 person, I also know that my uncle, my brother in law, and his father also have never raped or killed anyone.

I believe, to be entirely honest, you would have to admit that the only one of those things you 'know', is the one about yourself - anything you claim about your 'uncle', 'brother-in-law' and 'his father' is taken on faith.

Also - even if you were entirely correct, that still doesn't prove that most people who rape and/or murder do/don't have guns...

I believe, to be entirely honest, you would have to admit that the only one of those things you 'know', is the one about yourself - anything you claim about your 'uncle', 'brother-in-law' and 'his father' is taken on faith.

Also - even if you were entirely correct, that still doesn't prove that most people who rape and/or murder do/don't have guns...


I was responding to you asking G-Max to prove that, "Most people who own guns do not rape and murder." (you asked him to prove both statements). And yes, while I do have to take the word of my uncle, brother in law, and his father about not having raped or killed anyone, I know them well enough to believe them.

I was responding to you asking G-Max to prove that, "Most people who own guns do not rape and murder." (you asked him to prove both statements). And yes, while I do have to take the word of my uncle, brother in law, and his father about not having raped or killed anyone, I know them well enough to believe them.

First - your anecdotal 'evidence' is nice, but hardly proof of anything.

Second - You think you know people. The only person you know anything about... is still you.

Third - it's a diversion anyway. The original point being made was about whether 'restricting freedom' is automatically bad.

Grave just because you are against guns doesn't mean you are allowed to suggest that all gun owners mean to use them in some type of criminal activity. I take offense to that suggestion as I am a law abiding citizen of the US and I own a registered gun. Also you might try to use words that are more common instead of words that you have to look up to get the meaning. Why not just say heresay instead of anecdotal? It sounds like you are tring to talk down to us.

Guns are your right, knives are my left.

Bayonets & Knives with guns in the handles are the middle ... right? ;)

Grave just because you are against guns doesn't mean you are allowed to suggest that all gun owners mean to use them in some type of criminal activity. I take offense to that suggestion as I am a law abiding citizen of the US and I own a registered gun. Also you might try to use words that are more common instead of words that you have to look up to get the meaning. Why not just say heresay instead of anecdotal? It sounds like you are tring to talk down to us.

1) Let me start at the 'wrong' end: I don't mean to use 'words that you have to look up to get the meaning'. There is nothing contrived about it - it's just my standard vocabulary.

I actually do make a deliberate effort to curb my parlance when I'm talking a field I know technically.

I am anaspeptic, phrasmotic... even compunctuous... to have caused you such pericombobulations.

2) I don't think I was suggesting that "all gun owners mean to use them in some type of criminal activity". Someone said banning weapons was a restriction on freedom. I pointed out that we often 'restrict freedom' and don't consider it a bad thing.

3) I'm not even actually 'against guns'. I just don't believe that there is some god-given 'right' that says every person should have access to tools of destruction.

1) Let me start at the 'wrong' end: I don't mean to use 'words that you have to look up to get the meaning'. There is nothing contrived about it - it's just my standard vocabulary.

I actually do make a deliberate effort to curb my parlance when I'm talking a field I know technically.

I am anaspeptic, phrasmotic... even compunctuous... to have caused you such pericombobulations.

2) I don't think I was suggesting that "all gun owners mean to use them in some type of criminal activity". Someone said banning weapons was a restriction on freedom. I pointed out that we often 'restrict freedom' and don't consider it a bad thing.

3) I'm not even actually 'against guns'. I just don't believe that there is some god-given 'right' that says every person should have access to tools of destruction.


Guns can be used for good or bad, you can kill your neighbor or hunt deer to feed your family. The point is that the politians only know black and white, on or off, to them there is no in between. Further they have more power over a people that can't defend itself. Guns are a tool, it's the user that is evil or not.
Doesn't it seem weird to anyone but me that the parents of the man who caused 911 was at the Bushes house the same morning it happened and was flown out of the US by a US plane when nothing else was allowed to fly? Then George W inacts the Homeland Security .... for our own protection of course. Now he says that he doesn't have to ask congresses permission to do anything. Finally if he can take our guns away from us he would have no serious opposion from anyone to a hostile take over of the country.

Inspired by the other gun threads.

I get tired of people wanting to take away guns - it is my right to have them.

And they sure as hell are not pointless - not only are they used for sport/hunting/police/military/etc it is also reasonable to allow them in self-defense. (this makes as much sense as banning cars because people get killed in them, saying that they 'don't do anything' since you can ride a bike)


Firstly, it is not your right to have them. The constitution of the United States of America says you may have one. There are many countries in the world who disagree with you. It is not your right. It is a privilage granted to you by living in the USA under the American constitution. If it were a right it would be a universal human right and that is not the case

Secondly, the problem with a gun is its power is not purely defensive. It can be used too easily to be offensive. The ease of switch of that is to dangerous. And your comparison to the car is flawed. A car can be safe when it is being used for its primary purpose (to travel) however a gun cannot be safe to the same level. It may only be safe if it is not used. Whatever you shoot at you will damage something and that will be unsafe. Guns are not at all comparable to cars. They are far far to dangerous to allow anyone and everyone to have one and should be treeted as such, as they are in the United Kingdom.

Firstly, it is not your right to have them. The constitution of the United States of America says you may have one. There are many countries in the world who disagree with you. It is not your right. It is a privilage granted to you by living in the USA under the American constitution. If it were a right it would be a universal human right and that is not the case

The COTUS doesn't grant rights.

Secondly, the problem with a gun is its power is not purely defensive. It can be used too easily to be offensive. The ease of switch of that is to dangerous. And your comparison to the car is flawed. A car can be safe when it is being used for its primary purpose (to travel) however a gun cannot be safe to the same level. It may only be safe if it is not used. Whatever you shoot at you will damage something and that will be unsafe. Guns are not at all comparable to cars. They are far far to dangerous to allow anyone and everyone to have one and should be treeted as such, as they are in the United Kingdom.

So all or nothing. Nice false dichotomy.

Let's not forget that guns are not the only weapons we citizens have access to. I can make napalm out of gas and styrofoam or frozen orange juice concentrate. Nitroglycerin can be produced with lard, lime, and other simple materials. I can make a Molotov Cocktail in a couple minutes. I already have access to short-range artillery (small changes to a model rocket kit). And let's not forget what one can do with a soda can, some string (flammable), an M-80, and some gas.

That being said, I fully condone legalization of gun ownership, because all governments that have ever existed turned out bad at some point and I want to be able to defend my rights when that time comes for the US, if it happens to be within my lifespan. *resists posting gun smiley, despite the fact that it would fit here*

Firstly, it is not your right to have them. The constitution of the United States of America says you may have one. There are many countries in the world who disagree with you. It is not your right. It is a privilage granted to you by living in the USA under the American constitution. If it were a right it would be a universal human right and that is not the case

Secondly, the problem with a gun is its power is not purely defensive. It can be used too easily to be offensive. The ease of switch of that is to dangerous. And your comparison to the car is flawed. A car can be safe when it is being used for its primary purpose (to travel) however a gun cannot be safe to the same level. It may only be safe if it is not used. Whatever you shoot at you will damage something and that will be unsafe. Guns are not at all comparable to cars. They are far far to dangerous to allow anyone and everyone to have one and should be treeted as such, as they are in the United Kingdom.


That is your opinion, people are evil not guns. If you take away all the legal guns people like I own then all that is left is the llegal ones, or do you really think the criminals will willingly turn in their guns just because the government says so? :rolleyes:

Let's not forget that guns are not the only weapons we citizens have access to. I can make napalm out of gas and styrofoam or frozen orange juice concentrate. Nitroglycerin can be produced with lard, lime, and other simple materials. I can make a Molotov Cocktail in a couple minutes. I already have access to short-range artillery (small changes to a model rocket kit). And let's not forget what one can do with a soda can, some string (flammable), an M-80, and some gas.

That being said, I fully condone legalization of gun ownership, because all governments that have ever existed turned out bad at some point and I want to be able to defend my rights when that time comes for the US, if it happens to be within my lifespan . *resists posting gun smiley, despite the fact that it would fit here*


My point exactly

That is your opinion, people are evil not guns

But guns empower evil people to do greater evil. And the good that the good people do with them does not out weigh it. Hunting etc are no subsitute for the dangers of legalising guns. Although legal guns do not cause most of the crime, it will be far harder to illegally get a gun if the cannot simply be aquired at your local sporting goods warehouse


If you take away all the legal guns people like I own then all that is left is the llegal ones, or do you really think the criminals will willingly turn in their guns just because the government says so

No, I think it will be far harder to get hold of illegal guns.

But guns empower evil people to do greater evil. And the good that the good people do with them does not out weigh it. Hunting etc are no subsitute for the dangers of legalising guns. Although legal guns do not cause most of the crime, it will be far harder to illegally get a gun if the cannot simply be aquired at your local sporting goods warehouse

That is all a matter of opinion.



No, I think it will be far harder to get hold of illegal guns.

You think wrong.

I can name numerous countries where firearms are near impossible to obtain legally but there is high levels of crimes committed w/ illegal ones.

The COTUS doesn't grant rights.

Thats what I said. It gives you privialges


So all or nothing. Nice false dichotomy.

Disprove it then

Guns are simply too dangerous to allow anyone and everyone to have access to. While there are some restrictions obviously, I do not see the reasons for needing a gun as legitimate enough for you to enable people who use them for evil puroposes to have them

That is all a matter of opinion.


No, its fact. Guns DO empower people to do more evil than they could do if they did not have them. The need to hunt animals etc does not compare with the need to be safe on the street. If you think it does you are seriously deranged.


You think wrong.

I can name numerous countries where firearms are near impossible to obtain legally but there is high levels of crimes committed w/ illegal ones.

I suspect that in those countries there are other reasons for that state of affairs. And anyway, nowhere holds candle to the US's record on gun crime.

Thats what I said. It gives you privialges

Nope, wrong again. It recognizes fundamental rights.



Disprove it then

Guns are simply too dangerous to allow anyone and everyone to have access to. While there are some restrictions obviously, I do not see the reasons for needing a gun as legitimate enough for you to enable people who use them for evil puroposes to have them

Disprove a false dichotomy? OK. Done.

Just because you are incapable of seeing any reason why people should own firearms means little to the fact that there are reasons and that your opinion that they cause more harm than good is not a good enough reason to try to ban/confiscate them.

My point exactly

Yes, because we all know that republics' rights don't last forever.

Especially not the ones in republics with money and power being hand-in-hand.

(and yes, THE US IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY.)

No, its fact. Guns DO empower people to do more evil than they could do if they did not have them. The need to hunt animals etc does not compare with the need to be safe on the street. If you think it does you are seriously deranged.

Nice moving of the goalposts. Your definition "needs" do not measure up to reality.

Nice way to go straight to the insults BTW.



I suspect that in those countries there are other reasons for that state of affairs. And anyway, nowhere holds candle to the US's record on gun crime.

Other reasons for crime? Really?

Why don't you prove that nowhere has higher firearm crime than the US. Go ahead, I'll wait.

"Firstly, it is not your right to have them. The constitution of the United States of America says you may have one. There are many countries in the world who disagree with you. It is not your right. It is a privilage granted to you by living in the USA under the American constitution. If it were a right it would be a universal human right and that is not the case"---Neo Sanderstead


Firstly, it IS my right. The right to self defense doesn't have to be granted by anyone. As with all rights, you automatically have them. They are either respected or they are taken away, they are not GIVEN. Just because most countries in the world do not currently respect this right does not make it any less valuable or desirable.

Firstly, it IS my right. The right to self defense doesn't have to be granted by anyone.

Are you claiming that some God-given right to self-defense entails a right to property ownership?

I am saying nobody has any right or authority to take your firearms from you or punish you for exercising your right to defend yourself. The ownership isn't important, the possession and use is important.

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. My possession of a firearm is necessary for my exercise of self defense, and it certainly does not infringe on your rights in any way.

I am saying nobody has any right or authority to take your firearms from you or punish you for exercising your right to defend yourself.

At what age does this right come into being? Or does it start as soon as we are born? Would a three year old have the same rights to possession of a firearm as you?

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. My possession of a firearm is necessary for my exercise of self defense, and it certainly does not infringe on your rights in any way.

A gun is required to defend yourself?

My possession of a firearm is necessary for my exercise of self defense, and it certainly does not infringe on your rights in any way.

What rights do I possess? You must know them all to be sure that they are left uninfringed by objects in your possession.

Rights don't 'come into being', they exist. No, a 3 year old has the same right to self defense as i do. As soon as someone can competently handle and use them, then they have a right to them. Someone with bouts of temporary insanity cannot competently handle a firearm.

That's where the fuzzy part comes in....where exactly you draw the line between competent and incompetent.

"What rights do I possess? You must know them all to be sure that they are left uninfringed by objects in your possession."---Bodies Without Organs

Maybe if you had taken the time to read my previous post, you wouldn't feel the need to ask that question.

"What rights do I possess? You must know them all to be sure that they are left uninfringed by objects in your possession."---Bodies Without Organs

Maybe if you had taken the time to read my previous post, you wouldn't feel the need to ask that question.


My rights end where yours begin and vice versa.

All I see is a blanket assertion with no rationale behind it given.

Rights don't 'come into being', they exist. No, a 3 year old has the same right to self defense as i do. As soon as someone can competently handle and use them, then they have a right to them.

So the universe cares which gives us our rights cares about human competence?

Rights don't 'come into being', they exist.

They just exist? Humans have to decide what fundamental rights are so how you can say that rights existed before we thought them up... not that owning a gun is a basic right. Not any basic right I'm aware of anyway.

"They just exist? Humans have to decide what fundamental rights are so how you can say that rights existed before we thought them up... not that owning a gun is a basic right. Not any basic right I'm aware of anyway."---Utracia

"All I see is a blanket assertion with no rationale behind it given."---Bodies Without Organs


The concept that the rights of one person extend to everything that does not infringe on others is simple the concept that there is no right to force other people to do what you want them to.

The only argument against this concept of rights is that there is a right to force others to do as you will.

The reality of the world is that those with power do what they want, and they cannot be stopped unless another group finds a way to take or create enough power for themselves. What is right is not always what actually happens. Obviously, or there wouldn't be murders, rapes, etc.

The concept that the rights of one person extend to everything that does not infringe on others is simple the concept that there is no right to force other people to do what you want them to.

The only argument against this concept of rights is that there is a right to force others to do as you will.

The reality of the world is that those with power do what they want, and they cannot be stopped unless another group finds a way to take or create enough power for themselves. What is right is not always what actually happens. Obviously, or there wouldn't be murders, rapes, etc.

Considering that a gun by its very design kills people, how you can argue that this particular possession doesn't affect other people except its owner is beyond me. This particular right is one that most certainly can infringe on the rights of others.

And you really should use the "quote" button when responding, it will make it easier for all of us.

I do not like the look of the format that this site uses for quotes. But....i am able to read it and understand it just fine, and don't come whining to you about it.

"Considering that a gun by its very design kills people, how you can argue that this particular possession doesn't affect other people except its owner is beyond me. This particular right is one that most certainly can infringe on the rights of others."---Utracia

You haven't made any argument for how exactly an inanimate object is supposed to go around infringing upon your rights. Please provide your evidence that my firearms are infringing upon your rights. I'm very interested in seeing that.

Considering that a gun by its very design kills people, how you can argue that this particular possession doesn't affect other people except its owner is beyond me. This particular right is one that most certainly can infringe on the rights of others.

And you really should use the "quote" button when responding, it will make it easier for all of us.

A gun can kill, but as pointed out in previous threads, there are target pistols that are specifically designed to put little round holes in paper targets, from beyond arm's reach. Yes, they can still kill, but that's not the primary purpose of those particular firearms.

To your statement of, "...how you can argue that this particular possession doesn't affect other people except its owner is beyond me.". I own a firearm (I've posted a pic of it on numerous occasions). My possesion of my rifle does not affect anyone else but me, because I am the only person who can access it (trigger lock, rifle case lock, and hidden storage container lock), I'm the only one that shoots it (at the range), and I have never pointed my rifle at anything except the paper targets I was shooting (again, at the range).

You are right though, that the right to possess a firearm CAN infringe on the rights of another person, if the firearm is used incorrectly/for illegal purposes. But the mere possession of a firearm doesn't automatically infringe on another person's rights.

The concept that the rights of one person extend to everything that does not infringe on others is simple the concept that there is no right to force other people to do what you want them to.

The only argument against this concept of rights is that there is a right to force others to do as you will.

Not if you reject the whole idea of innate rights. I have yet to see any proof or convincing argument for their existence.

"Not if you reject the whole idea of innate rights. I have yet to see any proof or convincing argument for their existence."---Bodies Without Organs

Well, if you are rejecting the whole idea of innate rights, then where do you come up with your idea that some people have a right to force their will on others?

Well, if you are rejecting the whole idea of innate rights, then where do you come up with your idea that some people have a right to force their will on others?

Since when did I claim such a thing?

In my personal philosophy, rigorous regulation and standards can remedy many worries and frights of private gun ownership. Waiting periods, extensive personal record auditing, along with an overall price hike for hand guns, would work in my opinion. Assault weapons have no place in the citizenries possession, though hand guns are fine.

The government should look into forcing overall price hikes for all handgun sales nationally, while compensating the distributer and supplier too a certain degree. Eventually the gun market sales will stagnate, regulations will discourage ownership, and the ones with guns, theoretically will be the sensible crowd.

"In my personal philosophy, rigorous regulation and standards can remedy many worries and frights of private gun ownership. Waiting periods, extensive personal record auditing, along with an overall price hike for hand guns, would work in my opinion. Assault weapons have no place in the citizenries possession, though hand guns are fine.

The government should look into forcing overall price hikes for all handgun sales nationally, while compensating the distributer and supplier too a certain degree. Eventually the gun market sales will stagnate, regulations will discourage ownership, and the ones with guns, theoretically will be the sensible crowd."---New Ausha

So, your personal philosophy is that
A) a person threatened by an abusive ex should be left without the ability to defend themself merely because they did not foresee the situation?
B) poor people should be left less able to afford effective self defense
C) people should be able to defend themselves from common criminals...but should be left helpless against governments, which have murdered far more people
D) self defense should be 'discouraged'

i don't think your philosophy has a lot of good points to it

But guns empower evil people to do greater evil. And the good that the good people do with them does not out weigh it. Hunting etc are no subsitute for the dangers of legalising guns. Although legal guns do not cause most of the crime, it will be far harder to illegally get a gun if the cannot simply be aquired at your local sporting goods warehouse



No, I think it will be far harder to get hold of illegal guns.


I don't think so, you are forgeting that people who want to have a gun will find a way to have them regardless. This is especially true of criminals who use them for criminals uses. I agree that a gun can empower evil people, but should they be the only ones so empowered? I say no! Let them fear doing evil with their guns, because there are good men out there with guns to stop them.

Yes, because we all know that republics' rights don't last forever.

Especially not the ones in republics with money and power being hand-in-hand.

(and yes, THE US IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY.)


It is both

At what age does this right come into being? Or does it start as soon as we are born? Would a three year old have the same rights to possession of a firearm as you?


You know better then that, stop trying to make something out of this that it is not.

A gun is required to defend yourself?


Yes it is if those you are defending yourself against are armed and mean to harm or kill you. This is common sense, so why are you trying to make it sound like it is folly.