NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.

yes we need car control laws too. We shouldn't have every American owning a car or a TV.

About 84 guns for every 100 people? We need to get guns for the remaining 16...

Yes, I can see why you are in favor of gun control. Now I hope you can understand my point of view,if not agree with it. I recently went to the shooting range and fired a revolver for the first time. It belonged to my friend. The shooting range was near Brazito, Missouri.(For those of you who know where that is.) I found firing said revolver enjoyable. Is that so wrong? I am thinking about obtaining a firearm for target shooting and perhaps hunting. I would of course keep this gun secured at all times. I do understand, however if the state wished to limit the type and availability of firearms,within a reasonable limit of course. The key then is to determine what is reasonable. The United States of America has determined that I can own an assault weapon. I find this deplorable.

In conclusion I am in favor of limited gun control.

Well, I do not believe that more gun control is needed at all.In fact i hate the idea of more gun control. The reason for that is one, the second amendment to the constitution. Second the US Government has 243 million guns pointed at it head. Now my question is way is everyone opposed to own any gun they want? Mind you that I own an Assault Rifle and I work for a gun manufacture. So I don't know why everyone is upset about guns. I see them as tools, Not as toys or anything like that.

Well, I do not believe that more gun control is needed at all.In fact i hate the idea of more gun control. The reason for that is one, the second amendment to the constitution. Second the US Government has 243 million guns pointed at it head. Now my question is way is everyone opposed to own any gun they want? Mind you that I own an Assault Rifle and I work for a gun manufacture. So I don't know why everyone is upset about guns. I see them as tools, Not as toys or anything like that.

Do you think private citizens should be able to have thermonuclear warheads?

I am not in favor of more gun control laws, but I am in favor of better enforcement of the current laws. I own several firearms, and I keep them very secure in a safe, except for one I keep out for home defense. I don't live in the greatest area of the world. We have a lot of people who have chemical dependency issues, and they will go to any means to stay high. I don't have children, and I live alone. Despite all this, I still keep my firearms tightly controlled and very secure. I wouldn't want them falling into the wrong hands. Another thing I'm in favor of is proper training for firearm owners. Anybody can go out and buy a firearm, and if they don't have the proper training, it can be taken from them and used on them. Owning a firearm for any reason is a big responsibility, just like owning a vehicle. If it is used recklessly and improperly, the results can be tragic. If a person doesn't have the proper training, again, another tragedy happens. Sensible ownership, proper training, and better enforcement of current laws would stop a lot of the gun related crimes we have happening now. More laws just mean more criminals, and who wants that?

Well I was hoping this thread would die without a single post but since someone decided to bite so will I.

So, Protzmann, you're in favor of strict(er) gun control laws, eh? Ever play SUPER COLUMBINE MASSACRE RPG! (http://www.columbinegame.com/)? I think Columbine is a pretty cool guy, eh gets revenge and doesn't afraid of anything.

There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation; that's one firearm for every twelve people. The only question is; how do I arm the other eleven?

The United States of America has determined that I can own an assault weapon. I find this deplorable.
What it has defined as an assault weapon is almost entirely based on cosmetic features, only one of which has any impact on the function of the gun.

A rifle with a bent stock with a grip to keep the sights low on the barrel and at eye-level will rotate around the bend when fired and climb off target. A rifle with a straight stock that is in line with the barrel will not rise as much when fired. By adding the pistol grip the rifle becomes an assault weapon but it's basic function hasn't really changed at all. It's just been made slightly easier to handle. A scope would make it more dangerous in the hands of a skilled shooter.

There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation; that's one firearm for every twelve people. The only question is; how do I arm the other eleven?



Nice Lord of War reference!

Well I was hoping this thread would die without a single post but since someone decided to bite so will I.

So, Protzmann, you're in favor of strict(er) gun control laws, eh? Ever play SUPER COLUMBINE MASSACRE RPG! (http://www.columbinegame.com/)? I think Columbine is a pretty cool guy, eh gets revenge and doesn't afraid of anything.

There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation; that's one firearm for every twelve people. The only question is; how do I arm the other eleven?


What it has defined as an assault weapon is almost entirely based on cosmetic features, only one of which has any impact on the function of the gun.

A rifle with a bent stock with a grip to keep the sights low on the barrel and at eye-level will rotate around the bend when fired and climb off target. A rifle with a straight stock that is in line with the barrel will not rise as much when fired. By adding the pistol grip the rifle becomes an assault weapon but it's basic function hasn't really changed at all. It's just been made slightly easier to handle. A scope would make it more dangerous in the hands of a skilled shooter.

Perhaps deplorable was the wrong word. I define assault rifles as selective-fire weapons. Perhaps this definition is wrong. However putting fully automatic weapons where maniacs can reach them is unnecessary.

Perhaps deplorable was the wrong word. I define assault rifles as selective-fire weapons. Perhaps this definition is wrong. However putting fully automatic weapons where maniacs can reach them is unnecessary.

Why can't law abiding citizens own fully auto weapons to defend themselves from said maniacs? Or gangs, or even *gasp* the government?

Perhaps deplorable was the wrong word. I define assault rifles as selective-fire weapons. Perhaps this definition is wrong. However putting fully automatic weapons where maniacs can reach them is unnecessary.
You said assault weapon, not assault rifle. There is a difference. Assault rifle is a fairly limited technical term while assault weapon is a broader political one. Specifically, semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes, however it can also refer to any weapon used to aid in military assault operations, though for the purposes of this discussion the political definition is more appropriate. Assault rifles are selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammo.

Are you against people owning semi-auto versions of assault rifles?

Why can't law abiding citizens own fully auto weapons to defend themselves from said maniacs? Or gangs, or even *gasp* the government?

Or foreign armies invading our shore line. I say just shoot them all and let god sort them out.

I don't have a major and strong view point about this but I think something should be done, I also find it confusing that Americans think that they are born with the right that they can bear arms.

Yes I know it is laid out in law so technically they are, but I don't see a major problem with repealing the ammendment and changing some gun laws, I am not saying ban all guns so only the army may hold one but come on people lets put our minds together and think.

Why can't law abiding citizens own fully auto weapons to defend themselves from said maniacs? Or gangs, or even *gasp* the government?

Because they don't and won't need them. The limits on firearms should be reasonable, but there should be limits on said firearms. And they serve no purpose but to kill people(but that is another issue)

I fully understand you point. I think, however that the potential for harm outweighs the good in legalizing all weapons.

And on another note: unless you propose legalizing weapons of mass destruction the government will always be a step ahead of us in firepower. they have to be to adequately protect us. And the idea behind outlawing fully automatic weapons is to keep them out of the hands of dangerous gangs.

You have a right to protect yourself, but there are limits to that right, just as there are limits to the right to pursue happiness.

to be entirely honest, i think this will end up as yet another troll line that has been bitten on hook line and sinker. as such, my two cents will be dropped because intelligent discussion is needed on these things, not just a bunch of people waving their arms around yelling about who is right.
"i can't stop right now some one is wrong on the internet!"

point besides, heres my two cents.

1. I am about as anti-gun control as a hardcore member of the NRA, that being said, i am also pro-wildlife, anti-development, pro-marijuna legalization, and deffenatly pro-more scholarships, and better school funding. and anti-war. so i want it clear that i am NOT your average right wing wacko. However The posession of fire arms is not only of historical significance to the United states history, but also nescissary for individuals.

2. several questions, i see columbine was refferenced earlier, i'm hoping that was in jest. i don't deny that most highschoolers desrve to die a bloody death, but that doesn't make them worse than your average person. But, how many students would have died in teh columbine shooting if the teachers were armed with even non-lethal weapons. *stun guns any one?*

How many people would have died in virginia tech if 50% of teh student body had not only been armed, but also capable of firing a gun correctly. Gun control is not the problem in the united states, what we have is a failure to educate people on the actual uses of guns. so you get people who hate guns because they don't understand and are afraid of them. and you get the people who want guns because its what they're familliar with, and what they need to feel safe.

Solution: Offer free gun training, and medical training to any one who wants to apply. Those that pass this system, (which will not be designed to root out a specific body of people, but will instead be designed similar to public schools in that they equally educate every one enrolled), will be granted concealed weapons permits, along with the abillity to puchase any type of fire arm that is available in United states civillian or millitary forces... (fire arms does not include rocket launchers)
Those that opt not to take the course are simply prevented from purchasing automatic rifles, hand guns, and any millitary grade weapons. That solves both problems, because then those that WANT a gun will be able to take a month long course and get one for free... Of course you'll get the occasional left wing nut-job who hates guns on principal, but freedom of speech, let hims say what he wants, i'll have my hand gun on me incase he turns violent.

Same principal as knife control, don't get me started, people should never be discouraged from caryinng a knife wiht a blade shorter that 6 inches. and carrying one of blade length any where under 10 inches in any state (i'm talking to you california) should NEVER be punishable unless it is used to threaten some one. a knife is a tool, a usefull one, quit getting your panties in a knot.


that being said, the troll threads annoy me because every body knows what they are, and yet still feel the need to state their opinion... including me...
This forum may not have been started as a troll, but unless it picks up some intelligent discussion in it some where, it is likely to become just another pointless excercise in pissing people off. cut it out.

Or foreign armies invading our shore line. I say just shoot them all and let god sort them out.

I don't have a major and strong view point about this but I think something should be done, I also find it confusing that Americans think that they are born with the right that they can bear arms.

Yes I know it is laid out in law so technically they are, but I don't see a major problem with repealing the ammendment and changing some gun laws, I am not saying ban all guns so only the army may hold one but come on people lets put our minds together and think.

Well Americans do see a problem with repealing the second amendment.

We won't do it.

It is every man's right to defend himself. Guns give people the ability to defend themselves.

Why shouldn't people own guns?

If you say 'cause some people snap and kill others, I say: More reason for people to own guns- to take out crazies like that. Plus, shootings are rare, mass shootings more so.

Do you think private citizens should be able to have thermonuclear warheads?

Why is it, when someone present a reasonable argument, some idiots use an exaggerated example as an argument?

Tell you what, we'll cross the thermonuclear warhead line when we come to it.

Sorry about the exaggerated argument, but I think that my point was that is the line we do not want to get to. Sometimes hyperbole is an effective argumentative technique.(and it was the only way I could get out of saying you shouldn't be able to protect your families.) My point is and always has been that there should be, in the name of safety, a limit to the right to bear arms. I have already proposed where I draw the line and I see that some of you disagree.

I am completely against gun control, since the only rights I believe in are property rights. I would extend this beyond simple firearms to the belief that private citizens should be allowed to possess whatever weaponry they may desire.

Sorry about the exaggerated argument, but I think that my point was that is the line we do not want to get to. Sometimes hyperbole is an effective argumentative technique.(and it was the only way I could get out of saying you shouldn't be able to protect your families.) My point is and always has been that there should be, in the name of safety, a limit to the right to bear arms. I have already proposed where I draw the line and I see that some of you disagree.

one automatic fire arm will not destroy a city like a thermo nuclear weapon.
thermal nuclear weapon is not considered a constitutionally protected weapon hence the hyperbole has no relation to the issue at stake.

one automatic fire arm will not destroy a city like a thermo nuclear weapon.
thermal nuclear weapon is not considered a constitutionally protected weapon hence the hyperbole has no relation to the issue at stake.

ok

I now see that it was a straw man

mea culpa

The right to keep and bear arms is written down in ink, and it has been protected by the blood of countless men and women for the past 233 years. The 2nd amendment (hell the entire bill of rights) was added to the constitution reluctantly by the framers at the behest of the people, who wanted to ensure that a tyrannical government would never be allowed to rise to power. I for one would fight desperately to protect this right and all of the others laid out in the Bill of Rights.

I just want to get three additional points out.

1. A firearm is a tool and it is the user determines the end use.
Put a hammer in the hand of a skilled carpenter and he will give you a beautiful house.
Put that same hammer in the hands of a deranged lunatic and he will give you a dozen rape/skull bashing murder victims.

2. Making certain weapons illegal for law abiding citizens does not prevent criminals from illegally obtaining them. I hate to repeat it, but if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

3. One of the most fundamental rights of life is the right to protect oneself and their family. Limiting this right is unnatural and disgusting. And the fact that celebrities and politicians, the privileged elite are able to arm and defend themselves while regular joes are not; makes me sick and it should make you sick too.

one automatic fire arm will not destroy a city like a thermo nuclear weapon.
thermal nuclear weapon is not considered a constitutionally protected weapon hence the hyperbole has no relation to the issue at stake.

Well...
Amendment 2
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.
The second amendment is quite vague on the issue of what Arms you are allowed to bear and/or keep.

Maybe not an H-Bomb but what if i wanted to have a SMAW-NE? Or a Stinger? Could I? If not why (please, your opinion based exclusively on the second amendment, not a SCotUS finding)?

Coming from a country where there are strict gun control laws and living in another country with strict gun control laws i don't really see the problem with said laws. They just make sure that guns end only in the hands of trained (at least kind of) individuals that have demonstrated their willingness to own a gun by getting a gun permit.

Well...

The second amendment is quite vague on the issue of what Arms you are allowed to bear and/or keep.

Maybe not an H-Bomb but what if i wanted to have a SMAW-NE? Or a Stinger? Could I? If not why (please, your opinion based exclusively on the second amendment, not a SCotUS finding)?

Coming from a country where there are strict gun control laws and living in another country with strict gun control laws i don't really see the problem with said laws. They just make sure that guns end only in the hands of trained (at least kind of) individuals that have demonstrated their willingness to own a gun by getting a gun permit.

an 18th century definition of arms only refers to what we call personal arms today. Licensing for weapons should only be done for a concealed carry permit/license. Just like a car you can own a car regardless however you need a license to drive it.

Oh yes, we need them! we also need..

Knife control laws
Car control laws
Lawnmower control laws
Hammer control laws
Saw control laws
Screwdriver control laws
Power drill control laws
Blender control laws
Toaster control laws
Bathtub control laws (SEE THE EVIL CONNECTION?!?!? OH MY GOD!11!1!!)


Don't forget those pesky wrenches and torquewrenches, we need laws on them too.

[/sarcasm]


The right to keep and bear arms is written down in ink, and it has been protected by the blood of countless men and women for the past 233 years. The 2nd amendment (hell the entire bill of rights) was added to the constitution reluctantly by the framers at the behest of the people, who wanted to ensure that a tyrannical government would never be allowed to rise to power. I for one would fight desperately to protect this right and all of the others laid out in the Bill of Rights.

I just want to get three additional points out.

1. A firearm is a tool and it is the user determines the end use.
Put a hammer in the hand of a skilled carpenter and he will give you a beautiful house.
Put that same hammer in the hands of a deranged lunatic and he will give you a dozen rape/skull bashing murder victims.

2. Making certain weapons illegal for law abiding citizens does not prevent criminals from illegally obtaining them. I hate to repeat it, but if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

3. One of the most fundamental rights of life is the right to protect oneself and their family. Limiting this right is unnatural and disgusting. And the fact that celebrities and politicians, the privileged elite are able to arm and defend themselves while regular joes are not; makes me sick and it should make you sick too.

You are my hero.


< Is a gun toting radical right winger

an 18th century definition of arms only refers to what we call personal arms today. Licensing for weapons should only be done for a concealed carry permit/license. Just like a car you can own a car regardless however you need a license to drive it.

The second amendment doesn't state what type of Arms you could have. And that's intentional, because the right to bear arms is intended as a necessity of the "the security of a free State" so i could argue that a Stinger is necessary for the security of a free State so that i could shot down any 9/11 attack.

Your car analogy doesn't work very well... Without a premit you cannot legally drive that car so without a permit you shouldnt be able to legally fire with your gun. Actually in Italy there is a special kind of gun licence for collectors. All you have to do is take your gun to the Carabinieri to be registered and they plomb it. It means that they put a drop of lead in the muzzle to prevent the weapon to be fired. It is rarely used anyway because usually gun collectors (at least the ones i know) own a full sports licence.

BTW, I am a former Italian Army Sargeant with AGT (Assistente guida tiro=Target practice instructor). So don't be mistaken, I'm not a gun hater ;)

The second amendment doesn't state what type of Arms you could have. And that's intentional, because the right to bear arms is intended as a necessity of the "the security of a free State" so i could argue that a Stinger is necessary for the security of a free State so that i could shot down any 9/11 attack.

Your car analogy doesn't work very well... Without a premit you cannot legally drive that car so without a permit you shouldnt be able to legally fire with your gun. Actually in Italy there is a special kind of gun licence for collectors. All you have to do is take your gun to the Carabinieri to be registered and they plomb it. It means that they put a drop of lead in the muzzle to prevent the weapon to be fired. It is rarely used anyway because usually gun collectors (at least the ones i know) own a full sports licence.

BTW, I am a former Italian Army Sargeant with AGT (Assistente guida tiro=Target practice instructor). So don't be mistaken, I'm not a gun hater ;)

Actually I can drive an unlicensed and unregistered car on private property. likewise i should be able to own and fire a gun on my own private property.
In modern English the 2nd amendment appears to have a loose definition of what weapons are allowed.
However in 18th century english (the language the 2nd amendment was written in) arms refers only to(what in modern english) personal arms thats would be rifle, knives, and other such implements that could be carried by a individual. Read military supply reports from this time it will read we were supplied with arms and cannon(s).
Since your military (I am a veteran as well) a missile system would not be considered personal arms it would be considered a squad level armament.
Just like at the time of the writing a cannon would be considered a squad or higher level weapon.

Well...what if i wanted to have a SMAW-NE? Or a Stinger? Could I? If not why (please, your opinion based exclusively on the second amendment, not a SCotUS finding)?

A Stinger would be classified as a 'destructive device' under US law rather than a firearm. The right to bear (fire)arms doesn't cover a rocket launcher.

To make that argument based exclusively on the 2nd Amendment you need to look at the fact that, at the time it was written, there was no such thing as a rocket launcher. To the authors, 'arms' meant muskets. I'm not an expert on 18th century semantics, but that makes enough sense for me.

(Naturally we've improved on the musket since then, but it's the same rough idea, so nobody start that farcical 'IT ONLY REFERS TO THE RIGHT TO BEAR MUSKETS LOLOLOL' stuff, mmkay?)

Actually I can drive an unlicensed and unregistered car on private property. likewise i should be able to own and fire a gun on my own private property.
In modern English the 2nd amendment appears to have a loose definition of what weapons are allowed.
However in 18th century english (the language the 2nd amendment was written in) arms refers only to(what in modern english) personal arms thats would be rifle, knives, and other such implements that could be carried by a individual. Read military supply reports from this time it will read we were supplied with arms and cannon(s).
Since your military (I am a veteran as well) a missile system would not be considered personal arms it would be considered a squad level armament.
Just like at the time of the writing a cannon would be considered a squad or higher level weapon.

You see, semantics has a big role here.
I read it as the right to bear (carry) arms. As in portable (opposed to fixed or vehicle mounted) arms. So a TOW would apply.
Also your distinction of personal and squad weapons is inaccurate. Apart special cases the distinction of squad roles begins with WWI when machinegun and ATG teams start to be assigned to infantry roles and are detached from the Artillery. When the Constitution of the US no such idea as squad was in existance. War was waged in platoons where every soldier had the same armament.

It is actually very toughtful that the second amendment be so vague, as it allows for a broader and modern interpretation. Else, yeah, you'd be stuck with muskets.

LOL info: Gun control laws in Italy do not extend to cannons. Wich means that you can legally have and carry a cannon :D
This thing is incidentally very useful for people that, like me, are involved in reconstructions of historycal battles.

We've made progress! Now all we need is to get concealed carry laws for every state! As for guns for the remaining 16 out of a hundred... I'm pretty sure that they're not old enough to handle a firearm. ;)

Reasonable restrictions on what types of arms one may have, I don't mind. For instance, the 1935 ban on full auto weapons is fair; there is no good reason for private ownership of such.

Nor do I have a problem with licensing laws, provided they are not used as de facto bans. Reasonably, a person who has been convicted of violent crime might well be considered unworthy to hold a licence.

However, many of the expressly anti-gun laws, suh as NYC's handgun ban and DC's firearms ban, are totally unreasonable, and worse, are attempts to subvert or end-run the US Constitution. As such, I consider them a foul attack on basic liberties and rights, and must oppose them utterly.

The anti-gun lobby wants to destroy the Second Amendment, but it knows it does not have the support to get it repealed. Frankly, their tactics of delberate evasion of the baisc law of the land disgust me.

Yes, I can see why you are in favor of gun control. Now I hope you can understand my point of view,if not agree with it. I recently went to the shooting range and fired a revolver for the first time. It belonged to my friend. The shooting range was near Brazito, Missouri.(For those of you who know where that is.) I found firing said revolver enjoyable. Is that so wrong? I am thinking about obtaining a firearm for target shooting and perhaps hunting. I would of course keep this gun secured at all times. I do understand, however if the state wished to limit the type and availability of firearms,within a reasonable limit of course. The key then is to determine what is reasonable. The United States of America has determined that I can own an assault weapon. I find this deplorable.

In conclusion I am in favor of limited gun control.

Speaking as someone that lives in a state that still has an "assault weapons" ban, I can tell you that there seems to be no appreciable decrease in crime because of it. Also, I can tell you that, as FACT, that the bullets that come out of my post-ban rifle (aka not an assault weapon):

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

Are no more or less deadly than this pre-ban rifle (AKA an assault rifle):

http://www.innovativetactical.com/catalog/images/bushmaster/b74u4s91h09.jpg

Or this bolt action rifle (AKA not an assault rifle):

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=90878

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

No.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.

There are enough socks for everyone to have more than one.......so what's your point?

Why can't law abiding citizens own fully auto weapons to defend themselves from said maniacs? Or gangs, or even *gasp* the government?

Umm could it be that the same fully auto weapons could be used to kill the inocent, hold up banks or *gasp* be used when 'going postal'?

Perhaps deplorable was the wrong word. I define assault rifles as selective-fire weapons. Perhaps this definition is wrong. However putting fully automatic weapons where maniacs can reach them is unnecessary.

Apparently, you don't know the process to get a select fire/full automatic weapon. It is a process that is expensive and somewhat time consuming. The select fire/full auto firearms are very expensive compared to their semi-only brothers (I paid around $700 for my AR-15, whereas an M-16 is currently running somewhere in the vicinity of $18,000), and you have to get not only a chief law enforcement officer to sign some paperwork (which I've heard can take time, depending on the officer, town/city, etc), you then have to send that paperwork to the BATFE (with another $200 for the tax stamp). When they finally send that to you, then you can pick up your select fire/full auto firearm.

So it's pretty close to impossible for someone who's already a maniac to acquire one of these firearms legally.

Umm could it be that the same fully auto weapons could be used to kill the inocent, hold up banks or *gasp* be used when 'going postal'?

They can also be used to protect the innocent, safeguard banks and and kill postal workers. ;)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Firearm violence has fallen 63% in the US.

Firearm violence is far more a problem of urban blacks than it is any other demographic in the US - it's more of a socioeconomic problem than it is a gun problem.

Try again.

Umm could it be that the same fully auto weapons could be used to kill the inocent, hold up banks or *gasp* be used when 'going postal'?

When was the last time a legally owned full auto firearm was used to murder, or to hold up a bank, or commit any other crime?

Oh, and (as a postal worker), I'm sick of the "postal" inference. Here's some stats for everyone (from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal).

"Researchers have found that the homicide rates per 100,000 workers at postal facilities were lower than at other workplaces. In major industries, the highest rate of 2.1 homicides per 100,000 workers was in retail. The next highest rate of 1.66 was in public administration, which includes police officers. The homicide rate for postal workers was 0.26 per 100,000. The most dangerous occupation: taxi driving, with a homicide rate of 31.54 per 100,000 workers.[citation needed]

However, not all murders on the job are directly comparable to "going postal". Taxi drivers, for example, are much more likely to be murdered by passengers than by their peers. Working in retail means one is exposed to store robberies."

They can also be used to protect the innocent, safeguard banks and and kill postal workers. ;)

HEY HEY HEY! Postal workers aren't the ones that need killing. It's the idiots that try to drive around us when we're doing the speed limit, and nearly cause an accident that need it.

My two cents: Why are so many people afraid of private gun ownership? I own firearms. I have never threatened anyone, and to not plan to threaten anyone. I am not suicidal. I have lived in places where I have had reason to believe I may be attached in my home, so my shotgun would have served as a defensive weapon had the need arisen. Why would you take that from me? I am of rather slight build and could not resist brute force. Are you of the opinion that a weak law-abiding citizen should be endangered my any muscular criminal with a knife?

Regarding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA): Anyone who studies the wording of the second amendment, the ninth amendment, the tenth amendment, and the writings of the founding fathers will understand that they favored the RKBA for all citizens. this was to serve several purposes: it would keep the government under the control of the people, it would keep the nation safe from invasion, it would keep the people free to put food on the table, and it would leave the people able to defend themselves from attacks upon their persons, families, and property. We still need guns for all of these reasons.

A firearm is a responsibility. If you don't think you are responsible enough to own one, no one is forcing you to act against your own principles. Some have asked why the Americans think they have the RKBA. I ask why you think we don't. there are risks associated with liberty. It can be a scary thing to be free. I choose that risk. If it comes to it, I will fight the government of the US to keep my freedoms, although I would prefer a non-violent solution. If you do not think freedoms should be absolute (as in freedom to act in any way you see fit so long as you harm no one else) then build a society with those who agree with you. Do not force me to live under your system, though.

Well Americans do see a problem with repealing the second amendment.

We won't do it.

It is every man's right to defend himself. Guns give people the ability to defend themselves.

Why shouldn't people own guns?

If you say 'cause some people snap and kill others, I say: More reason for people to own guns- to take out crazies like that. Plus, shootings are rare, mass shootings more so.

I am not saying they don't see a problem and the choice is up to them (well at the very least the government at the time).

Now you mention the right to defend themselves, and correct me if I am wrong but where in the second amendment does it say that. Does it not say:
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.

Now I suppose it all depends on how that is interpreted, but would taking the guns away from non-military citizens of the US stop it from being a free State?

As I said it is up to the citizens of the US who have a right to vote to decide on if it is kept or not.

HEY HEY HEY! Postal workers aren't the ones that need killing. It's the idiots that try to drive around us when we're doing the speed limit, and nearly cause an accident that need it.

:eek: AAH! Postal Worker!!! *blasts you with a marshmallow gun*

:eek: AAH! Postal Worker!!! *blasts you with a marshmallow gun*

*throws pie*

:eek: AAH! Postal Worker!!! *blasts you with a marshmallow gun*

NOT IN THE EYES! *pulls out 6 shot rubber band gun and returns fire*

*throws pie*

NOT IN THE EYES! *pulls out 6 shot rubber band gun and returns fire*

*dives behind the couch and returns fire*

*dives behind the couch and returns fire*

*sets the couch on fire*

They can also be used to protect the innocent, safeguard banks and and kill postal workers. ;)

Ahhh all too true, yet a pie can be used in defense and offense and as a tastey snack.

*sets the couch on fire*

See? This is why nobody trusts postal workers. :p

When was the last time a legally owned full auto firearm was used to murder, or to hold up a bank, or commit any other crime?

Oh, and (as a postal worker), I'm sick of the "postal" inference. Here's some stats for everyone (from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal).

"Researchers have found that the homicide rates per 100,000 workers at postal facilities were lower than at other workplaces. In major industries, the highest rate of 2.1 homicides per 100,000 workers was in retail. The next highest rate of 1.66 was in public administration, which includes police officers. The homicide rate for postal workers was 0.26 per 100,000. The most dangerous occupation: taxi driving, with a homicide rate of 31.54 per 100,000 workers.[citation needed]

However, not all murders on the job are directly comparable to "going postal". Taxi drivers, for example, are much more likely to be murdered by passengers than by their peers. Working in retail means one is exposed to store robberies."

Meh get a grip man, it's only an expression, and one in wide use now, so *shrug* whatyagonnado?

As to your first question, shit man I don't know. How many school shootings have been by legal guns? How many legal guns have been stolen?

I don't have a major and strong view point about this but I think something should be done, I also find it confusing that Americans think that they are born with the right that they can bear arms.

We are. The essence of rights is that they are not something that can be granted or revoked by government fiat, but rather are an intrinsic part of our existence as human beings.

All humans possess the same set of rights. The only variable is the degree to which the local government respects or abrogates those rights--and the degree to which it respects those rights is the degree to which it is legitimate.

Yes I know it is laid out in law so technically they are,

That's not the reason. See above.

but I don't see a major problem with repealing the ammendment and changing some gun laws,
It wouldn't change the fact that we still possess those rights, and it wouldn't change the fact that any government action to restrict them is illegitimate.

I am not saying ban all guns so only the army may hold one but come on people lets put our minds together and think.
We need parity in order to be able to mount an effective revolt.

Do you think private citizens should be able to have thermonuclear warheads?

Yes, of course we have the right to own whatever weapon we want.

A Stinger would be classified as a 'destructive device' under US law rather than a firearm. The right to bear (fire)arms doesn't cover a rocket launcher.

Sure it does.

What the law says is irrelevant.

Our rights are independent of any laws any government may pass. Laws that abrogate our rights are illegitimate, and we are under no legitimate moral obligation to obey them.

Reasonable restrictions on what types of arms one may have,
There is no such thing.
I don't mind. For instance, the 1935 ban on full auto weapons is fair; there is no good reason for private ownership of such.
Sure there is; namely, revolt against the government.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.
No, I can't. People need guns to defend themselves not only from each other but also from the State!

No, I can't. People need guns to defend themselves not only from each other but also from the State!

Not strictly true though, nobody needs guns for defense, we are all able to defend our selves using nowt more than our hands, and a banana skin!

I don't think gun control is the sollution. Its a complex issue, I know, but to me, all the liberties and rights must be preserved, even when they're not popular.

Gun Control is not necesary something better for the safety, I mean: States like California, that have stronger gun control than Heartland and southern states are more dangerous and have more crime rates: Surely is not the only factor, but I think it's important.

Not strictly true though, nobody needs guns for defense, we are all able to defend our selves using nowt more than our hands, and a banana skin!
That really wasn't the spirit of what I was trying to say. When the people you have to protect yourself from have guns, your hands and a banana skin aren't going to be very helpful, are they?

That really wasn't the spirit of what I was trying to say. When the people you have to protect yourself from have guns, your hands and a banana skin aren't going to be very helpful, are they?

And if nobody had guns, then a banana skin would be ideal huh!

That really wasn't the spirit of what I was trying to say. When the people you have to protect yourself from have guns, your hands and a banana skin aren't going to be very helpful, are they?

Except...once something's been invented you can't uninvent it.

And sometimes the people you have to defend yourself from are the government.

There is no such thing.

Sure there is; namely, revolt against the government.

Certainly not. To successfully revolt against the US government, one would require large quantities of money, and military level armaments such as tanks and combat aircraft.

These cannot be held in civilian hands due to their extremely high potential to cause civil disorder. Given that civil order is a duty of the government, and that no right granted by the constitution is an absolute, a reasonable balance must be found.

Semi-automatic arms are all that is required for self defence and defence of the home.

Certainly not. To successfully revolt against the US government, one would require large quantities of money, and military level armaments such as tanks and combat aircraft.

These cannot be held in civilian hands due to their extremely high potential to cause civil disorder. Given that civil order is a duty of the government, and that no right granted by the constitution is an absolute, a reasonable balance must be found.

Semi-automatic arms are all that is required for self defence and defence of the home.

First off, let me state that I am in no way, shape, or form advocating any kind of revolution against the U.S. Government. Now, to the heart of the issue, you stated in the first part of your post that to successfully revolt against the U.S. government, that similar military hardware would be required. My answer to that is, no, not really. There have been numerous instances (see Africa, North Ireland, Afghanistan, India, Cambodia, etc.) where people have waged a guerilla style warfare against better armed governments. For the most part, they have used what they could afford to buy or make, or they have stolen what they needed. In some cases, they are still fighting, and in others, they have achieved whatever politcal aims they were going for.

As for the second part of your post, you state that these weapons can result in civil disorder. I've seen any number of incidents of civil disorder on my television where the weapons of choice were Molotov cocktails, rocks, bricks, and whatever else was handy. Does this mean we should outlaw gasoline, glass bottles, and rocks? The main limiting factor on anyone owning military style hardware has to do with price. Stinger and Javelin missile systems are very expensive, as is a lot of military hardware.

While I tend to agree that semi-automatic weapons are excellent choices in home defense, it doesn't validate your argument. There is such a grey area around the second amendment, that it is open to interpretation, mainly by the Supreme Court. I think somethings should just be put to a vote and left to the will of the majority of the people. That is why we have democracy afterall. As for those who want the second amendment repealed, if they do that, what is to stop the repealing of the first, fourth, and tenth amendments? Good day.

And if nobody had guns, then a banana skin would be ideal huh!
1) Jesus H. Christ, it's not like we're going to be successful at disarming everyone anyway. Outlaws will have guns, and we will have banana skins.

2) I am a fencer. I will just get my sword out.

Except...once something's been invented you can't uninvent it.

So are you disagreeing with me, or what? My point is that guns exist and there is no turning back.


And sometimes the people you have to defend yourself from are the government.
I do point this out. :cool:


Certainly not. To successfully revolt against the US government, one would require large quantities of money, and military level armaments such as tanks and combat aircraft.

Not really. It would require low techy things like general strikes, and non-cooperation, followed by blowing the heads off of tyrants. Not too difficult with the current level of civilian armament.


These cannot be held in civilian hands due to their extremely high potential to cause civil disorder. Given that civil order is a duty of the government, and that no right granted by the constitution is an absolute, a reasonable balance must be found.

I don't see why people can't be allowed to stockpile weapons.


Semi-automatic arms are all that is required for self defence and defence of the home.
So basically, nobody is allowed to be as well armed as law enforcement or the military, right?

Certainly not. To successfully revolt against the US government, one would require large quantities of money, and military level armaments such as tanks and combat aircraft.
Yup, which is why the government has no place restricting private ownership of such items.

These cannot be held in civilian hands due to their extremely high potential to cause civil disorder.
That is not a valid reason to violate sacred individual rights.

Given that civil order is a duty of the government,
No, it isn't--and certainly not at the cost of individual rights.

and that no right granted by the constitution is an absolute,
The Constitution isn't where we get our rights from. Our rights stem from the simple fact of our existence as human beings--and yes, all rights are indeed absolute.

a reasonable balance must be found.
There is no such thing as a "reasonable balance" between liberty and tyranny.

Yup, which is why the government has no place restricting private ownership of such items.


That is not a valid reason to violate sacred individual rights.


No, it isn't--and certainly not at the cost of individual rights.

Civil order not only is the duty of the government, but is in fact the sole reason to tolerate the existence of government. Without civil order, rights become meaningless - if there are no courts to interpret laws, no police to enforce them, then we return to the civil organisation of "might makes right" - or to put it more simply, you have only those rights you are able to seize and defend physically against all comers.

Without civil order your "sacred rights" are so much garbage.


The Constitution isn't where we get our rights from. Our rights stem from the simple fact of our existence as human beings--and yes, all rights are indeed absolute.

First, while the fine sounding words of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence claim that "all men" have such rights stemming from their very existence, the reality is that this is a polite lie. We have only those rights which we can defend - or, in the case of the constitution, those protected for us by being incorporated into the basic law of the land.

After all, people in Britain, Canada and Australia have no right of Free Speech, though these states are probably the most similar to the US. These rights are granted by the constitution - that is simple fact.

Likewise, you are utterly wrong regarding their absoluteness. As one Supreme Court Justice famously noted, "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact." By this he meant that some restrictions need to be placed, even upon our most cherished rights, in the name of, yes, civil order. Free Speech is not absolute - you are prohibited from making plans to murder, or commit other crime; from inciting violence; from speaking in a manner so as to cause immediate physical harm ("Fire in a Crowded Theatre"). Nor are any of the other rights in the constitution absolute.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable balance" between liberty and tyranny.

Of course there is, and must be. Absolutes serve no one - compromise and concession produce a civil society.

Gun controooooooooool. Crooks stay dry and others feel the pain.

I'd be in favour of limited gun control

I can see why people need/want a Rifle or a shotgun

But, there is no need for people to have Assault rifles for example.

In the UK, only guns I can legally own are shotguns or bolt action/break barrelled rifles. Handguns and fully automatics are banned, I think this is a good compromise.

Funny thing is, even though some guns ARE legal, not many people have them. Probably because there is no need for them.

Civil order not only is the duty of the government, but is in fact the sole reason to tolerate the existence of government. Without civil order, rights become meaningless - if there are no courts to interpret laws, no police to enforce them, then we return to the civil organisation of "might makes right" - or to put it more simply, you have only those rights you are able to seize and defend physically against all comers.
I'll ignore your blatant equivocation and simply point out that your grasp of basic metaphysics is horrendous. The existence of a right is independent of the practical ability to exercise that right.

First, while the fine sounding words of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence claim that "all men" have such rights stemming from their very existence, the reality is that this is a polite lie.

No, it isn't. It is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

We have only those rights which we can defend - or, in the case of the constitution, those protected for us by being incorporated into the basic law of the land.
Incorrect. See above.

After all, people in Britain, Canada and Australia have no right of Free Speech, though these states are probably the most similar to the US. These rights are granted by the constitution - that is simple fact.
Again, see above.

Likewise, you are utterly wrong regarding their absoluteness. As one Supreme Court Justice famously noted, "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact."
The Supreme Court is not the legitimate arbiter of the extent of our rights.

By this he meant that some restrictions need to be placed, even upon our most cherished rights, in the name of, yes, civil order.
No, they don't. The end does not justify the means.

Free Speech is not absolute - you are prohibited from making plans to murder, or commit other crime; from inciting violence;
Such laws are illegitimate, PRECISELY because one's right to free speech is indeed absolute.

from speaking in a manner so as to cause immediate physical harm ("Fire in a Crowded Theatre").
Such laws are illegitimate, PRECISELY because one's right to free speech is indeed absolute.

Nor are any of the other rights in the constitution absolute.
Sure they are.

Of course there is, and must be. Absolutes serve no one - compromise and concession produce a civil society.

It produces tyranny. The sanctity of an individual's rights inherently and necessarily trump all other considerations, however desirable they may appear on their face.

A is A.

Funny thing is, even though some guns ARE legal, not many people have them. Probably because there is no need for them.

There's no need for a computer but you have. :rolleyes:

Tell me what an assault rifle is. The best you can come up with is one based on looks and now how they mechanically operate. If operation was the key, you'd be banning technology that is over 100 years old. 'Assault rifles' are not the problem. Guns are not the problem. Criminals repeating offenses are. Lock up the psychopath, not blokes like me.

After all, people in Britain, Canada and Australia have no right of Free Speech, though these states are probably the most similar to the US. These rights are granted by the constitution - that is simple fact.

Where did you get that impression from? =S

I can tell you now, in the UK, we DO have the right of free speech. And the UK isn't a state, its a Country.

I'd be in favour of limited gun control

I can see why people need/want a Rifle or a shotgun

But, there is no need for people to have Assault rifles for example.
Sure there is.

Without parity, how can we expect to mount an effective revolt?

In the UK, only guns I can legally own are shotguns or bolt action/break barrelled rifles. Handguns and fully automatics are banned, I think this is a good compromise.

It's not.

There is no such thing.

The essence of a compromise between good and evil is that some good is given up in exchange for an increase in evil.

How can such a compromise ever be acceptable?

Where did you get that impression from? =S

I can tell you now, in the UK, we DO have the right of free speech. And the UK isn't a state, its a Country.

No, the UK is a state that governs (at least) four countries: England, Wales, Scotland, and part of Ireland.

The "state" is the government.

The "country" is the land.

The "nation" is the people.

The boundaries of the three do not necessarily coincide.

For example, in ancient Greece, you had the country of Greece, which was the homeland of the Greek nation (the people), although they were not perfectly coincident as the Greeks had colonies abroad, including many in what is now Italy. Additionally, there was never any single unified Greek state controlling all of Greece and the Greek people.

Ancient Rome, on the other hand, was a single state (with admittedly a large degree of local autonomy, but they were all subordinate to the central Roman state) with control over several countries and nations.

There's no need for a computer but you have. :rolleyes:

Tell me what an assault rifle is. The best you can come up with is one based on looks and now how they mechanically operate. If operation was the key, you'd be banning technology that is over 100 years old. 'Assault rifles' are not the problem. Guns are not the problem. Criminals repeating offences are. Lock up the psychopath, not blokes like me.

I class an Assault rifle as a carbine like rifle of a smaller calibre but more powerful over shorter ranges, (typically urban) to its standard rifled cousins. Usually with a fully automatic capability. Often Military, or combat rifles. effective till around 400 metres.

As for Criminals. Yes you do have a point. however. Less guns, Less gun crime.

No, the UK is a state that governs (at least) four countries: England, Wales, Scotland, and part of Ireland.

The UK is a constitutional Monarchy governing Those 4 nations.

These 4 nations are UNIFIED as one. making it one united country.

"The "state" is the government." <--- no, the government is the government. the UK isn't a state. Bare in mind, the American federal and state government system is not operated here. We do not have a state government.

The UK is a constitutional Monarchy governing Those 4 nations.

These 4 nations are UNIFIED as one. making it one united country.

Not true. Nations don't unify to become one country--at most, they unify to become one nation. The "nation" is the people; the "country" is the land. People don't join together to become land.

"The "state" is the government." <--- no, the government is the government. the UK isn't a state. Bare in mind, the American federal and state government system is not operated here. We do not have a state government.

You have been confused by the US usage of the word "state."

The "state" is indeed the unit of political sovereignty--so the central government in the UK is indeed the state, as with every other country.

The primary political subdivisions of the US are called "states" because, originally, it was envisioned that they would function largely as "states" in the more general sense.

What it comes down to is, I'm right; you just have been misled by an application of a particular word in one special case that has become rather prominent.

Sure there is.

Without parity, how can we expect to mount an effective revolt?



It's not.

There is no such thing.

The essence of a compromise between good and evil is that some good is given up in exchange for an increase in evil.

How can such a compromise ever be acceptable?

I can't speak for the US.

Such a compromise is acceptable in the UK because a government can be other thrown legally and by political means. If it does resort to violence who's going to so the shooting? The Public have few guns, the Police have fewer, and you can't order a Soldier to fire on his own family. The first past the post polling system prevents a vast amount of extremists from gaining power. And it's expensive to stand for election, only like the top 10 parties can afford too, of these the top 3 are the only ones with a chance of winning, as they cover the broadest political spectrum, and are the most popular. As with everything it has flaws. but what the hey, so does the circulation of firearms.

There just isn't a need for many guns here.

I can't speak for the US.

Such a compromise is acceptable in the UK because a government can be other thrown legally and by political means.
What if the current government refuses to go? What if they start manipulating elections so it appears that they keep winning?

Even if they do play by the formal rules, so what? What government actually does is more important than how it got in power. I'd be more than happy to overthrow a popularly-elected government that chose to violate individual rights, but I'd never even think about overthrowing a dictator who seized power in a coup that respected individual rights.

The form of government is only a means to an end; it is of only secondary importance. The substance of government is what determines its actual legitimacy.

Sure, violent revolution is a last resort, but it is still a resort nonetheless. That option always needs to be there.

If it does resort to violence who's going to so the shooting? The Public have few guns, the Police have fewer, and you can't order a Soldier to fire on his own family.
Circular reasoning.

The first past the post polling system prevents a vast amount of extremists from gaining power.
There's nothing wrong with extremism, as long as it's extremism in the correct direction.

As Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

as they cover the broadest political spectrum, and are the most popular.

Popularity is irrelevant. Individual rights are what matter.

What if the current government refuses to go? What if they start manipulating elections so it appears that they keep winning?

Sure, violent revolution is a last resort, but it is still a resort nonetheless. That option always needs to be there.


Circular reasoning.


There's nothing wrong with extremism, as long as it's extremism in the correct direction.



^ Broke that down to make it easier to answer.

1, Other thrown by legal means

2, Circular reasoning won't work. Any usage of UK troops requires permission of Senior commanders, the Government in power, and the Queen. I believe the Shadow Government (next most popular) also have a say.

3, Violent revolution is always a resort, and it has been taken, English Civil War for example. The Miners strike, if you class that as a revolution, but it was very violent.

4, Extremism cannot go in a correct, or incorrect way, because there is always people opposing or supporting it. The more extreme a Left or Right wing government becomes, the closer to the centre it gets. sounds odd but think about it for a sec. Extremism needn't be violent either.

I'm going to leave this thread now as the UK/US gun control/style of government debate will go nowhere. The set of rules we operate here work for us, and yours work for you.

I'd be in favour of limited gun control

I can see why people need/want a Rifle or a shotgun

But, there is no need for people to have Assault rifles for example.

In the UK, only guns I can legally own are shotguns or bolt action/break barrelled rifles. Handguns and fully automatics are banned, I think this is a good compromise.

Funny thing is, even though some guns ARE legal, not many people have them. Probably because there is no need for them.

Need doesn't factor into it in the US.

I'll ignore your blatant equivocation and simply point out that your grasp of basic metaphysics is horrendous. The existence of a right is independent of the practical ability to exercise that right.



No, it isn't. It is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

You're going to have to support such a counter-intuitive statement. There is nothing immediately observable that I can say is a "right" nor is there anything that I can extrapolate from the existence of natural rights. Now, I do believe in a degree of natural rights but, as I have hard time proving such without a lot of word play and intellectual gymnastics, I rarely use such a belief as a cornerstone to any of my arguments.

So, are you positing some weird kind of Platonic "right to bear arms", perfect in every way and existing off in the heavens? Again, it seems you are, but you're going to need to provide sufficient reason for readers to believe it. Otherwise most will stick with our conception of rights as having been derived from Social Contract theory.

I'll ignore your blatant equivocation and simply point out that your grasp of basic metaphysics is horrendous. The existence of a right is independent of the practical ability to exercise that right.



No, it isn't. It is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

I agree, my grasp of metaphysics, basic or otherwise, is probably exceptionally poor. This is because I have attained the understanding that metaphysics is a bunch of superstitious crap with no relationship to reality.

And since the universe has no principles, purpose or reason, arguing from such mythical claptrap is useless.

Rights are what we make of them, nothing more.


The Supreme Court is not the legitimate arbiter of the extent of our rights.

Then you understand nothing about your own system of government. I don't know how you do things in cloud-cuckoo land, but in the US the Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of rights we have, save direct appeal to the people for a change in the constitution.


No, they don't. The end does not justify the means.

No, it doesn't; it seems we have a point of agreement. However, restrictions upon rights are not caused by any end goal, but by the simple fact that unrestricted rights are actually harmful, both to the society AND to the individual.


Such laws are illegitimate, PRECISELY because one's right to free speech is indeed absolute.


Such laws are illegitimate, PRECISELY because one's right to free speech is indeed absolute.

Who appointed you tyrant? Legitimacy of law is confirmed by the acceptance of the populace of the legitimacy of the system of law making - and the populace appears to be quite happy, currently, with the system we possess. It's not perfect, but it works.



Sure they are.

We're talking reality here, not fantasy. Every right we possess has limits - for the good of the civil society and the individuals who live in it, imposed by the individuals chosen to govern, freely, by the populace.



It produces tyranny. The sanctity of an individual's rights inherently and necessarily trump all other considerations, however desirable they may appear on their face.

A is A.

NO. There is ALWAYS one other consideration that MUST count equally highly.

Someone ELSE'S rights.

Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose. Your right to shout "Fire!" ends when I would be endangered by your speech. Your right to make plans ends when those plans endanger me and mine.

Individual's rights must be limited in order to protect the rights of ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS.

A+A>A.

Where did you get that impression from? =S


I know the Australian and Canadian constitutions grant no right to freedom of speech. Britain has no constitution; any laws granting such freedom can be revoked at any time.

And anyway, coming from a country that invented the notorious "D-Notice", a claim of having freedom of speech seems a little disingenuous.

I know the Australian and Canadian constitutions grant no right to freedom of speech. Britain has no constitution; any laws granting such freedom can be revoked at any time.

And anyway, coming from a country that invented the notorious "D-Notice", a claim of having freedom of speech seems a little disingenuous.

Originally, the Magna Carta spelled out the rights of the people, fettered and unfettered, and set limits on the monarchy by stating that their rule was not above the law. While several of the clauses have either been amended or removed, some still remain in use to this day. Not to mention the Magna Carta was the basis for the U.S. Constitution.

As far as a D-Notice (or DA-Notice) goes, it is simply a request by the British government to prevent the various media outlets from broadcasting or publishing information that may be sensitive to national security. As a request, it has no legal basis and can be ignored by the various media outlets if they so choose to ignore it.

My God, if we had that many guns, it'd be ten per person! I despise guns. I think they're a demented idea, unless you rely on hunting for financial or cultural reasons. Shooting people=STUPID STUPID STUPID.

Shooting people=STUPID STUPID STUPID.

If someone was shooting at you, and you had a gun, you might reconsider what you just posted.

Yes, someone shooting at you is stupid, but shooting back is generally considered to be smart.

If someone was shooting at you, and you had a gun, you might reconsider what you just posted.

Yes, someone shooting at you is stupid, but shooting back is generally considered to be smart.

Well, if nobody had guns, nobody would be flipping shooting me in the first place, correct? And I wouldn't change my mind. My pacifism is going to the grave with me. I'd die for it. And I know what happens when you kill people. You end up like Serena on Gossip Girl. NOT GOOD! She's totes about to sleep with her step-bro and get dumped by her boyfriend. And that wouldn't have happened if she didn't kill anyone.

Well, if nobody had guns, nobody would be flipping shooting me in the first place, correct? And I wouldn't change my mind. My pacifism is going to the grave with me. I'd die for it. And I know what happens when you kill people. You end up like Serena on Gossip Girl. NOT GOOD! She's totes about to sleep with her step-bro and get dumped by her boyfriend. And that wouldn't have happened if she didn't kill anyone.

Unfortunately, banning guns has not led to zero guns.

Since they are easily made on light machine shop tools, they're with us forever.

Killing people affects people differently - I haven't lost any sleep over it.

Well, if nobody had guns, nobody would be flipping shooting me in the first place, correct?
Nobody except people who would hide their guns from the law, i.e. criminals.
And I wouldn't change my mind. My pacifism is going to the grave with me. I'd die for it.
Would you let your kin or friends die for it? Allowing everything and everyone you care for, including yourself, to be destroyed so as not to disrupt some mythical harmonic balance of the universe is not a moral code. You have the right to defend yourself, as does every human being. You have no ethical duty to fall over dead because some sociopath miscreant wills you to do so.

Unfortunately, banning guns has not led to zero guns.

Since they are easily made on light machine shop tools, they're with us forever.

Killing people affects people differently - I haven't lost any sleep over it.

Wow, you're rather proud to have taken someone's life. I could torture you about it, but that would be pointless. Really, the issue isn't so much about physically removing the guns, because you're right when you say people can easily make homemade ones. The issue is spiritually, mentally, and emotionally removing the desire to hurt others. I have faith.

Nobody except people who would hide their guns from the law, i.e. criminals.

Would you let your kin or friends die for it? Allowing everything and everyone you care for, including yourself, to be destroyed so as not to disrupt some mythical harmonic balance of the universe is not a moral code. You have the right to defend yourself, as does every human being. You have no ethical duty to fall over dead because some sociopath miscreant wills you to do so.

Not according to your morals. But morals are subjective, so everybody has a different idea. In my opinion, I am equal to all other human beings, therefore I am not permitted to decide who is worthy of life and who is not. By killing, I'm making a judgement of worth that I'm not qualified to make. Yes, it would be a tough situation if I was in some kind of moral delimma where I had to choose between shooting a man and letting that man shoot my sister, and I don't know what I would do in a moment of desperation like that. Luckily, I've never seen any reason to believe the world is that black and white.

And I don't believe I ever said "If the government had stricter gun control laws, there wouldn't be anyone to flipping shoot me, correct?" It was if NOBODY HAD GUNS. Completely different. Unrealistic and hypothetical, but that was kind of the point. Like, "if nobody had the recipe for Krispy Kreme donuts, I wouldn't be getting fat right now, would I?" is quite different from "If I promised myself not to eat any more of the 3-day-old Krispy Kremes on my counter, I wouldn't be getting fat right now, would I?"

Then you understand nothing about your own system of government. I don't know how you do things in cloud-cuckoo land, but in the US the Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of rights we have, save direct appeal to the people for a change in the constitution.

Oh, come on. He's not a dumbass; he's just denying the legitimacy of the Supreme Court deciding the extent of our rights, and you know it.


No, it doesn't; it seems we have a point of agreement. However, restrictions upon rights are not caused by any end goal, but by the simple fact that unrestricted rights are actually harmful, both to the society AND to the individual.

I can think of an unrestricted right that is not harmful to either society or the individual, and that's the right to bodily integrity. (More specifically, the right not to be raped.) And any restriction on that right would be absurd to "balance" with the interests of the community.


Who appointed anyone tyrant?

Fixed.


Legitimacy of law is confirmed by the acceptance of the populace of the legitimacy of the system of law making

How is this acceptance secured? Might it be the lawful threat and us of physical force if you don't accept the legitimacy of law? The derision and contempt of your neighbors?


- and the populace appears to be quite happy, currently, with the system we possess.

You're right. The populace seems to love the ability to exercise control over other people; for example, to keep them from having guns "for their own safety," to continue the humiliation of sexual minority, and to cripple labor unions as much as possible.



It's not perfect, but it works.

It works very well for specific people. It works okay for others. And for still others, it doesn't work very well at all.


We're talking reality here, not fantasy.

Pragmatism is acquiescence to illegitimate power.


Every right we possess has limits - for the good of the civil society and the individuals who live in it, imposed by the individuals chosen to govern, freely, by the populace.

I was unaware that an argument could be given for the rape of women.



NO. There is ALWAYS one other consideration that MUST count equally highly.

Someone ELSE'S rights.

Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose. Your right to shout "Fire!" ends when I would be endangered by your speech. Your right to make plans ends when those plans endanger me and mine.

Individual's rights must be limited in order to protect the rights of ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS.

A+A>A.
Blah, blah, blah. Of course I agree with you, since what you're talking about is the whole point of rights theory, but you should probably flesh this point out in less vague terms.

Not according to your morals. But morals are subjective, so everybody has a different idea. In my opinion, I am equal to all other human beings, therefore I am not permitted to decide who is worthy of life and who is not. By killing, I'm making a judgement of worth that I'm not qualified to make. Yes, it would be a tough situation if I was in some kind of moral delimma where I had to choose between shooting a man and letting that man shoot my sister, and I don't know what I would do in a moment of desperation like that. Luckily, I've never seen any reason to believe the world is that black and white.
Morality is a code of conduct with regards to other people. If morality is entirely subjective, it is meaningless. I reject that notion, and in fact you do too, because you put some considerable stock in behaving as what you believe to be a moral person, to the extent of offering your life instead of defending it violently.

And I don't believe I ever said "If the government had stricter gun control laws, there wouldn't be anyone to flipping shoot me, correct?" It was if NOBODY HAD GUNS. Completely different. Unrealistic and hypothetical, but that was kind of the point. Like, "if nobody had the recipe for Krispy Kreme donuts, I wouldn't be getting fat right now, would I?" is quite different from "If I promised myself not to eat any more of the 3-day-old Krispy Kremes on my counter, I wouldn't be getting fat right now, would I?"
Fair enough, but you know very well they'd just be bludgeoning and chopping us to bits instead.

Morality is a code of conduct with regards to other people. If morality is entirely subjective, it is meaningless. I reject that notion, and in fact you do too, because you put some considerable stock in behaving as what you believe to be a moral person, to the extent of offering your life instead of defending it violently.

Not true. It's possible that I believe something quite strongly and still understand it to be subjective. Like art and music. I think Steven Patrick Morrissey is quite the genius, but do I think everyone ought to run out and buy up all remaining Smiths records? No way. I'd actually prefer if they didn't. Same with morality. If someone has a personal or cultural moral code that says they must cover their legs or face, I'm okay with that. It's none of my business. I don't follow my morals because I think they're an objective truth that's going to be judged by an omnipotent being when I die. I follow them because they're how I choose to define myself. And my morals are constantly changing as I understand more of the world. My opinion on things like drug use has flipped back and forth multiple times throughout my adolescense, depending on how much of the world I could see from where I was standing. I'm plagerising when I say this, but it is impossible to have an objective view of anything in a dynamic world where all observers are also participants.

Originally, the Magna Carta spelled out the rights of the people, fettered and unfettered, and set limits on the monarchy by stating that their rule was not above the law. While several of the clauses have either been amended or removed, some still remain in use to this day. Not to mention the Magna Carta was the basis for the U.S. Constitution.

Well, I'd actually say that a variety of writings (mostly by Britons, to be sure) had a stronger claim to be the basis of the US constitution than Magna Carta did, such as the writings of John Locke, though I'd be the last to denigrate the "Great Charter" or what it meant for the development of the relationship between government and goverened.


As far as a D-Notice (or DA-Notice) goes, it is simply a request by the British government to prevent the various media outlets from broadcasting or publishing information that may be sensitive to national security. As a request, it has no legal basis and can be ignored by the various media outlets if they so choose to ignore it.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge, but my understanding was that violation of a D-Notice was grounds for revocation of a broadcaster's licence.

I say that in order to have a gun, you should have firearm skills and safety training, as well as a psycological test.

Either that or:gundge: paintball guns

I say that in order to have a gun, you should have firearm skills and safety training, as well as a psycological test.

Either that or:gundge: paintball guns

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WoF3w1pZFEw

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.

Ah, but not every man, woman and child in the US has a gun. That means I am obligated to pick up the slack and own more than one. If 50 people refuse to own a firearm, that obligates me to pick up even more slack. You should thank me for keeping the economy going and keeping those manufacturing jobs at home as my firearms purchases are helping to generate tax dollars that will ultimately be used to try and prohibit me from owning firearms (ironic, huh?).

Come to think of it, not everyone votes. Perhaps I need to pick up the slack there as well. Oh well, I probably couldn`t outvote all the dead in Chicago anyways.

If you wish to remain firearm free and a possible victim that is your choice. I will exersize my 'right' to bear arms and I`ll exersize yours as well, sounds like it needs a vigorous workout. If the founding fathers could have seen this far into the future, I`m sure they would have mandated the ownership of arms.

Oh, come on. He's not a dumbass; he's just denying the legitimacy of the Supreme Court deciding the extent of our rights, and you know it.

Yeah, I know it. But frankly, I'm a little sick of people denigrating and casually decrying organizatons that have served us well, and are continuing to give us good service by dint of a lot of hard work and passion on the part of the people who make them up. Not to mention that he seems to lack the comprehension that whatever we make and design has to work in the real world, not in some Platonic Ideal Universe.

Further, in bringing the Supreme Court's legitimacy into doubt, he's effectively denying the legitimacy of all aspects of the US political system, as they are all interrelated. I've seen a little too much of this to consider it either harmless or non-deliberate. So, with all due respect, if he keeps putting them up, I'm going to keep knocking them down.


I can think of an unrestricted right that is not harmful to either society or the individual, and that's the right to bodily integrity. (More specifically, the right not to be raped.) And any restriction on that right would be absurd to "balance" with the interests of the community.

By and large, I would agree with you. However, consider this: you already have a limitation on your body and the sanctity therof, in that it is illegal to sell your organs. You may give them away, or will them to a person or organization after you die, but outright sale is illegal.


How is this acceptance secured? Might it be the lawful threat and us of physical force if you don't accept the legitimacy of law? The derision and contempt of your neighbors?

By and large, legitimacy is something that cannot be secured. It is granted by the populace. If your population generally believes that your government is legitimate, then it is. If they do not so believe, nothing can make you legitimate.

Many dictators and coup leaders have fallen foul of this. They have found that while they can enforce obedience with military might or secret police, the moment their back is turned the populace simply chooses to ignore their wishes and does what it chooses - often forming resistance movements and liberation fronts to restore a government form that is seen as legitimate. Indeed, a strong reason for the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was that the populace no longer believed in their governments - they had withdrawn their imprimatur of legitimacy.

A truly legitimate government has nothing to fear from guerillas and liberation movements - for as long as the populace is with you, such organizations can make no headway. An illegitimate government, on the other hand, in the end, cannot stand.


You're right. The populace seems to love the ability to exercise control over other people; for example, to keep them from having guns "for their own safety," to continue the humiliation of sexual minority, and to cripple labor unions as much as possible.

Yes. And much of that is precisely according to the expressed will of the people, which is how this government form is supposed to work.

Blame not the tool for the sins of the wielder.


It works very well for specific people. It works okay for others. And for still others, it doesn't work very well at all.

Yes, you're right. As I said, it is imperfect, but for the vast majority, it works well.


Pragmatism is acquiescence to illegitimate power.

Pragmatism is acquisence to reality.

I was unaware that an argument could be given for the rape of women.

I doubt that one can (and I certainly wouldn't want to try). But one can on the broader area of bodily sanctity.


Blah, blah, blah. Of course I agree with you, since what you're talking about is the whole point of rights theory, but you should probably flesh this point out in less vague terms.

Please, be my guest.

I agree, my grasp of metaphysics, basic or otherwise, is probably exceptionally poor. This is because I have attained the understanding that metaphysics is a bunch of superstitious crap with no relationship to reality.
Then your understanding is completely wrong.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of the Universe--e.g. is reality independent of perception, etc. Its method, like all of philosophy, is rigorous logical argument. I have no clue why anyone could think superstition would enter into it at all. It's absurd and ignorant.

And since the universe has no principles, purpose or reason, arguing from such mythical claptrap is useless.
It has a fundamental nature and fundamental properties.

Then you understand nothing about your own system of government. I don't know how you do things in cloud-cuckoo land, but in the US the Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of rights we have, save direct appeal to the people for a change in the constitution.
It's not that I deny how it works; I simply deny that it has any legitimacy.

No, it doesn't; it seems we have a point of agreement. However, restrictions upon rights are not caused by any end goal, but by the simple fact that unrestricted rights are actually harmful, both to the society AND to the individual.
Only an improper conception of rights could lead to that conclusion.

Who appointed you tyrant? Legitimacy of law is confirmed by the acceptance of the populace of the legitimacy of the system of law making - and the populace appears to be quite happy, currently, with the system we possess. It's not perfect, but it works.
No, it isn't. Legitimacy is a matter of objective moral principle.

We're talking reality here, not fantasy. Every right we possess has limits - for the good of the civil society and the individuals who live in it, imposed by the individuals chosen to govern, freely, by the populace.

NO. There is ALWAYS one other consideration that MUST count equally highly.

Someone ELSE'S rights.
Again, see above. In a proper conception of rights, there is no conflict between my rights and yours, so there is no need for "restriction". Your problem is that you subscribe to a wholly incorrect conception of rights.

Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.
Again, properly understood that is not a restriction on the right but rather an intrinsic part of its philosophical essence.

Your right to shout "Fire!" ends when I would be endangered by your speech.
Merely shouting "Fire" does not harm anyone. Individuals are responsible for the physical actions they take. I am not responsible for another's choice to trample you. I did not hold a gun to his head.

Your right to make plans ends when those plans endanger me and mine.
Again, merely making the plans does you no harm. Only acting on them does.

A+A>A.

Incorrect. The individual is not subordinate to the collective.

But morals are subjective

No, they're not.

There is one objectively correct moral code.

That there are people who reject it does not change the fact that it is objectively correct; it simply means that those who reject it are objectively wrong.

Universal agreement is not a necessary condition for a proposition to be a universal truth.

Pragmatism is acquisence to reality.

Are you familiar with the is/ought fallacy?

Or do you just deny that institutions created by humans can be changed by humans?

Or do you just subscribe to the same Panglossian delusion that has entwined countless others?

Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean that it is rightly so, or that it is forever static and unchangeable.

No, they're not.

There is one objectively correct moral code.

That there are people who reject it does not change the fact that it is objectively correct; it simply means that those who reject it are objectively wrong.

Universal agreement is not a necessary condition for a proposition to be a universal truth.

You've still yet to prove this. I can say I shit lilacs all day long but unless I present a valid argument or some empirical proof, it's all nonsense.

No, they're not.

There is one objectively correct moral code.

That there are people who reject it does not change the fact that it is objectively correct; it simply means that those who reject it are objectively wrong.

Universal agreement is not a necessary condition for a proposition to be a universal truth.

Ummmmmmmmmmm....I don't see any reason to believe there is an objective moral code. Where would it come from? The flying spaghetti monster?

Of course. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

My God, if we had that many guns, it'd be ten per person! I despise guns. I think they're a demented idea, unless you rely on hunting for financial or cultural reasons. Shooting people=STUPID STUPID STUPID.

Hunting and shooting people aren't the only reasons to own firearms. I own a rifle to target shoot.

If we ban guns we have to ban every other weapon right? I mean, we'll have to outlaw plastic bags, wires, cords, socks, rolls of coins, bricks, matches, hairspray, glass bottles, water, pillows, hands, stairs, knifes, trained bears, flashing lights, the brown note, chocking, anti-freexe, ect, ect.

Then your understanding is completely wrong.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of the Universe--e.g. is reality independent of perception, etc. Its method, like all of philosophy, is rigorous logical argument. I have no clue why anyone could think superstition would enter into it at all. It's absurd and ignorant.

Rigorous logical argument, when proceeding from fallacious assumption, is merely a method of being confidently wrong.


It has a fundamental nature and fundamental properties.

If you mean, it is composed of fundamental particles and forces, of course. If you seek to ascribe human aspects of meaning, then you err in anthropomorphizing a purposeless universe.


It's not that I deny how it works; I simply deny that it has any legitimacy.

Your vote is noted. Given that you are outvoted by, oh, the entire rest of the populace, legitimacy is ascribed over your objection.


Only an improper conception of rights could lead to that conclusion.

My conception of rights is grounded in the reality of human interaction, to wit: those privileges that we have determined most important to our conception of freedom and a good life, and which we have forbidden our government from casually violating.


No, it isn't. Legitimacy is a matter of objective moral principle.

More superstitious bullshit. Unless you are assuming a god of some sort, all morality is subjective.


Again, see above. In a proper conception of rights, there is no conflict between my rights and yours, so there is no need for "restriction". Your problem is that you subscribe to a wholly incorrect conception of rights.


Again, properly understood that is not a restriction on the right but rather an intrinsic part of its philosophical essence.

Sounds more like weaseling out to me. If you have the right to throw a punch, but it ends at some point, that point is the point at which it is restricted. Period.


Merely shouting "Fire" does not harm anyone. Individuals are responsible for the physical actions they take. I am not responsible for another's choice to trample you. I did not hold a gun to his head.

You speak of morality, then you deny responsibility. Human reactions in such a situation are totally predctable - and when the results are predictable, responsibility for those results lies with the initiator of the causative chain. You would clearly be rsponsible for my death were you to pull a lever that released a weight to drop on me. Likewise, our knowledge of human reactions and psychology show that you are equally culpable in the crowded theatre scenario.



Incorrect. The individual is not subordinate to the collective.

Had I wished to say that, I would have used the terms for the greater set susbsuming the lesser. I did not. Rather, I pointed out that in the real world, upon occasion, the rights of individuals clash. When this occurs, a decision must be made, and the best rule we have so far attained is that of the least harm to the greatest number.

If we ban guns we have to ban every other weapon right? I mean, we'll have to outlaw plastic bags, wires, cords, socks, rolls of coins, bricks, matches, hairspray, glass bottles, water, pillows, hands, stairs, knifes, trained bears, flashing lights, the brown note, chocking, anti-freexe, ect, ect.

Not the brown note! Anything but that! :eek:

And wheel chocks help save lives and prevent accidents. That's why postal carriers in CT are required to have a chock.















































:D

Are you familiar with the is/ought fallacy?

Probably, but not in those terms. Please enlighten me.

Or do you just deny that institutions created by humans can be changed by humans?

Of course we can. Change is simple; change in a positive direction is hard.

Or do you just subscribe to the same Panglossian delusion that has entwined countless others?{/QUOTE]

"The Best of All Possible Worlds?" Not only have I read Candide, I have also read an english translation of the Theodicy, from which the character of Pangloss gets his philosophy.

In answer: Hardly. I inhabit a universe of utter lack of purpose, without concept, want or need. What purpose there is is what we bring to it.

[QUOTE]Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean that it is rightly so, or that it is forever static and unchangeable.

Certainly, that is true. But to effect positive change requires much more than merely identifying that which one dislikes; rather, one must attain a plan or scheme for a superior end, and then work towards that end. To merely cast aspersions on the current, based on supposed flaws, aids this struggle in no way.

Most change is a mistake, leading only ever to greater entropy. Careful, positive change is just the opposite.

If we ban guns we have to ban every other weapon right? I mean, we'll have to outlaw plastic bags, wires, cords, socks, rolls of coins, bricks, matches, hairspray, glass bottles, water, pillows, hands, stairs, knifes, trained bears, flashing lights, the brown note, chocking, anti-freexe, ect, ect.

This place actualy gets funnyier everyday!

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?


Of course I can, and it has nothing to do with meaningless statistics and everything to do with emotional manipulation to further an elitist agenda.

The only real question is whether or not you are the "gullible true believer" who actually believes gun control will curb crime or violence, or the "cynical manipulator" who furthers the gun control agenda so that the average person will become inexorably dependent upon the state in which he lives and the government to which he submits because he has no choice.

Gun control promotes tyranny. The fact that there are so many firearms in the United States comforts me, as opposed to scaring me.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of self-defense against all forms of tyranny, be they perpetrated by individual or by government?

GP

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of self-defense against all forms of tyranny, be they perpetrated by individual or by government?

GP


Umm can you cite me any examples of times when the American people used guns as self defence against their goverment?

Yes. The Revolutionary War 1775-1783

The Civil War 1861-1865

Most recently, the Freemen (notice THEY didn't have a Waco incident?) 1996

GP

Yes. The Revolutionary War 1775-1783

The Civil War 1861-1865

Most recently, the Freemen (notice THEY didn't have a Waco incident?) 1996

GP

shit thats almost once every 100 years or so, i guess your due a revoltion huh.

shit thats almost once every 100 years or so, i guess your due a revoltion huh.


You have no idea how close to the truth you are.

GP

You have no idea how close to the truth you are.

GP

Sweet, I'll let you chaps get your country sorted then.

shit thats almost once every 100 years or so, i guess your due a revoltion huh.

No, we already had the one for this century. Wait another seventy years give or take.

Rigorous logical argument, when proceeding from fallacious assumption, is merely a method of being confidently wrong.

Indicate the fallacious assumption in his argument. If you can't, then your argument falls flat. In this case, assuming that I exist, which I have evidence saying I do, then I have rights. The extent toi which they may be guaranteed or enforced is limited by my own ability and the government, but those rights exist independent of any legal or moral(immoral?) argument. I have the right to stop you from punching me by whatever means necessary. I have the right to posess a firearm. I have the right to speak my mind, no matter what words are said to the contrary. I have the right to be secure in my person from all threats by any means I see fit. These rights do not change, no matter the form of government or law of the land. The right to bear arms stems from other rights, most specifically the "any means necessary" portions.

Not according to your morals. But morals are subjective, so everybody has a different idea. In my opinion, I am equal to all other human beings, therefore I am not permitted to decide who is worthy of life and who is not. By killing, I'm making a judgement of worth that I'm not qualified to make. Yes, it would be a tough situation if I was in some kind of moral delimma where I had to choose between shooting a man and letting that man shoot my sister, and I don't know what I would do in a moment of desperation like that. Luckily, I've never seen any reason to believe the world is that black and white.

That is an argument of cowardice. I know who has a right to live by a very simple judgement. He has attempted to violate my right to life. I will reply by successfully revoking his. There is no moral dilemma involved. All legitemate moral codes recognize the right of a person to be safe, and the right to act in defense of that right. It is wrong to rape a woman, no matter your reason, it is right for a woman to shoot a man who attempts to rape her. It is wrong to kill a man in cold blood or in a fit of rage, it is right to defend yourself from a person trying to kill you, to the point of ending their life. It is wrong to persecute a minority simply for being a minority, it is right for that minority to be able to stop people from persecuting them. It is wrong to hurt others for your own pleasure(unless they want you to hurt them, and they enjoy being hurt), it is right to stop someone from hurting you(unlerss you enjoy being hurt, and want them to hurt you). Each and every one of these is an absolute statement that cannot be argued. No legitemate moral code will find that to be otherwise, and if you show me a moral code that does, it is obviously not a legitemate moral set.

Do you think private citizens should be able to have thermonuclear warheads?

Why not, I mean in the state that i live its not illegal to own but it is to detonate it :D. But we as Americans have the right to own a gun. I mean it is releasable to say that you can't own a Nuke but to even get it mean getting from another nation. But i say the more guns the better, it makes criminals think twice before committing a crime.

Having not read the previous 6 (for me) pages of discussion, I ask why having 250 Million plus Firearms in the hands of American citizens is inherently a bad thing.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.

If something is so popular, why is it a problem? It is like saying, "Since,60% of Americans enjoy watching professional athletics, lets enact policies to discourage them from watching sports."

Marksmanship is an important citizenship skill. I think that every sane American should know how to clean, store, and fire a gun in an accurate and safe manner.

I also think everyone should be able to change a flat tire.

If something is so popular, why is it a problem? It is like saying, "Since,60% of Americans enjoy watching professional athletics, lets enact policies to discourage them from watching sports."

Marksmanship is an important citizenship skill. I think that every sane American should know how to clean, store, and fire a gun in an accurate and safe manner.

I also think everyone should be able to change a flat tire.
I agree. Such skills are necessary for the revolution.

I agree. Such skills are necessary for the revolution.
Ah, anarchists. Such a bunch of tools.



Anyway, we seem to do better than everyone else (outside of Scandinavia) in the UK, and we hardly have any guns at all.

Oh yes, we need them! we also need..

Knife control laws
Car control laws
Lawnmower control laws
Hammer control laws
Saw control laws
Screwdriver control laws
Power drill control laws
Blender control laws
Toaster control laws
Bathtub control laws (SEE THE EVIL CONNECTION?!?!? OH MY GOD!11!1!!)


Don't forget those pesky wrenches and torquewrenches, we need laws on them too.

[/sarcasm]




You are my hero.


< Is a gun toting radical right wingernon sequiter much?

Ah, anarchists. Such a bunch of tools.

Can't we all just get along? :fluffle:


Anyway, we seem to do better than everyone else (outside of Scandinavia) in the UK, and we hardly have any guns at all.

I think the gun violence is just an American thing. Our problem is that we have a bunch of assholes who shoot each other sideways. :(

I suggest that your situation in the UK is better. People like the police more, and people seem to be more easygoing. (I have been to the UK a few times. Even in London, people seemed nicer than in many large American cities.)

Can't we all just get along?
No.
I think the gun violence is just an American thing. Our problem is that we have a bunch of assholes who shoot each other sideways. :(
Don't be ridiculous. Gun violence is nothing like "just an American thing". It's a massive problem in the larger cities of South America (esp. Rio de Janiero), in South Africa in general and in the Ex-USSR states in Eastern Europe, in addition to Russia itself.

I agree. Such skills are good for enjoying shooting sports.

In bold is what I would have said. :D

Grave Digging Laws, Anyone?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.

Well we have enough guns for everyone here to stand by a window and defend the fort. Guess how many guns the State of Georgia thinks we have.

Grave Digging Laws, Anyone?

2 days is a grave dig now? :confused:

there's only one effective gun control law, and that is to ban their mass production. (which isn't at all a bad idea. yes other things will take their place. that isn't neccessarily a bad thing either. just depends how that develops. which might be interesting to see.)

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

i aggree with those who say banning the POSSESSION of ANYthing is a bad idea, because you cannot expect unreasonable searches and seazures not to take place when anything is.

but this is not an objection to banning the mass production, sale, and mass importation for sale, of anything.

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

The right to self protection is the most fundamental right of all, and in a country as rich in firearms as the USA, self-defense is a sham unless it is armed self defense.

What is more, our constitution protects the right to keep and bear weapons designed to kill people, for the purpose of killing people.

Can't we all just get along? :fluffle:


I think the gun violence is just an American thing. Our problem is that we have a bunch of assholes who shoot each other sideways. :(

I suggest that your situation in the UK is better. People like the police more, and people seem to be more easygoing. (I have been to the UK a few times. Even in London, people seemed nicer than in many large American cities.)



heh but people certianly do not like the police more.

A two part post:

1. Th ghong is, guns are a farot differnet phenomon no in ubrna areas as opposed tu rural areas. In Rural areas, it wmight well be a damn long time before the police get there if you're home is bein in vaded. In Urbvan areas, guns are prety much used to kill people.


2. It ison ly tural that with attarcks an our imgaination increasing, gusn woult go up. How welse will we protect our imaginations?

A two part post:

1. Th ghong is, guns are a farot differnet phenomon no in ubrna areas as opposed tu rural areas. In Rural areas, it wmight well be a damn long time before the police get there if you're home is bein in vaded. In Urbvan areas, guns are prety much used to kill people.


2. It ison ly tural that with attarcks an our imgaination increasing, gusn woult go up. How welse will we protect our imaginations?

For the love of God please edit, um all of it. Its too early in the morning to be getting a headache.

there's only one effective gun control law, and that is to ban their mass production. (which isn't at all a bad idea. yes other things will take their place. that isn't neccessarily a bad thing either. just depends how that develops. which might be interesting to see.)

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

i aggree with those who say banning the POSSESSION of ANYthing is a bad idea, because you cannot expect unreasonable searches and seazures not to take place when anything is.

but this is not an objection to banning the mass production, sale, and mass importation for sale, of anything.

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

You ban the mass production of Weapons, you leave a gapping whole in our defense industry. No one will have the experince, or the manufacturing capability to create them in the event of the shit hitting the fan, like if Czar Putin decides that Poland has had its sick day and is time for it to come back under his control, or China attacks American Carriers in the pacifc to keep us from stopping them from invading Tawian.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

No, not at all.

If you're ASKEERED of being shot, learn to defend yourself. No one else fucking well can, yeah?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.
Regardless of one's views on gun control, your logic makes no sense. The mere fact that something is common isn't grounds for banning it, you would have to demonstrate why the bolded statement is necessarily bad.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?

Feel free to start the debate.
THERES TOO MUCH OXYGEN
TAKE IT AWAY
TOOO MUCH
EVERYONE HAS IT
AND ITS FREEEEEEEEEE D::::::::::::::;

THERES TOO MUCH OXYGEN
TAKE IT AWAY
TOOO MUCH
EVERYONE HAS IT
AND ITS FREEEEEEEEEE D::::::::::::::;

ZOMG


TOO MUCH DARK MATTER

WE NEED MATTER CONTROL LAWS

Is it just me, or is Gun Control one of those third rail topics in NSG?

there's only one effective gun control law, and that is to ban their mass production. (which isn't at all a bad idea. yes other things will take their place. that isn't neccessarily a bad thing either. just depends how that develops. which might be interesting to see.)

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

i aggree with those who say banning the POSSESSION of ANYthing is a bad idea, because you cannot expect unreasonable searches and seazures not to take place when anything is.

but this is not an objection to banning the mass production, sale, and mass importation for sale, of anything.

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

I'm sure that making a law that bans the mass production of firearms will lead to nobody owning them, as we all know that once the ban happens, all firearms will magically disappear, magically nobody will be able to illegally import them, magically nobody will make their own, and magically all crime will stop.

Now that I have that out of my system, banning firearms and firearms manufacture won't happen, at least in the US. Firearms are too integrated into our history, hobbies, sports, and culture.

A two part post:

1. Th ghong is, guns are a farot differnet phenomon no in ubrna areas as opposed tu rural areas. In Rural areas, it wmight well be a damn long time before the police get there if you're home is bein in vaded. In Urbvan areas, guns are prety much used to kill people.


2. It ison ly tural that with attarcks an our imgaination increasing, gusn woult go up. How welse will we protect our imaginations?

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/4492/owlwhatnow9hd.jpg

Is it just me, or is Gun Control one of those third rail topics in NSG?

Yes.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

The above link details the amount of guns in the United States. Specifically, it says that

"America is now estimated to have between 238 million and 276 million firearms, compared with some 250 million legally owned guns, or 84 for every 100 people."

Keep in mind that this article was writting 5 years ago.

I'm positive that, in light of the terrorists attacking our imagination, that the number of privately held guns in the United States has greatly increased.

Also keep in mind that the population of the US is about 300 million.

There are nearly enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to have their own.

Now, can't you see why I'm in favor of gun control laws?
I cannot, no. Your opposition to guns is based on their frequency?

So, you must really hate telephones, then. And eyes. There are nearly twice as many eyes as people in your country.

So... Why is it that because there are so many guns... You want to outlaw them...?

I mean, we have more than enough cars in this country for every man, woman and child. Should we set restrictions on cars just because there are so many of them? I think not.

I cannot, no. Your opposition to guns is based on their frequency?

So, you must really hate telephones, then. And eyes. There are nearly twice as many eyes as people in your country.

Same with lungs, kidneys, ears, arms, and legs.

heh but people certianly do not like the police more.
I don't think they should. At least, not given the way many police officers act right now.

I would have more respect for police if the nice police officers would yell at the many others who are mean :mad: to the people they are supposed to help. The police are intimidating, and I want to engage them as real people, but their whole demeanor makes it hard. :(

In an ideal world, police officers would be running around being like "yo, what's up?" and "are you looking for something?" in some English accent, wearing funny hats so that people don't take them too seriously.

OK folks, It seems that everyone is playing with the idea for stopping gun manufacturing, or mass production. well that has already happened once, It was the AR ban, which did nothing to stop people from getting guns.

If you look at most guns that are used to kill other people it isn't the good old Assault Rifle but in fact it is a hand gun. because they are easy to hide, while a AR is extremely difficult to hide on a person not in a heavy trench coat.

More on the idea of gun control I hate the idea! :headbang: Why?
1)Guns are tools and all tools can be used by good people or bad.
2)Some of the safest cities in the US have Open Carry laws that state you can walk down the street with a AR, a Shotgun, Hunting rifle and two pistols and no one can stop you for doing that. One City, Frontsite, Arizona has no crime rate at all. Want to know why? Because every person in that town owns a gun, Its a law to live there. Yeah no lie to live in the city you must own at least one gun.
3) to get a AR or anything that is classified as Class 3 or higher you must have a spot clean record. I'm you can't have done anything wrong at all or you can't even own them. So basically the people who own the heavy weapons are law biding citizens who just enjoy owing and exercising the second amendment.

And I'll say it again...... The US government is the only government that has a gun pointed at it head. So be thankful of that, second amendment. And Feel free to use it, god only nows if we don't the god damn Government might take it away along with all of our other freedoms

-Cam-
Gun owner/Manufacture :D

Wait, I'm sorry...someone has a legitimate concern over gun control laws and you guys decide that they're an IDIOT?

They're not, since the frequency of abuse of your gun control laws in the states being portrayed on TV has actually pushed up gun crime in other countries such as the United Kingdom. Maybe...and this is just a suggestion... you should think about enforcing some of your own laws.

A constitutional right to bare arms is all well and good... until someone looses a husband because he looked at someone weirdly.

A constitutional right to bare arms is all well and good... until someone elsewhere gets shot with a gun because someone saw it on American TV and thought it was funny.

A constitutional right to bare arms is all well and good... until someone takes 'reasonable force' too far.

A problem with guns isn't always about it's availability and it's frequency...pointing out the frequency of weapons is more likely to be about the fact that it means more people who AREN'T sensible about guns and aren't using it for defence have weapons.

It's not funny to make fun of someone for a legitimate concern about laws. I've seen people loose lives and fear for their safety because of the US culture about guns importing itself to other countries. The United States is NOT the only country on this planet...it's not the only one that matters.

So, next time someone has a legitimate concern because they've engaged their brain...how about not following the crowd and acting like you have a serious case of Tourette's syndrome and and opening your mouths to insert your feet...go ahead and actually take in and think about what they've said and what the thought process behind what they said might be.

There are nearly twice as many eyes as people in your country.

Count non-human eyes, and we have a whole lot more.

Stop the Eye Plague!

so simply b/c there are a lot guns, we need tighter controls? That's ridiculously unAmerican.

Here's ALL that I think needs to be done about gun control in the US.

Create an integrated database for all 50 states to check people against. Whenever someone is either diagnosed of being dangerous to others due to mental concerns or is convicted of a violent crime, put them in said database.

If they come up on the search on attempting to purchase the gun, deny the sale and have some sort of legal penalty for attempting to purchase one when they're no longer legally allowed to own one. Of course, if it turns out they're in the database in error do not penalize them but go through the process when it comes up.

The major concerns I hear about gun control is crazy people having guns or violent criminals having guns. Those are both legitimate concerns and measures can actually be taken in effective manner to reduce incidences of that.

However, I also see it brought up that guns themselves are the evil and THAT mentality that getting rid of guns would stop violence in of itself is silly. To people who reason along those lines, I will say this simply.

If someone doesn't have a gun and they intend violence they will find something else to use as a weapon. It could be a tool. It could be a knife. It could be a rock they pried up out of their back yard. It could be bare hands. You might be surprised at the trauma the human body can inflict when used as a weapon itself.

I also read something about other countries having issues due to 'importing America's gun mentality'. To that, I say that those countries need to work out their own issues if they crop up. That's their responsibility to do so. If something happens in a country by it's own citizens, then it is that nation that should be primarily responsible for it. Anything else would be downright childish.

i still thing the best way to "control" anything, whether its guns or recreationally consumed neurotropic substances, or any other thing that might create conditions that cause more suffering then gratification, is not to create the probability of unreasonable searches and seasures by banning its possession, but simply to not make it/them in large quantities, sell, or mass import them/it.

i think people are creating a whole lot of unneccessary complication that can never really be sufficiently nor equataly resolved with this whole bussiness of banning this but not that and here for this but not for that. letting government or economic intrests get away with what ordinary citizens might not and so one.

all of that is totally unneccessary and creates all these tensions in the first place.

if you don't want people to have guns, just don't make guns, period.

but i think if people what to make or grow something themselves, if the're not doing it for economic profit, or in socially signifigant quantities, you know if someone wants to brew a little shine, or maching their own black powder mini-cannons or something, i mean if everyone who wanted to, the only way they could get ahold of something like that was they had to make it themselves, sure some people still would. well great. they'd learn a real skill doing it, and i mean if you had to learn how to make a gun and actually make it yourself before you could go out and shoot somebody with it, i really think that would do a LOT more to prevent gun accidents, AND homocides and so on, then any attempt at any sort of a more selective ban.

not to mention that aforesaid tendency, that banning the possession of anything has, to create opportunities, if not outright motivation, for unreasonable searches and seasures.

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

Not to mention opportunities for a black market and the enrichment of organized crime.

Gun control is hitting your target.

Here's ALL that I think needs to be done about gun control in the US.

Create an integrated database for all 50 states to check people against. Whenever someone is either diagnosed of being dangerous to others due to mental concerns or is convicted of a violent crime, put them in said database.

If they come up on the search on attempting to purchase the gun, deny the sale and have some sort of legal penalty for attempting to purchase one when they're no longer legally allowed to own one. Of course, if it turns out they're in the database in error do not penalize them but go through the process when it comes up.

The major concerns I hear about gun control is crazy people having guns or violent criminals having guns. Those are both legitimate concerns and measures can actually be taken in effective manner to reduce incidences of that.

However, I also see it brought up that guns themselves are the evil and THAT mentality that getting rid of guns would stop violence in of itself is silly. To people who reason along those lines, I will say this simply.

If someone doesn't have a gun and they intend violence they will find something else to use as a weapon. It could be a tool. It could be a knife. It could be a rock they pried up out of their back yard. It could be bare hands. You might be surprised at the trauma the human body can inflict when used as a weapon itself.

I also read something about other countries having issues due to 'importing America's gun mentality'. To that, I say that those countries need to work out their own issues if they crop up. That's their responsibility to do so. If something happens in a country by it's own citizens, then it is that nation that should be primarily responsible for it. Anything else would be downright childish.

Your methods do not work and only force the good people to wait for background checks. The bad guys will just buy their guns on the street corner.

A better solution is to lock people up that you can't trust with a gun.

A two part post:

1. Th ghong is, guns are a farot differnet phenomon no in ubrna areas as opposed tu rural areas. In Rural areas, it wmight well be a damn long time before the police get there if you're home is bein in vaded. In Urbvan areas, guns are prety much used to kill people.


2. It ison ly tural that with attarcks an our imgaination increasing, gusn woult go up. How welse will we protect our imaginations?



http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3192/pancakebunnykb1.png (http://imageshack.us)

Your methods do not work and only force the good people to wait for background checks. The bad guys will just buy their guns on the street corner.

A better solution is to lock people up that you can't trust with a gun.

locking people up you can't trust with a gun MIGHT be an EFFECTIVE solution, but not really a very practical one, as, at least as i see it, that just might involve locking EVERYONE up, including jailers and politicians, which might be a bit of a challange to work out the logistics of just exactly how you'd go about doing that.

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

locking people up you can't trust with a gun MIGHT be an EFFECTIVE solution, but not really a very practical one, as, at least as i see it, that just might involve locking EVERYONE up, including jailers and politicians, which might be a bit of a challange to work out the logistics of just exactly how you'd go about doing that.

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

How is locking up violent criminals (already convicted of a type of crime or diagnosed as being violent, etc) not a practical solution? It's called not letting gang bangers through a revolving door which we call a prison.

This is from a while back in the thread but I think it works:

1. A firearm is a tool and it is the user determines the end use.
Put a hammer in the hand of a skilled carpenter and he will give you a beautiful house.
Put that same hammer in the hands of a deranged lunatic and he will give you a dozen rape/skull bashing murder victims.

And while in the case of a hammers that works a gun can ONLY be used to injure/kill/threaten someone.

Now I have seen a lot of arguments for "I need a gun for self defense" but the issue with that is.... If both you AND the criminal have guns (which will happen anyway probably in the US and other places) who is much more likely to be shot? YOU partly because he's desperate and is willing to do anything and because if you shoot him it'll probably be "excessive force".....and the fact that I'm assuming that you people would at least consider the implications of murder.... he probably won't have to.

Gun control laws only make it harder to own a gun NOT impossible and it does mean that if you do own a gun your name IS on a database of citizens with that right and what guns they own (depending on where you live). It also is used/can be used (again depending on where you live) to stop probably unsuitable people from getting them e.g. prior convicts etc. (though that's not such an issue in the US states with the death penalty but it still applies)

And following the spirit of the law I have the right to drive a damn TANK if I wanted....

But if you people are against gun control laws then fine HAVE the right to bear arms...

I'll just have fun lobbying for all ammo to be incredibly tightly controlled (with each and every round fired on a range signed off by a reputable person and the cases disposed of....)

Or at least I would if that didn't already happen in Britain....

Oh and also:

How is locking up violent criminals (already convicted of a type of crime or diagnosed as being violent, etc) not a practical solution? It's called not letting gang bangers through a revolving door which we call a prison.

Yea... It's called the finished of their sentence.... unless of course you just want everyone like that to be given a real life sentence (e.g. 200 years in the US I believe?) And at that point you might a well just execute them and save the state a HUGE amount of money.....

Or do what I think is reasonable and turn prisons into work camps so at least they can compensate society a bit for what they did.....

but meh I'm sure that people wont agree with what I've said.... but thats the thing I DON'T REALLY CARE HAHAHAHA

*ahem*

/me ends argument and wonders off

Now I have seen a lot of arguments for "I need a gun for self defense" but the issue with that is.... If both you AND the criminal have guns (which will happen anyway probably in the US and other places) who is much more likely to be shot? YOU partly because he's desperate and is willing to do anything and because if you shoot him it'll probably be "excessive force".....and the fact that I'm assuming that you people would at least consider the implications of murder.... he probably won't have to.

Psychobabble bullshit. Most would-be crime is stopped involving firearms without a single shot being fired. Guns have police for a reason...or do you think this only excites a perpetrator to a higher level of threat? :rolleyes:

Gun control laws only make it harder to own a gun NOT impossible and it does mean that if you do own a gun your name IS on a database of citizens with that right and what guns they own (depending on where you live). It also is used/can be used (again depending on where you live) to stop probably unsuitable people from getting them e.g. prior convicts etc. (though that's not such an issue in the US states with the death penalty but it still applies)

Gun control laws make the lawfully-abiding people who follow them subject to the daily errors of government databases while offering NO path of resistance to criminals who don't follow the law in the first place. I will reiterate: criminals do not buy their guns from gun shops where the law is practiced, they buy them from the streets. Great, so we have banned the crooks from getting guns legally since we do not trust them. WHY ARE THEY NOT BEHIND BARS IF THIS IS THE CASE!!??


And following the spirit of the law I have the right to drive a damn TANK if I wanted....

That's fine since ammunition for destructive devices are already regulated at the state and federal level.

But if you people are against gun control laws then fine HAVE the right to bear arms...

I'll just have fun lobbying for all ammo to be incredibly tightly controlled (with each and every round fired on a range signed off by a reputable person and the cases disposed of....)


Do you want an 180 or 230 grain bullet to cure your neurosis? :rolleyes:

Or at least I would if that didn't already happen in Britain....

Which explains why your violent crime in Britain has gone down, right? Wait, whoops. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/28/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy)

Yea... It's called the finished of their sentence.... unless of course you just want everyone like that to be given a real life sentence (e.g. 200 years in the US I believe?) And at that point you might a well just execute them and save the state a HUGE amount of money.....


We cannot finish their sentences since there is not enough room to house them all.

Or do what I think is reasonable and turn prisons into work camps so at least they can compensate society a bit for what they did.....

I have no problem with restorative justice.

Psychobabble bullshit. Most would-be crime is stopped involving firearms without a single shot being fired. Guns have police for a reason...or do you think this only excites a perpetrator to a higher level of threat?

The point is that we're not talking about the police having guns here but ordinary people. Now I don't dispute the polices right to bear arms but I but what happens if a person with a gun enters you your house in the middle of the night and then you meet them while holding your gun? Thats where things start to come apart and "crap happens"....

I will reiterate: criminals do not buy their guns from gun shops where the law is practiced, they buy them from the streets.

The point of course being is that it is HARDER for them to acquire guns especially if they don't already know about these "street dealers" and so hopefully for every person who does find these peoples x-person's never did for whatever reason (lack of availability, cost etc.)

Which explains why your violent crime in Britain has gone down, right? Wait, whoops.

Were guns mentioned ANYWHERE in that article? Hell It didn't even give fatality rates or anything like that. Which is the big issue I have with statistics that I'm given because 99% of the time they are either:

A: unreliable since you don't know WHAT statistical technique has been applied to them (ok that sounds REALLY hardheaded and blind but its true, as an example how do people work out how many people die each year from air pollution?)

or B: Just plain CRAP (example the civilian death toll for the Iraq war - this person had got the death rate for the center of a city and then applied that assuming it was constant over the entire country)

We cannot finish their sentences since there is not enough room to house them all.

Well then you have a choice, you can either build more prisons or.... extend the death penalty to fit more crimes so less people enter prison or as an alternative idea you could get an island, call it "Australia MK2!!!" and ship them over there. Save everyone some hassle and make jobs in the shipping industry....

I have no problem with restorative justice.

Nice to see that someone agrees with me... pity neither of our governments do though :(

<snip>

No, it isn't. It is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

<snip>

Nonsense. The very fact that there are differing interpretations of moral theory shoot that out of the sky. Apart from that, I have massive distrust for anybody who tries to claim that, for the simple fact that it generally betrays a Randian, and the sort of "let people die if they can't afford it, I love corporations" attitude that many such people have.

If you're going to try to prove something, you could at least have the decency of working from a more reasonable set of axioms. Try Kropotkin, who argued for mutual aid from the basis of evolution.

In fact, your argument is impossible, and fundamentally flawed. if you assume there is no god, then the first principles of the universe are basically the mathematical equations and values that describe it. You can't prove anything about fundamental rights from the laws of quantum theory. Alternately, if there is a god, then we have no way of working out which of the suggested sets of first principles (one per religion, roughly speaking) is correct. Hence you can't draw such conclusions.

Ergo, your claim is nonsense. Try again.

Nonsense. The very fact that there are differing interpretations of moral theory shoot that out of the sky.
Incorrect.

Universal agreement is not a prerequisite for a proposition to be universally true. There is, after all, such a thing as "being wrong."

Apart from that, I have massive distrust for anybody who tries to claim that, for the simple fact that it generally betrays a Randian, and the sort of "let people die if they can't afford it, I love corporations" attitude that many such people have.
Do you have any actual arguments to provide against Objectivism, or just an emotional gut reaction?

If you're going to try to prove something, you could at least have the decency of working from a more reasonable set of axioms.
There is nothing more reasonable than "A is A."

Try Kropotkin, who argued for mutual aid from the basis of evolution.
Considered it; found it failing.

In fact, your argument is impossible, and fundamentally flawed. if you assume there is no god, then the first principles of the universe are basically the mathematical equations and values that describe it.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

Three cheers for Georgia. Governor Perdue signed a law that expands the rights of concealed carry to include restaurants, state parks, and public transportation.

Finally we can ride MARTA in safety.

Three cheers for Georgia. Governor Perdue signed a law that expands the rights of concealed carry to include restaurants, state parks, and public transportation.

Finally we can ride MARTA in safety.

Meh, I feel safe in restaurants etc in the UK in the knowledge that nobody is likely to be armed. Then I don't spend my life in a state of perpetual fear as you seem to when you don't have a gun.

Meh, I feel safe in restaurants etc in the UK in the knowledge that nobody is likely to be armed. Then I don't spend my life in a state of perpetual fear as you seem to when you don't have a gun.
You needn't be armed to be dangerous.

But if you're sitting in a restaurant in Texas, you know you need not fear dangerous people, because everyone around you is armed.

Wait, I'm sorry...someone has a legitimate concern over gun control laws and you guys decide that they're an IDIOT?
No, I think he's an idiot for making his point so badly.
They're not, since the frequency of abuse of your gun control laws in the states being portrayed on TV has actually pushed up gun crime in other countries such as the United Kingdom. Maybe...and this is just a suggestion... you should think about enforcing some of your own laws.
And you just made an excellent argument against gun control. Guns don't cause violence. Violent cultures cause violence.
A constitutional right to bare arms is all well and good... until someone looses a husband because he looked at someone weirdly.

A constitutional right to bare arms is all well and good... until someone elsewhere gets shot with a gun because someone saw it on American TV and thought it was funny.

A constitutional right to bare arms is all well and good... until someone takes 'reasonable force' too far.
The laws already deal with all of those. If your goal is zero failures, then prepare to be disappointed. There's an optimal level of gun deaths in any society, and that level is not zero.

On top of that, cars kill more people in the US then guns do so if you want zero fatalities then ban cars.:D

On top of that, cars kill more people in the US then guns do so if you want zero fatalities then ban cars.:D

Well, when there's no more oil we won't have a choice but to give up cars, so let's get rid of the guns at that point. That way, we get rid of two dangerous items and kill your stupid analogy at the same time.

Umm can you cite me any examples of times when the American people used guns as self defence against their goverment?

Revolt in Athens, Tennessee!
20 People Wounded
14 Autos Overturned, and Burned at Town Square
Jail Under Seize 8 hours
Sheriff, Senator & Others Flee County

Athens, Tennessee: The uprising was led by ex-GIs recently returned from battle, to discover dishonest election tactics and corrupt and crooked local government. Having seen first-hand, Tennessee blood spilled and Tennessee lives lost in the battle for freedom, these patriotic veterans weren't about to knuckle under to the special interests. Certain insiders, for their own profit and benefit, had taken control of the small community of Athens, a town of about 7600 people.

The violence started on election day when a poll watcher was attacked and thrown through a glass door. The town folks, already agitated, became incensed. They went home and returned with pistols, shotguns and whatever weapons they could lay their hands on. The incumbents and "insiders" had recruited extra deputies from neighboring cities and counties but they were no match for the now armed and angry citizens of McMinn County. Sheriff Pat Mansfield and State Senator Paul Cantrell, along with others, fled the scene. Twenty-five deputys retreated to the jail which was surrounded and fired upon by the civillian army.

At 4:00 A.M. the next morning, the "25" surrendered their arms and came out with hands up. Although a cry went up to "hang 'em", cooler heads prevailed. The "25" were taken to the edge of town, stripped naked and told not to come back.

The upshot was the incumbent and "insider-clique" were out. The slate backed by the citizens and supported by the GI patriots was officially certified victorious by State authorities in Nashville.

Thus, a new sheriff, trustee, register of deeds, circuit court clerk and county court clerk were seated (3 Democrats, 2 Republicans). All were new, all were honest and freely elected. The year was 1946. In 1948, a city council / county commission form of government, one of the first in the state of Tennessee was created. Athens prospered and grew and today has more than doubled in population.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/tnrevolt.shtml

No tanother gun control thread. *Thousands of possible interpritations of the wording of the second amendmant down the most minute detail up to and including how the letters were formed* Will NSG ever agree? No.

As usual i say the 2nd amendmant means you can own a gun with reasonable government control.
__________
People are talking about how many guns there are. Aren't they realitively cincentrated to areas with less strict gun control?
__________
There are 2 theories. A) If no one had guns no one could shoot anyone and no one would have to shoot back. B)If everyone had guns no one would shoot each other becuase they could shoot back. The opening slavo vs. the return blow. The latter theory is the one we have in place, although NOT LITERALLY. The idea of the right to own guns is what I mean. The right to own guns is better for several reasons. I) Although people kill people and it is horrible it doesn't just always happen. But it does happen. So people need defense. II) Why not hands? Becuase we live in 2008 and guns exist. We can't go back. People will always find a way to hurt other people and it is very unfortunate but either way people need defense and it seems more practical. Whether it be in an ivasion, your government gone crazy, or a criminal. III)People will aquire guns illegally we'd need to stop making them. IV)Hunting. Guns are practical for hunting. Hunters need guns. V) Is the army going to use swords? Fists? No. They will se guns and so some bad person will be able to aqquire them.

It would be great if we lived in peace and harmony but we don't. Guns are the mosdt advanced way to hurt others practically. Sop making guns, it will will be bows and swords, and spears. Stop making those, fists. As long as guns exist people will need them. For good. If we could find a way to stop bad people from owning guns then there would be zero concern over gun control becuase people who own them for defense wouldn't need them and those who collect and hunt would be safeguarded.

Do you think private citizens should be able to have thermonuclear warheads?

I don't to act stupid and troll or flame or whatever but heres the comment:

If you take the amendmant literally it says the right to bear arms which would include thermonuclear warheads.

But I don't think people should own them. All though I don't think there technically is a law against it becuase the givernment never thought anyone would aquire one. But no people should not own them.

The point is that we're not talking about the police having guns here but ordinary people. Now I don't dispute the polices right to bear arms but I but what happens if a person with a gun enters you your house in the middle of the night and then you meet them while holding your gun? Thats where things start to come apart and "crap happens"....

Here's the thing: it is the home owner who should have the choice if he wants to meet with force-on-force. Not owning a gun really removes that choice out of the window and I do not believe anyone here would want to be subject to the whims of home invaders.

The point of course being is that it is HARDER for them to acquire guns especially if they don't already know about these "street dealers" and so hopefully for every person who does find these peoples x-person's never did for whatever reason (lack of availability, cost etc.)

This still does not stop the majority of the people committing the crime (hardened criminals mostly with gang affiliations cause 76% of our gun crime in the U.S.) with firearms. The answer to is to lock them up, not harm citizens from buying them being subjected to a system that has committed errors. I'd only support background checks while the crooks are being rounded up. Until crooks are actually punished and locked up it makes it easy for them to come out of the shadows with no safeguard. Criminals are like water or gas; they like going the path of least resistance.


Were guns mentioned ANYWHERE in that article? Hell It didn't even give fatality rates or anything like that. Which is the big issue I have with statistics that I'm given because 99% of the time they are either:

A violent person without a gun is still a violent person. Crooks in your country are turning to alternative methods.

A: unreliable since you don't know WHAT statistical technique has been applied to them (ok that sounds REALLY hardheaded and blind but its true, as an example how do people work out how many people die each year from air pollution?)

or B: Just plain CRAP (example the civilian death toll for the Iraq war - this person had got the death rate for the center of a city and then applied that assuming it was constant over the entire country)


I understand your dilemma. The gun crime studies in the U.S. by the DoJ and independent criminologists usually always find criminals causing the majority of the crime.


Well then you have a choice, you can either build more prisons or.... extend the death penalty to fit more crimes so less people enter prison or as an alternative idea you could get an island, call it "Australia MK2!!!" and ship them over there. Save everyone some hassle and make jobs in the shipping industry....

The problem I have with the death penalty is the possibility of innocent people being executed (which has happened) without being granted a full review under habeas corpus. The problem isn't really the death penalty but the cushioning system we call prison. Most criminals become better criminals when they are incarcerated. The trick is cracking down hard on crooks while giving young at-risk youth more opportunities to exceed.

Nice to see that someone agrees with me... pity neither of our governments do though :(

It varies state-by-state here, but overall it's dead. :headbang:

How is locking up violent criminals (already convicted of a type of crime or diagnosed as being violent, etc) not a practical solution? It's called not letting gang bangers through a revolving door which we call a prison.

this is NOT what you specified when you said people you can't trust with a gun.

which is my point.

is there ANYONE
you can TRUST
with the power to take another person's life.

my contention is that there is NOT.

at all, what so ever, period.

at the same time, banning the possession of ANYTHING creates opportunities and incentives for unreasonable searches and ceasures, and yes, essentially THE market, for organized crime as well.

one solution: if you don't want someone to have something, don't make it.
some people will still have it bacause they can make it themselves.
such is life, and only harm can come of beating your head against that.

plus people who have to make something themselves or get it in only the smallest of quantity from VERY close friends, ARE that much more likely to be responsible with it.

still no guarantee granted, because there ARE NO GUARANTEES IN REAL LIFE.

but there is improving the odds. that's all there is, but that IS what there IS.

as for toughening encarceration, reality is, again owing to no guarantees in real life, that there is no such thing as an infallable system of jurisprudence.

none. nor does anyone have one nor ever had have one.

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

as long as those guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens, i'm cool with it. Hunting, self protection, home protection and in case our government does fall into the hands of a tyrant, thsoe guns will come in handy.

reasonable wait periods for permits for hand guns (less than 60 days with backround check) and no more than 2 weeks for a shotgun/rifle.

assault weapons ban should stay expired. these aren't the same machine guns or automatic weapons the military uses but dumbed down versions. not much worse than rifle or shotgun.

i am against the registering of all hand guns as well as the "marking" of new guns bought so they can be tracked.

this a big freedom and responsibility all americans should value and cherish. criminals will always find a way to get their hands on guns (DC ban is a failure), gun control only hurts the law abiding citizens. if someone has a gun illegally then throw the book at them.

gun manufacturers should be immune to lawsuits that spawn from gun violence.

I really am not into guns and have never fired a gun but i plan to get my permit and take safety classes in the next couple of weeks. i'll pick up a gun in a couple months...just because i can and i want to exercise this right.

... criminals will always find a way to get their hands on guns, ...

but they can only get their hands on guns that exist. and again 'criminals'?

what is a criminal?

(in american jurisprudence) someone whome 12 people (13 counting the judge) who weren't there THINK committed a crime.

(yes i aggree this IS probably a good enough reason not to let someone have one, but is there really any good enough reason to actually make them. the idea of an armed populas protecting itself from a tyranical government by force of arms, is a fine romantic fantasy, but reality pretty much contradicts anything of the sort. tyrannies depend on enough of the most powerful people supporting them. anyone opposing them gets labeled, and everyone else generally convinced of their being, a criminal and or terrorist.

not to mention of course, that if no arms were manufactured, said tyrannical government wouldn't have them either (and would very likely as a resault, not exist))

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

as long as those guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens, i'm cool with it. Hunting, self protection, home protection and in case our government does fall into the hands of a tyrant, thsoe guns will come in handy.

reasonable wait periods for permits for hand guns (less than 60 days with backround check) and no more than 2 weeks for a shotgun/rifle.

assault weapons ban should stay expired. these aren't the same machine guns or automatic weapons the military uses but dumbed down versions. not much worse than rifle or shotgun.

i am against the registering of all hand guns as well as the "marking" of new guns bought so they can be tracked.

this a big freedom and responsibility all americans should value and cherish. criminals will always find a way to get their hands on guns (DC ban is a failure), gun control only hurts the law abiding citizens. if someone has a gun illegally then throw the book at them.

gun manufacturers should be immune to lawsuits that spawn from gun violence.

I really am not into guns and have never fired a gun but i plan to get my permit and take safety classes in the next couple of weeks. i'll pick up a gun in a couple months...just because i can and i want to exercise this right.

Do you have reasons for your beliefs? WHY should the assault weapons ban not be renewed? WHY should handguns not be registered? WHY should gun manufacturers be immune to lawsuits? Does your rationale for your beliefs go deeper than "because I can"?

Incorrect.

Universal agreement is not a prerequisite for a proposition to be universally true. There is, after all, such a thing as "being wrong."

You see, the problem with this is you haven't actually provided any sort of argument for your position. You've simply said "It's true, you're wrong". How about actually demonstrating how "It is an objective fact that is provable from the first principles of the universe". I call bullshit on that, because I doubt you can derive "the right to bear arms" from any reasonable set of 'first principles of the universe'.

Do you have any actual arguments to provide against Objectivism, or just an emotional gut reaction?

Right there? Nope, just gut reaction to what I've found objectivists are like. My main issue with the idea is the way it puts property above people's lives, etc. But that's my standard issue with most of it.

There is nothing more reasonable than "A is A."

My previous comment stands.

Here's the thing: it is the home owner who should have the choice if he wants to meet with force-on-force. Not owning a gun really removes that choice out of the window and I do not believe anyone here would want to be subject to the whims of home invaders.

Ok I'll concede that that is a good point; it does give you at least some protection from them and puts you probably on equal terms... unless of course they also have a bulletproof vest which if they're smart then they probably will (I think anyone with half a brain would use one if it was available)

But that point is kinda the issue as because you've got a gun your more likely to be killed by them since you'll be considered "dangerous" .... Though I'm sure that rape victims might dispute whether or not thats a good thing. However that does really require people to carry concealed firearms in public now does it? And if it were legal to carry out spot checks on suspicious persons to find out if they did have a firearm on them with large penalties involved (say something like firing a gun in public - if thats illegal which I suspect that it is) then that would reduce it slightly. Course since its not that point is moot and i concede it.... for now

This still does not stop the majority of the people committing the crime (hardened criminals mostly with gang affiliations cause 76% of our gun crime in the U.S.

Ok so lets assume (hopefully an overestimate) after that 24% if let out prison only half intend to do it again (12%) Now since they're the group without gang connections they have to find the street dealers and lets assume (as an arbitrary number) that only half of them can get them (6%) now thats 6% who didn't get them and don't re-offend. Thats still a significant number of people who might not have. And I personally would be interested in even a small reduction in crime or at least crime with guns.

The answer to is to lock them up, not harm citizens from buying them being subjected to a system that has committed errors. I'd only support background checks while the crooks are being rounded up. Until crooks are actually punished and locked up it makes it easy for them to come out of the shadows with no safeguard. Criminals are like water or gas; they like going the path of least resistance.


Ok you said it yourself earlier - because of crowding in jails they can't even finish their sentence. Now I personally would say that if a person had caused an *obviously* premeditated crime (robbery, murder etc.) and especially if that crime involved weapons then they deserve to die unless there are some really good mitigating circumstances. If its premeditated then they have considered what their doing and unless they are deranged or something like that then they will understand the consequences - if they didn't then well.... they're so stupid that they deserve to die (almost - I'm not quite that harsh...normally)

A violent person without a gun is still a violent person. Crooks in your country are turning to alternative methods.

Quite true but firstly a knife isn't quite as dangerous a weapon as a gun (its not ranged so you can run away from them) and of course (using a rather stereotyped idea -my apologies) you can't carryout mass killings with them. Now of course in Britain while they are less common they are generally worse since more people die....

And its harder the threaten police etc. with just a knife and in Britain anyone can carry knives (if their concealed and not longer than 6inches I think?) so.... I guess that British just don't feel the need for arms to feel safe

The problem I have with the death penalty is the possibility of innocent people being executed (which has happened) without being granted a full review under habeas corpus. The problem isn't really the death penalty but the cushioning system we call prison. Most criminals become better criminals when they are incarcerated. The trick is cracking down hard on crooks while giving young at-risk youth more opportunities to exceed.

see above. If it is armed and premeditated then I really don't see how innocent people could be mistakenly trailed for that unless they were standing around with a balaclava and holding a gun looking dangerous just because they could....

I don't to act stupid and troll or flame or whatever but heres the comment:

If you take the amendmant literally it says the right to bear arms which would include thermonuclear warheads.

But I don't think people should own them. All though I don't think there technically is a law against it becuase the givernment never thought anyone would aquire one. But no people should not own them.

A nuke would, at the VERY least, be considered a destructive device (an NFA item), and therefore restricted to those that can get a sign-off from a chief law enforcement officer and a tax stamp from the BATFE (and I don't see either of those 2 things happening).

....gun manufacturers should be immune to lawsuits that spawn from gun violence....

Really? Thanks. :D

Really? Thanks. :D

lol

lol

Hehe, I had to. :D

You needn't be armed to be dangerous.

But if you're sitting in a restaurant in Texas, you know you need not fear dangerous people, because everyone around you is armed.

That makes no sense to me, the more weapons in a room the more dangerous it is. After all any of these armed people could have some kind of stress in their life - divorce, work etc - that causes them to be that dangerous person with a gun. Even a couple of drinks is enough to make some people behave dangerously. So as few guns as possible around is far safer to me.

Do you have reasons for your beliefs? WHY should the assault weapons ban not be renewed?
because it was a silly law to begin with that largely banned weapons for cosmetic appearance, and targeted weapons that were rarely used in crimes
WHY should handguns not be registered?
privacy concerns mostly, should we register Tv's or computers?? If i am not carrying the weapon around out side my home why should I register it ?
WHY should gun manufacturers be immune to lawsuits? Does your


they aren't immune to all lawsuits, they were immune to lawsuits that were by and large silly. Is it reasonable to sue the car manufacturer because someone uses a car to kill people ? what about sueing the home appliance industry because that woman killed her baby in the microwave ?
the reason the law suits targeting gun manufactures when someone else was responsible for the murder were likewise dumb. The purpose was actually not to win the trial, the purpose was cost gun manufactures money in lawyers and court cost. It had become such an issue it became needed to make a clear cut ban against those types of law suits.