NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this is a bit late, but in the wake of things like the VA tech shooting, etc., does anybody else think that the ownership of guns (at least privately) should be banned in the US?

I'm sort of on the fence for this one. I know the second amendment has been done to death, but this is a question of where rights come from, etc. Ignoring old precedent, right or wrong?

Thanks!

And it begins again.....

Any government control of weapons is by its very nature ridiculous as the primary purpose of civilian firearms is for the civilian population to be able to overthrow their goverment at any time.


Bestest quote ever, from this very board too.

Any government control of weapons is by its very nature ridiculous as the primary purpose of civilian firearms is for the civilian population to be able to overthrow their goverment at any time.
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. That is patently the stupidest argument standing in favor of civilian gun ownership.

I know this is a bit late, but in the wake of things like the VA tech shooting, etc., does anybody else think that the ownership of guns (at least privately) should be banned in the US?

I'm sort of on the fence for this one. I know the second amendment has been done to death, but this is a question of where rights come from, etc. Ignoring old precedent, right or wrong?

Thanks!

Ignoring the constitution for a moment, the people want guns. Anti-gun politicians have a hard time getting elected in much of the country.

Self-defense is a human right, and the ultimate safeguard of liberty from its enemies.

Deny people their right to defend themselves, and you put them even more at the mercy of more powerful people than they already are.

its worked in the U.K then again we have don't have an obsession with guns or anything

though if I was in the US I would want a gun, Kansas folk scare me

:( that damn cricle again

People in the US need guns to defend themselves from criminals. In countries with less guns, that isn't the case.
I believe it's also important that guns be registered, their purchasers undergo background checks, and that there be a mandatory thee-day waiting period.
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. That is patently the stupidest argument standing in favor of civilian gun ownership.
Agreed. The idea that citizens could or would stand up to the modern army of their own country is ridiculous. Maybe that works in the third world, but here the government has tanks, body armor and virtually no logistical limitations on its own soil.

Any government control of weapons is by its very nature ridiculous as the primary purpose of civilian firearms is for the civilian population to be able to overthrow their goverment at any time.


Bestest quote ever, from this very board too.

Right, in order for the average citizen to be able to overthrow the government we need to hand out some nuclear weapons. Please form an orderly queue, line on the left, one nuke each.

Since private protection of person and property is the cornerstone of my political philosophy, I would give private gun ownership a resounding yes.

It is vital in my opinion, for any nation to have standing militia. To this end, firearms should most definately be legalized.

I fully support the private ownership of firearms, in fact I have about as many NFA items as I do regular firearms. And Yes, I carry every day.

Self-defense is a human right, and the ultimate safeguard of liberty from its enemies.

Deny people their right to defend themselves, and you put them even more at the mercy of more powerful people than they already are.
Yep.

If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. That is patently the stupidest argument standing in favor of civilian gun ownership.

yea, stop being so paranoid about your own government....

I know this is a bit late, but in the wake of things like the VA tech shooting, etc., does anybody else think that the ownership of guns (at least privately) should be banned in the US?

I'm sort of on the fence for this one. I know the second amendment has been done to death, but this is a question of where rights come from, etc. Ignoring old precedent, right or wrong?

Thanks!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/pvsmack/assorted/AwJeez.jpg

Seriously, we still have a gun control thread on the first page, there isn't a need for another one. But, for the sake of answering your question, ....

As the owner of a firearm, I (of course) believe that private citizens (that aren't convicted felons, or ajudicated mentally incompetent) should be allowed to own firearms.

ETA: Page 2 is mine! :D

People in the US need guns to defend themselves from criminals. In countries with less guns, that isn't the case.
I believe it's also important that guns be registered, their purchasers undergo background checks, and that there be a mandatory thee-day waiting period.

Agreed. The idea that citizens could or would stand up to the modern army of their own country is ridiculous. Maybe that works in the third world, but here the government has tanks, body armor and virtually no logistical limitations on its own soil.

I had a background check performed when I bought my rifle, and I had to wait 15 days from the time I purchased it to pick it up (I don't currently have a CT CCW or hunting license, so the 15 days was mandatory in CT).

Just out of curiosity though, what do you hope to accomplish with firearms registration?

The idea that citizens could or would stand up to the modern army of their own country is ridiculous. Maybe that works in the third world, but here the government has tanks, body armor and virtually no logistical limitations on its own soil.

That would change very quickly...were the situation to ever reach that point.

As for tanks and body armor...I would think that Iraq has conclusively shown that guerilla warfare can readily stand up to a modern conventional force, provided that the guerillas have the will to continue fighting.

Barring complete total war on it's own populace (carpet bombing of major urban centers, poisoning water sources, etc.), the U.S. armed forces would have just as much trouble with an American guerilla war as they have had in Iraq and Vietnam.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity

nuff said.

Banning firearms is ludicrous at best. Not only would it disable the population in terms of the ability to overthrow their government, it just plain wouldnt work.

How would one go about collecting all the guns? And im pretty damned sure criminals wouldnt turn in their weapons, allowing robberies to be all the easier.

Plus think about the hunters. I myself hunt annually, and if taught proper use, guns can be a useful tool.

But i do agree that there should be a federal standard regarding qualifications of gun ownership. For example, you should not be allowed to have a gun in a dorm room. Stricter rules yes, outright banning, hell no.


-EDIT-

That would change very quickly...were the situation to ever reach that point.

As for tanks and body armor...I would think that Iraq has conclusively shown that guerilla warfare can readily stand up to a modern conventional force, provided that the guerillas have the will to continue fighting.

Barring complete total war on it's own populace (carpet bombing of major urban centers, poisoning water sources, etc.), the U.S. armed forces would have just as much trouble with an American guerilla war as they have had in Iraq and Vietnam.


How would you commence guerrilla tactics with no weaponry in the first place? If they take all our guns away, how do we pose a threat? Throw rocks and sticks? Even if we do capture some weapons, we'd be lucky to get more than 20 at one time, and even that seems like a high number for an unarmed raid on a military armory.

Skaalmere;12655031']How would you commence guerrilla tactics with no weaponry in the first place? If they take all our guns away, how do we pose a threat?

I'd very much like for you to point out where I mentioned gun control in any way, shape, or form.

I think the "defence against tyranny" argument burnt to death in Waco, Texas fourteen years ago. A few firearms are not going to be any defence against a government prepared to send in the tanks. A general uprising might change that argument, and I will let you ponder the chances of that happening in any situation.

A government not prepared to send in tanks against civilians may respond better to civil disobedience, than violence.

If you want to look at how civilians attack troops, don't look at this argument for guns, look at Northern Ireland, look at Iraq, the weapon of choice for the insurgent is the bomb.

Defence against tyranny is a better argument for private ownership of Semtex, then firearms.

As to the reasons I think private ownership of firearms is a good thing, and should not be banned. First is provate property, you have the right to own and use property (to the extent that you do not violate other peoples' rights). Second is self-defence, you have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property from aggression.

Now, some anti-gun types will acknowledge this, but still oppose private ownership of firearms. This is an incoherent attitude. You cannot favour a right, without favouring private ownership of the means necessary, for example, you cannot say you're for free speech if you think the internet should be destroyed, or you want government ownership of all media. You can't favour freedom of movement, and favour banning privately-owned cars in favour of public transport.

If you are for the right to something, then you must be for the means necessary, and for many people, or even all people, firearms are a necessary means for self-defence.

I oppose registries because they don't seem to do any good, they cost a lot of money, and if the government changes its mind, and decides to steal your firearms, they'll know where to go (to the extent the registry is accurate).

I am against licensing of shooters as well, because they can be abused. South Africa's Apartheid government is an example of how licensing of shooters can be abused (you had to ask the Police for a license, you can imagine the chances Blacks had of getting the Police to grant a license). The current government has used licensing to enact a de facto ban on civilian ownership of firearms (though they haven't disarmed the gangs, or accounted for the ANC's weapons)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/03/news/guns.php

As for background checks, street dealers don't use them, straw purchasers evade them, and thieves don't let their victims do background checks before they steal the weapons.

And they didn't stop a certain Korean in Virginia buying arms, even though Federal law said he could not buy them.

How would one go about collecting all the guns?

You'd have to end silly insignificant things that we could easily do without and are better off without, like protection against warrantless search and seizure.

I would think that Iraq has conclusively shown that guerilla warfare can readily stand up to a modern conventional force, provided that the guerillas have the will to continue fighting.

Its not as though they are plugging away with their AK's against US and allied troops, most of their "work" involves bombings against Iraqi civilians.

Self-defense is a human right, and the ultimate safeguard of liberty from its enemies.

Deny people their right to defend themselves, and you put them even more at the mercy of more powerful people than they already are.

Dear god... does that mean you'd hand out tanks, shells, aircraft carriers, bombs and everything else necessary to defend yourself against a modern army (such as the US army, for example) to every citizen, then?

Or did you just not think through that argument before posting?

nuff said.

That does seem to be appropriate. :p

Dear god... does that mean you'd hand out tanks, shells, aircraft carriers, bombs and everything else necessary to defend yourself against a modern army (such as the US army, for example) to every citizen, then?

Or did you just not think through that argument before posting?

Really, do you think that's what he meant? :p

Really, do you think that's what he meant? :p

Nope ;)
But I did take the liberty to think further than the election campaign slogan that his argument was, and considered the consequences.
I sometimed wished more people would do that.

Its not as though they are plugging away with their AK's against US and allied troops, most of their "work" involves bombings against Iraqi civilians.

You don't think there are plenty of American citizens with the know-how to make themselves an explosive device?

I'd bet the number is pretty high.

I forget where I read it, but this quote pretty much sums up the argument for gun ownership:

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without one is a subject."

Yes, I believe in the right to own firearms.

I forget where I read it, but this quote pretty much sums up the argument for gun ownership:

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without one is a subject."

Yes, I believe in the right to own firearms.

Only problem is, if a British owns a gun, for example, they're still a subject. So it can be both. :p

In spirit, though, I agree.

You don't think there are plenty of American citizens with the know-how to make themselves an explosive device?

I'd bet the number is pretty high.

I for one have the know-how. Even nukes!:eek: and for those who do not, finding out how here on the 'net is a no brainer as well. Hell, the basic design for a nuclear bomb can be found on wikipedia.

You don't think there are plenty of American citizens with the know-how to make themselves an explosive device?

I'd bet the number is pretty high.

Most probably do, and I'll admit, I've exploded my share of junk cars and washing-machines out in the woods. :p But that's pretty primitive, non-military-grade stuff.

Only problem is, if a British owns a gun, for example, they're still a subject. So it can be both. :p

In spirit, though, I agree.

True, but we Americans successfully rebelled agains the British, remember?;)

True, but we Americans successfully rebelled agains the British, remember?;)

Well, yes. The saying is true in this country, no doubt. :p

Let's look at this argument. Should guns be banned? If they are banned, how do you accomplish this? By making new laws.

What is this supposed to accomplish? Presumably, by making a law banning all guns, guns will then cease to exist in America. No more gun violence. The main concern is that people with guns may hurt others, or use their weapon to gain property that does not belong to them.

What do we call these people we are trying to defend against? We call them criminals. The definition of a criminal: A person who has, in the past, broken the law! Gasp! Egads! People break laws?

This means that the gun law bans will be respected by law abiding citizens. These people, of course, are no threat to begin with, because they also respect the laws against theft, murder, violence, etc., etc. Do you think a criminal, plotting to murder a rival gang member for instance, is going to suddenly stop, slap himself on the head, and say "How stupid of me! Guns are outlawed! Better use a knife, then..." Of course not.

Aside from the absurdity of the argument (That criminals will magically start following laws that pertain to guns when they follow no others), it simply does not work. Take good ol' Britain, for example. Guns are banned. That means no guns, right? Anyone heard of Google? Trying googling on the subject. I found these:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4420921.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6541115.stm

www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2056872,00.html

The first three results on the page. There were many more like them.

So, in conclusion: Criminals break laws. Therefore, new laws will not deter them. It will, however, succeed in disarming the good people of the land, allowing the criminal to rest assured none of his victims have the means to defend themselves.

AND

Even where guns have been banned, they are somehow still causing problems. I looked up just Britain. Look up any other "gun free" place and you will find the same. To be cliche'd: "Guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people."

Sincerely,

Good ol' American Soldier/Trained Killer! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :p

Most probably do, and I'll admit, I've exploded my share of junk cars and washing-machines out in the woods. But that's pretty primitive, non-military-grade stuff.

Blown up's blown up. Dead's dead. I don't think the corpses care either way.

You'd have to end silly insignificant things that we could easily do without and are better off without, like protection against warrantless search and seizure.


That would be impossible. Not only are they then destroying one of our rights, now they are getting rid of our privacy forever. No way would any sane person allow that to pass.

Then again, this is America, look at prohibition...........


I'd very much like for you to point out where I mentioned gun control in any way, shape, or form.

Not only was I subtly showing how inferior your response was, and how it is borderline thread-jacking, i was making a respectable point. I offered a response on your part just so you wouldnt look like an idiot for deviating from the subject at hand. Sorry for leaving the door open, ill make sure to slam it in your face next time. This is a thread about gun control, not tactical situations regarding scenarios in which a government has begun attacking its own populous.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."


Granted, this guy may not be qualified to write or speak, but i'm pretty sure that, since he was all in favor of the average joe owning a firearm to counter the government's firearms and to defend their property. I'm pretty sure that this guy would be for the private ownership of MANPADs and ATGMs to counteract appropriate government build ups, not the least by a bunch of malcontents drinking away in pubs. He'd probably be arrested under the patriot act or something similar for such writing nowadays. Granted, some guy named George was greatly for gun control, and had a great reason for it.

That would be impossible. Not only are they then destroying one of our rights, now they are getting rid of our privacy forever. No way would any sane person allow that to pass.

As with any prohibition, for it to work, it must be accompanied by an elimination of the freedoms we love, and need.

I forget where I read it, but this quote pretty much sums up the argument for gun ownership:

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without one is a subject."

Yes, I believe in the right to own firearms.

isn't that strange then that a lot of countries don't allow their citizens guns, and yet remain at least as democratic as the usa?

True, but we Americans successfully rebelled agains the British, remember?;)

... with the help of a regular, professionnal army...

I think that all citizens should have a right to own a gun. In Switzerland about every citizen owns a gun and guess how often the things that happened at VT happen there? Never! Because a person knows that if they decide to go and shoot people they'll be shot right back by a bunch of people.

I think that all citizens should have a right to own a gun. In Switzerland about every citizen owns a gun and guess how often the things that happened at VT happen there? Never! Because a person knows that if they decide to go and shoot people they'll be shot right back by a bunch of people.

and never mind about the people who want to feel safe even when they're not able to defend themselves...

I think that all citizens should have a right to own a gun. In Switzerland about every citizen owns a gun and guess how often the things that happened at VT happen there? Never! Because a person knows that if they decide to go and shoot people they'll be shot right back by a bunch of people.

If memory serves, Switzerland recently started tightening their gun control laws. I guess it's not such a pro-gun wonderland anymore.

... with the help of a regular, professionnal army...

And, of course, the cursèd frenchmen from overseas.

Granted, this guy may not be qualified to write or speak, but i'm pretty sure that, since he was all in favor of the average joe owning a firearm to counter the government's firearms and to defend their property. I'm pretty sure that this guy would be for the private ownership of MANPADs and ATGMs to counteract appropriate government build ups, not the least by a bunch of malcontents drinking away in pubs. He'd probably be arrested under the patriot act or something similar for such writing nowadays. Granted, some guy named George was greatly for gun control, and had a great reason for it.

He wanted revolution every twenty years (and verged on defending terrorrism), hence his reasoning for everyone having a gun. Unless I've not been watching the news recently, then there hasn't been an American one for a fair while, so you're not using them in the way he wished, nor do most of you intend to, therefore you can't use him as a defence.


Let's look at this argument. Should guns be banned? If they are banned, how do you accomplish this? By making new laws.

What is this supposed to accomplish? Presumably, by making a law banning all guns, guns will then cease to exist in America. No more gun violence. The main concern is that people with guns may hurt others, or use their weapon to gain property that does not belong to them.

What do we call these people we are trying to defend against? We call them criminals. The definition of a criminal: A person who has, in the past, broken the law! Gasp! Egads! People break laws?

This means that the gun law bans will be respected by law abiding citizens. These people, of course, are no threat to begin with, because they also respect the laws against theft, murder, violence, etc., etc. Do you think a criminal, plotting to murder a rival gang member for instance, is going to suddenly stop, slap himself on the head, and say "How stupid of me! Guns are outlawed! Better use a knife, then..." Of course not.

Aside from the absurdity of the argument (That criminals will magically start following laws that pertain to guns when they follow no others), it simply does not work. Take good ol' Britain, for example. Guns are banned. That means no guns, right? Anyone heard of Google? Trying googling on the subject. I found these:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4420921.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6541115.stm

www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2056872,00.html

The first three results on the page. There were many more like them.

So, in conclusion: Criminals break laws. Therefore, new laws will not deter them. It will, however, succeed in disarming the good people of the land, allowing the criminal to rest assured none of his victims have the means to defend themselves.

AND

Even where guns have been banned, they are somehow still causing problems. I looked up just Britain. Look up any other "gun free" place and you will find the same. To be cliche'd: "Guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people."

Sincerely,

Good ol' American Soldier/Trained Killer! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :p
Firstly, the smileys only make you look idiotic.

Secondly, don't be idiotic. That's like saying we have no laws at all because only law abiding people will follow them. Only criminals benefit from stealing, putting the rest of society at a disadvantage, so lets legalise that as well.

You don't just make laws, you enforce them.:rolleyes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity

nuff said.
Ah yes, because that cocaine snorting crazy was right about absolutely everything he said. Are/were you sexually attracted to your mother? He claimed that as well.

Also
Sometimes a sword is just a sword
Perhaps the reason people fear weapons is that weapons can hurt them, just maybe.

Secondly, don't be idiotic. That's like saying we have no laws at all because only law abiding people will follow them. Only criminals benefit from stealing, putting the rest of society at a disadvantage, so lets legalise that as well.

You don't just make laws, you enforce them.

You act like its merely a question of intent. It is not.

Firstly, the smileys only make you look idiotic.

Secondly, don't be idiotic. That's like saying we have no laws at all because only law abiding people will follow them. Only criminals benefit from stealing, putting the rest of society at a disadvantage, so lets legalise that as well.

You don't just make laws, you enforce them.:rolleyes:


It has been shown, in the above examples and countless others, that a complete ban on all firearms is not feasible. It simply does not work. Name me a "gun-free" zone, and I will show you a case of shootings in that zone.

Therein lies the fundamental difference between gun-control and anti-theft (and other common) laws. If you legalize theft, who do you protect? What is the upside? There is none. Thieves can then go unpunished, with no discernable benefit for the common man.

If you outlaw guns, criminals will still have them, as experience has shown us (see the above articles I linked to on Britain). Where there is a will to get a gun, there is a way, somehow. Once acquired, said criminal can be very confident that anyone he tries to mug, rob, shoot, whatever, will be defenseless. This allows him to operate with inpunity.

If firearms are totally legal, then criminals WILL have them. However, so will the average joe. This puts it in the outlaws mind: If I pull mine, they might pull theirs. This is a deterrent to crime, and gives the common man a means to defend his life and property, should it be threatened. That is benefit to society. A massacre that might have killed 32 people, for instance, instead kills 3, because the 4th had a weapon.

If the latter situation is allowed to exist, then you create no unpunished criminals. If they use their weapons inapproriately, they can be punished for the laws they broke. All you are doing is putting the good people of the world on a level playing field with those who are not so good.

To summarize: Laws exist to punish the bad and thereby protect the good. If a law cannot fulfill this function, it does not deserve to exist. Gun-control punishes the good (through disarming) and protects the bad (by giving them victims). Hence, these laws should not exist.

Jefferson would have called most of the gun control laws pass Tyrany; something most members of the NRA agree with; look at Ruby Ridge...

Dear god... does that mean you'd hand out tanks, shells, aircraft carriers, bombs and everything else necessary to defend yourself against a modern army (such as the US army, for example) to every citizen, then?

Not in such a simplistic fashion, no.

But, yes, the people should control the nation's weaponry. Not the state.

Or did you just not think through that argument before posting?

Like most serious opponents of gun control, in actuality I have heard and responded to precisely that argument plenty of times.

But I did take the liberty to think further than the election campaign slogan that his argument was,

I am not running for office, and the candidates I tend to support generally do not agree with me on this question.

and considered the consequences.

It is worth noting that the position you insist is the logical consequence of mine is in fact nothing of the sort.

First, the argument could easily be made that while the benefit to liberty from gun ownership exceeds the cost, this trade-off breaks down with more extreme examples.

Second, while it is true that popular more or less untrained militias with privately-owned guns would not last very long in a conventional war with the US military, it is unlikely that things would actually play out that way. The task of a popular uprising would not be the defeat of the military, which would have a very difficult time getting its members to slaughter the people they signed up to protect, but the overthrow of the government - an objective which, since it has been accomplished more or less non-violently in the past, can hardly be said to be impossible without advanced military weaponry.

Third, neither the enemies of liberty nor the "more powerful people" I referred to in my post need constitute the state; in fact I phrased it broadly deliberately in anticipation of this objection.

I sometimed wished more people would do that.

Some of us do.

I know this is a bit late, but in the wake of things like the VA tech shooting, etc., does anybody else think that the ownership of guns (at least privately) should be banned in the US?

I'm sort of on the fence for this one. I know the second amendment has been done to death, but this is a question of where rights come from, etc. Ignoring old precedent, right or wrong?

Thanks!

Yes. Other people think that they should be banned in the US. Some people also believe that the earth is flat. I do not believe that they should be banned.

People in the US need guns to defend themselves from criminals. In countries with less guns, that isn't the case.
I believe it's also important that guns be registered, their purchasers undergo background checks, and that there be a mandatory thee-day waiting period.

Agreed. The idea that citizens could or would stand up to the modern army of their own country is ridiculous. Maybe that works in the third world, but here the government has tanks, body armor and virtually no logistical limitations on its own soil.

It worked in Viet-Nam with the VC, and it is working in Iraq. I don't see where the Iraqi insurgency is using any armor, air power, etc.

My father, who is a Viet-Nam vet told me that when he shipped over there, they were told that they were going to fight against an enemy (VC) that did not have the type of firepower, modern equipment and logistics that the US Army had. We saw what happened then.

Both Viet-Nam and Iraq are proof that an armed population can engage a modern military force and give them a hell of a run for their money. Of course, there is also Chechnya with the Russians. And how about the Mujahadeen against the Soviet war machine?

We should all have guns in case there is an unfriendly invasive alien species coming to claim our planet. You just never know.

Yes. Other people think that they should be banned in the US. Some people also believe that the earth is flat. I do not believe that they should be banned.

...but you believe that the earth is flat? :eek:


*Escapes*

:p

its worked in the U.K then again we have don't have an obsession with guns or anything

though if I was in the US I would want a gun, Kansas folk scare me

Most gun violence is in the urban and suburban areas. Why would someone from Kansas scare you? Sounds a bit stupid if you ask me. Another factor in gun violence is a large part of it is related to drug and or other criminal activities.