Here it is the libs are coming after our guns

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 5 of 22

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Again, where do you draw the line?

Why should we even HAVE a line?

Let look at the question from another perspective.

Let's say Al, Bob, and Charlie are regular average guys, except their full time jobs are to be "the government." At home, working their asses away making cars and tshirts and computers, are regular average guys Dick, Ed, Fred.

Now, Al, Bob, and Charlie not only have the power to make laws, execute laws, and interpret laws in court, they also have loads and loads of weapons. From pistols all the way to the nuclear bomb.

What keeps Al, Bob, and Charlie from making whatever kind of law they want, rape the environment, defraud the working class, pimp out the future of the children, oppress the poor, and suck the economy dry so they and their ultra-elite cronies can become even more ultra-elite?

Why draw a line between why Al, Bob, and Charlie can be trusted with all those weapons and nuclear bombs, and not trust Dick, Ed, and Fred? What makes the first 3 so special?

"Government" doesn't magically make its people more trustworthy or more honorable or less evil. Government is just a group of men/women. People outside of government are just a group of men/women.

Why say one group of men/women can be entrusted with warfare weapons, and the other group of men/women isn't?

And what would naturally happen if you did?

Now some weapons are so dangerous and powerful that one cannot fathom their being owned by individuals. That is, it is thought that nuclear weapons are "safe" with the govt because they are collectively owned and operated in a structured monkeysphere with checks and balances. One lone nut can't launch an a-bomb; you'd need at least say, 50 nuts in unanimous agreement. Since that is hard to come by, we're usually pretty safe from a-bombs.

You want to put group ownership restrictions on certain weapons that match the conditions that exist in the govt? OK, I can live with that.

But no double standards. If Al, Bob, and Charlie can do it, then Dick, Ed, and Fred should have the freedom to do it too. Or at least, have freedom to store weapons so that if Al, Bob, and Charlie ever go way too far, Dick, Ed, and Fred can actually resist.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:57 PM

You're assuming by this: "I'll never be convinced that a society that has guns to the extent that we do is a healthy one, or doesn't have some mental health issues of its own" that I am suggesting that we should take away everyone's guns? I'm not, I'm suggesting that the problem is the lack of trust, earned or otherwise. If you trusted your gov would you feel the need to have guns? If you trusted your neighbors more, would you feel the need to have guns? The answer isn't better government through more guns, it's just better government.
BTW if you don't see the total irony in the fact that whenever someone even suggests we might be better off with less guns the comment is usually met with some gun owner saying they'd kill before they'd give up their guns... then yeah, we're on opposite ends of this.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

HARDWARE

Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.

What other shoe would that be?

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's departed chief of staff; "Never waste a good crisis." I'm waiting for the push to make hay while the public is still focused on the tragedy. I don't know what form that might take, but these are politicians we're talking about. I expect any member of the species to drape themselves in the shrouds of the fallen to push their agenda.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

HARDWARE

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:
All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?

That may be a factor of population growth and world-screwed-up-ness more than the laws. However, unnecessary, draconian, and bureaucratic laws do contribute to world-screwed-up-ness.

I believe you are approaching the problem from a perspective that laws deter crime. I believe that laws encourage crime. Using an economic model, tariffs and trade restrictions increase the incidence of smuggling. Supply has fallen while demand remains and the price goes up. Higher prices for the product act as an inducement for others to risk the penalties for breaking the law.

This may not hold exactly true for personal crimes, but remember that any time someone murders for profit, they are validating my theory.

It is this exact logic that underscores the fallacy of the current government's assertion that US guns are being smuggled into Mexico. I'm going to buy a high priced AR-15 in the US, when I can buy an AK-47 in Ecuador for approximately $15. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
If you trusted your gov would you feel the need to have guns? If you trusted your neighbors more, would you feel the need to have guns? The answer isn't better government through more guns, it's just better government.

That's EXACTLY right. The entire gun control debate is about trust.

I grew up in military dictatorships and police states. I never met a govt I can trust. So gun control advocates might call me paranoid and suspicious. And I would call them naive and gullible. Maybe one day, I'll be proven wrong, that good God, I could have trusted my govt all along because it is filled with good and kind people. I hope so. That would be a very pleasant way to be wrong.

Short of that, it is a matter of maximizing trust. I trust a govt with checks and balances more than a govt with none whatsoever. Between two govts with the same checks and balances, I would trust the govt who, in addition, has to answer to an armed citizenry more than the govt who doesn't.

Incidentally, do even know who are all those people you call "government"? If you do, how well do you have to know them to be able to trust them?

See, though I know some of their names and what they look like and what they say they stand for, I don't know any of them. I've never spent more than 5 minutes with any of them. They are strangers who look good on TV. Why should I trust them?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
If you trusted your gov would you feel the need to have guns? If you trusted your neighbors more, would you feel the need to have guns? The answer isn't better government through more guns, it's just better government.
That's EXACTLY right. The entire gun control debate is about trust.

I grew up in military dictatorships and police states. I never met a govt I can trust. So gun control advocates might call me paranoid and suspicious. And I would call them naive and gullible. Maybe one day, I'll be proven wrong, that good God, I could have trusted my govt all along because it is filled with good and kind people. I hope so. That would be a very pleasant way to be wrong.

Short of that, it is a matter of maximizing trust. I trust a govt with checks and balances more than a govt with none whatsoever. Between two govts with the same checks and balances, I would trust the govt who, in addition, has to answer to an armed citizenry more than the govt who doesn't.

Incidentally, do even know who are all those people you call "government"? If you do, how well do you have to know them to be able to trust them?

See, though I know some of their names and what they look like and what they say they stand for, I don't know any of them. I've never spent more than 5 minutes with any of them. They are strangers who look good on TV. Why should I trust them?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

I don't trust any of them, and think we should hold them more accountable and to a greater degree than we currently do, but I don't feel the need for a gun for that. They'll lie, cheat and steal, but will they march on my house? It's never been clear to me what these evil intentions are that are so feared... will they start wars I disagree with? Did that. Will having a gun stop that? No.
I really don't think the Gov gives a damn whether I have a gun or not in terms of it influencing they're behavior either - they're not sitting there wishing, "if only we could get their guns away from them so we can..."
You're having grown up in a police state does help me understand you position though.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Would said citizen be a member of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State by any chance?

I don't know myself... but you're saying not, I take it?

You're interpreting it as the right to keep and bear small arms?

My interpretation would be different. First of all I think the FF's were thinking of the citizens defending the state from an outside threat. I don't think they had in mind citizens having to fight the government and were talking about that... But if we do take that interpretation, as some people in this thread have, I have argued that the citizens would need more than small arms against the forces the US government has at its disposal - so the FF's would be scandalised and horrified at your curtailing citizens' rights to own tanks and bazukas etc...

It's not personal. It's just war.

It's funny how you can change your view from talking to people on the Internet (by the way, I meant 'one' not 'you' personally) just didn't want to sound too pompous. I never had a clue why Americans were so attached to their firearms. Now I really get how the 2nd amendment is so enmeshed in your national psyche. I really quite like the idea of well armed militias being able to be mobilised to defend themselves.

I don't think it sounds as if that is the reason why most people want their guns. They like them... they're big kids toys.... they like hunting...they want to defend themselves from home invasion, they don't want the government telling them what to do...

I think if you were going to follow the 2nd amendment to its logical conclusion, you would firstly be calling for the immediate disbandment of your enormous standing army/navy/airforce. A large, well armed, hugely equiped government run military is probably one of the worst things you can if you are trying to avoid tyranny, and makes a mockery of encouraging militias. In fact its one of the features of any tyranny, along with the capacity to imprison, torture and execute citizens because they pose a national threat to the state.

I've posted this before, but Switzerland has something of this model, a small standing army, but compulsory national service, which includes compulsory arms ownership (for those who have completed the service). What you have is a large trained and armed population ready to defend themselves against invasion. I might add that there are fairly tough laws about how you keep your guns and ammo, and I think they require inspection every so often. The Swiss are kind of the opposite to the US in other ways, they love laws. I mean love them.

I do believe that Switzerland has fairly high of high gun deaths, but I may be wrong on that and I can't be bothered finding gun death stats to prove or disprove it.

I guess the other thing that bothers me is the dishonesty around the outcome of high gun ownership, which is blatantly high levels of gun death and injury, partoicularly from the likes of NRA type organisations. Increased guns = increased gun deaths. It's kind of human nature, if more drugs are available more people will use them, more will suffer addiction issues, health and social problems etc. Same with alcohol. Same if you don't have laws re alcohol and driving. The issue is whether you can be honest enough to say....we know what the fall out is, but this is an issue of freedom, so we are prepared to put up with and accept the negatives consequences in order that our rights are not infringed.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.

What other shoe would that be?

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's departed chief of staff; "Never waste a good crisis." I'm waiting for the push to make hay while the public is still focused on the tragedy. I don't know what form that might take, but these are politicians we're talking about. I expect any member of the species to drape themselves in the shrouds of the fallen to push their agenda.

A month ago it looked like Republicans had Obama in a box. Now it seems he has outflanked, outsmarted, and out-maneuvered Republicans, and he has them in a box. How can John Boehner continue attacking Obamacare and symbolically vote to repeal it when the entire process now looks like the partisan vitriol that Obama condemned so eloquently to the entire nation last night? Jeeez, Boehner didn't even attend the memorial service last night. I don't know why he was absent, but as the new Speaker he should have been there supporting his fallen House member. He did give one of his teary-eyed speeches in Congress earlier, but his mojo is running dry fast. Not his tear ducts, just his mojo. Meanwhile, Obama is cruising with a new life and new popularity after his lame-duck accomplishments and great speech last night.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The issue is whether you can be honest enough to say....we know what the fall out is, but this is an issue of freedom, so we are prepared to put up with and accept the negatives consequences in order that our rights are not infringed.

I thought my analogy with the doctor deaths made that point. Yes, guns cause deaths that otherwise would not have occurred. But so do doctors, cars, knives, and bathtubs. We put up with those deaths because we want to keep our guns, doctors, cars, knives, and bathtubs. We try to find a way to make them safer, not to get rid of them or severely restrict them.

And our need for guns is not just about freedom and rights. Regarding self-defense against animals and criminals, many guns serve critical uses and DO save lives. Regarding self-defense against govt, on the freedom and right issue, guns are more like fire hydrants than like doctors and cars. We hope never to use them, but we want them every 3 blocks just the same.

One can always try some sort of cost-benefit analysis. At some point though, it does come down to a matter of principle, and how much an individual values that principle. In this case though, for me, the principle is not simply the right to own guns, but the right to be equal in trust and power as the people I elect.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:06 PM

Quote:
I believe you are approaching the problem from a perspective that laws deter crime.

Nah. Just from the perspective that there might be more than one factor for an upswing in violent crime, which is what we're talking about.

Technically, the more laws there are, the more crimes there are.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE