A challenge to the guns-as-defence-against-government-abuse argument

[Cyrus]

I submit that an armed citizen or any number of armed citizens is no match for a government that intends to abuse that citizen's (or those citizens') rights in any way.

I consider the above contention to be a simple matter of arithmetic. Which, moreover, as if it needed a proof beyond arithmetic, is supported by any number of historical incidents. Waco is only one such an example.

The armed citizenry is helpless unless it is organised. Which is a different matter altogether! So, ladies and gentlemen, even if you are armed with all the non-nuclear arms you wanted to, you are no match for the government unless you belong to a militia!

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Therefore, unless you belong to a militia, your pitiful li'l guns are no use against the government. Find some other reason for owning them. (Or join up.)

[HDPM]

Many people are in a militia by statute. They just don't know it. You don't have to join. And no, I won't be joining those idiots who call their groups militias.


You are totally incorrect that "any number" of armed citizens can't prevent governmental misconduct. I mean, right now killing a few hundred US soldiers in Iraq gets the lightly armed insurgents there all kinds of power. What would happen if our military tried to take over our country? They wouldn't succeed, even if soldiers didn't desert, assuming enough people were willing to fight the military junta/oppressive government. Not that I am advocating this of course. I mean look, some on the the left always trumpet the triumph of revolutions or indigenous populations. How easy was Vietnam for the US. How easy was Afghanistan for the soviets. How easy was the Bay Of Pigs? How many weapons did the vile Castro have to win his revolution. It doesn't take a hell of a lot to cause all kinds of problems for a well armed powerful government. Yes, you need enough people. You can't win with a group of 500 people with rifles. But how can any army hold ground against 100 million people with rifles? Good luck.

Also, your argument is an excellent argument against big government in all its forms. If you think that an armed citizenry can't fight oppression, you should want to drastically limit the size of government and the government's ability to tax. At least if you value individual rights at all. Because once the government has the power, you don't believe it can be stopped. But it is funny how many people opposed to an armed citizenry want big government and a welfare state. They hand the means of oppression over. Why might that be? (most "conservatives" are muddled on these issues as well however.)

[benfranklin]

Brilliantly reasoned. I've seen the light, and I am going to sell all my guns as soon as possible. I only bought them hoping to hold off John Ashcroft and his minions if they came beating on my door, but you have shown me the error of my ways.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, unless you belong to a militia, your pitiful li'l guns are no use against the government. Find some other reason for owning them. (Or join up.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Changed my mind, I'm keeping my pitiful little guns. Here's just two reasons:

1. Shooting is a fun and interesting hobby. This is not subject to discussion or argument. Disagreement with this statement is equivalent to disagreeing with my preference for chocolate ice cream.

2. Self defense. The courts have ruled that the individual has no right to, or expectation of, personal protection by the government. Basically, that means that it's a hard, cold world out there, and you are on your own. A few guns in the house gives me a little more of a warm and fuzzy feeling. It's the same thing as having a spare tire in the car and insurance on the house. Why wouldn't you have those things?

Many state constitutions that have a state equivalent to the Second Amendment specifically say that self defense is one reason that individuals have the right to own firearms.

[MMMMMM]

The difference in the vulnerability of people without guns compared to people with guns is enormous. A handful of people with guns can control or kill a great many people without guns. Guns are the great equalizer and without them you are absolutely at the mercy of those who have them. And if you think guns can be truly gotten out of the hands of the criminal populace as well as the law-abiding citizenry, just look at the drug war to see how that won't work.

If any government wishes to oppress and possibly butcher or enslave its citizens, its task is made exponentially easier if those citizens are unarmed. Guns provide the leverage necessary for mass crowd control (of the unarmed) and intimidation. An evil government in the future could overwhelm any individual pocket of resistance but it could not beat 100 million armed households of resistance. If those 100 million were unarmed, though, there would be nothing to stop government from setting up widespread death camps.

Granted, such Orwellian scenarios are not likely to occur anytime very soon in the USA. Fifty years, though, or two hundred, is not such a long time in the great scale of things. Bear in mind, as Zeno says, that government is comprised of people. Give them too much power and you may rest assured many of them try to will exploit and abuse that power. Moreover, by giving government total power, you invite the power-hungry to seek positions of office from whence they may exploit, abuse and profit. The more absolute power you give to government, the more government careers will appeal to those who wish to rule rather than to serve.

[andyfox]

"A few guns in the house gives me a little more of a warm and fuzzy feeling. It's the same thing as having a spare tire in the car and insurance on the house. Why wouldn't you have those things?"

Very difficult for a spare tire or an insurance policy to penetrate another human being's flesh and kill him. So while the guns may make you feel safer, they are certainly not the same things.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Very difficult for a spare tire or an insurance policy to penetrate another human being's flesh and kill him. So while the guns may make you feel safer, they are certainly not the same things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually they are the same thing. A gun is a tool. Properly used, it is no more or less "evil" than a spare tire. Or a tire iron, which can also do considerable damage to a human being. (Forgive me if I improperly infer a value judgement about guns from your comments. But I find that most people who don't like guns have a "moral" objection to their existence, or at least their ownership by civilians, as if the gun itself is evil.)

Yes, a gun can kill some one. It can also keep some one from being killed. It can also defuse a situation, without being fired, that could have resulted in injury or death. A gun is a tool for self defense. That the result can be death is not the fault of the gun, or of the manufacturer, or when properly used, of the shooter. The proper use of a gun is to meet a deadly threat with equal force. Death as the result of proper use of a firearm is the fault of the person who initiated a deadly threat.

If someone chooses not to have that equal force available, that is his choice, and he can deal with the consequences. That does not give anyone the right to say that I cannot avail myself of every option to protect myself.

There are tacks and crazies on the road of life. In the rare event I incur either, I prefer to have the tools available to deal with them.

[MMMMMM]

"Very difficult for a spare tire or an insurance policy to penetrate another human being's flesh and kill him."

But easy for a tire iron or kitchen knife.

Why should a home invader be able to come at you with the equivalent of a sword while you only have a nail file with which to feebly try to defend yourself?

[Ray Zee]

many people are killed every year changing tires on the road. tires kill. if there were no spare tires many innocent peole would be alive today. if it saves just one life it would be worth it.
many people are murdered over insurance policies by those wishing to collect. it high time we banned those as they are too dangerous. if it saves just one life it is worth it.

[Utah]

Hi Ray,

Thats a nonsensical argument. We make a lot of tradeoffs of convenience versus death. The question is where to set the bar.

If you accept your own argument. than you must be for allowing everything. Correct?

Why couldn't I take your argument and say, "well, since we allow insurance policies that cause death then let me have a nuclear bomb. I mean, if your going to eliminate my right to a nuclear bomb because it kills then you must eliminate insurance policies because they kill."

[Zeno]

I'm no match for the owners of the large press organizations or news outlet, or TV and Radio stations, so why should I have freedom of speech?

I'm no match for an armed and trained force that is bent on oppression or killing me, so why should I have the freedom of owning a firearm?


Why do freedoms make you so afraid? This seems odd. Don’t you wish to honor the Bill of Rights?


-Zeno

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
many people are killed every year changing tires on the road. tires kill. if there were no spare tires many innocent peole would be alive today. if it saves just one life it would be worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have once again been shown the errors of my ways. I am going out in the garage this very minute and shoot my spare tire.

[andyfox]

A gun's purpose is to shoot somebody. A spare tire's purpose is to be used in case one of your other tires goes flat. I suppose it's possible that somebody has sometime, somewhere killed somebody with a spare tire (or with a piece of paper). People kill other people with guns all the time.

If a gun is used as a tool of self-defense, then it is also unlike a spare tire or an insurance policy.

I am not making an argument either for or against your right to defend yourself with a gun. What I am saying is that to say a gun is just like a spare tire or an insurance policy is wrong. If a gun is just a tool, so is a nuclear bomb. It can also keep someone from being killed.

I don't know if I think a gun itself can be evil. I suppose I do in the sense that I think, say, racism, is evil. It can only do evil when put into action by immoral people.

[andyfox]

I am not making an argument about the ability of a person to defend himself when attacked. I am saying that seeing a gun as akin to a spare tire is wrong, in that a gun's purpose is to shoot somebody. A spare tire's purpose is to replace a damaged one.

I am in favor of people having swords.

[Cyrus]

"I am going to sell all my guns as soon as possible. I only bought them hoping to hold off John Ashcroft and his minions if they came beating on my door."

If that was the only reason you bought those guns, you should indeed rush out and sell them. Hurry up too - before their price plummets, before those like-minded realize that private guns cannot stop Ashcroft or any other government agent knocking down your door -- and you with it.

As I already said : You can argue in favor of ownership and use of guns on rhe basis of many other reasons. We can agree or disagree on them, but we would have, at least, a legitimate argument. While arguing that guns can be of any practical use against a government is not just absurd, it's the very height of absurdity.

[andyfox]

You're right. People use spare tires for self-defense all the time.

[Cyrus]

"I'm no match for the owners of the large press organizations or news outlet, or TV and Radio stations, so why should I have freedom of speech?"

Because your voice matters; because one voice, especially in this age of maxium information dissemination, can make a difference; because they cannot hurt you if you raise your personal, free voice.

"I'm no match for an armed and trained force that is bent on oppression or killing me, so why should I have the freedom of owning a firearm?"

If you have a government that is this much evil and is after your hide, you'd be a fool not to own a gun, run for the hills, try to find others on the run like you and fight against that government!

I hope you understand the difference. (The examples you used in your retort were misguided, in more ways than one.)

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
A gun's purpose is to shoot somebody.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gun's purpose is to accurately fire a bullet. Shooting someone is a human use or misuse of the tool.

A gun is a tool for self defense. A spare tire is a tool for gaining mobility following a flat. An insurance policy is a tool for avoiding financial disater.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if I think a gun itself can be evil. I suppose I do in the sense that I think, say, racism, is evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this gets a failing grade in Introduction to Logic 101. A gun is an inert object. Racism is a human attitude or set of beliefs. Apples and oranges, to coin a phrase.

I don't believe that an inert object can be objectively said to be evil. Evil come only from use. Nuclear bombs are not evil. Their existence probably prevented much evil in the Cold War era, which is good. Their use on largely civilian populations in Japan was evil.

Murder, with a gun or otherwise, is evil. A police officer shooting a mad slasher is not evil. A woman shooting a rapist is not evil.

Racism is not an inert object, it is a belief, an attitude, and a set of evil outcomes from those beliefs. I might even be willing to go to a big extreme and say that racism is not evil, but the results of racism generally are. If someone sits on a mountain top hating a particular group of people, who cares? If that same person sits in an office and is absolutley objective in his dealings with all people, despite his inner hatred, who cares? If he treats people differently based on subjective criteria, that's evil.

[ACPlayer]

Can you guys provide an example of where an armed population overcame a govt? I have provided examples of peace minded leaders overcoming governments without massive armed populations (Gandhi, Mandela, Walesa, probably others). Now dont trot out Vietnam or Afghanistan(where the people fought an invader), or other countries where a few armed thugs led coups by capturing palaces and radio stations. Give us a legitimate strong but corrupt govt in control and then the 100 million people using weapons as their principle tool overthrew that government.

At least then I have a frame of reference to put your hyperbole into.

[natedogg]

nt

[MMMMMM]

Not sure if I can but if I cannot maybe one reason is that the armed citizenry had a deterrent effect so the tyranny wasn't commenced there in the first place.


*Heavily armed citizenries: Switzerland, Israel, USA, Russia (today), Brazil.


*Hitler, Stalin and Castro all agree: gun control works.

[John Cole]

Ah, Ray, that gentle sarcasm. I agree--call AAA to change the spare tire. Insurance, at least property insurance, seems necessary. I still can't quite get my head around life insurance, though.

Simply, there is no good reason for most home owners to have a gun in a home, and neither you or HDPM can convince me that you having a gun in your home somehow protects me, gunless in my home. (If that's your reason for having one, I do, though, appreciate the magnanimous gesture from both of you.)

I beleive that few people who post here would feel unsafe in their homes if they they were to give up their guns.

[John Cole]

Before confiscating guns, repressive regimes usually round up the books and the intellectuals and stop the presses. They know where real danger lurks.

[John Cole]

1. Join a shooting club and keep your gun there.

2. Buy a kitten.

[ACPlayer]

You are therefore offering an untest hypothesis. Here is a counter to the hypothesis: heavily armed citizenry includes Iraq and they got Saddam; Afghanistan and they got Mullah Omar; Pakistan and they have Gen Musharraf. So now we have demonstrated that you dont need to be heavily armed to achieve freedom and having arms does not mean you will not be repressed.

The logic is impeccable your position is, as usual, untenable.

[Ray Zee]

how about the u.s. in 1776.
cuba over throwing batista.

how about the times like in germany where a population didnt get a chance to fight back because they allowed themselves to be disarmed. then packed off in railroad cars.

and all the places around the world the corrupt govts. have to tread lightly as they are afraid the pop. would revolt if they go too strong.

[ACPlayer]

The Cuban overthrow did not actually result in a society that was free so the example does not fit the requirements.

I would like to see an example where the government got out of hand (and there are plenty of govts that have gotten out of hand) and the people who were armed could then take back the government and get their freedoms. Preferably from lets say the last 75years. As Cyrus says, it cant happen its in the numbers.

Oddly enough I can and have provided examples where govts have been overthrown peacefully and the societies have become free and democratic and on the road to prosperity. Guns are not the solution to that problem.

They may be fun for some people as phallic substitutes but that's about it. IMO.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
They may be fun for some people as phallic substitutes but that's about it. IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point AC. I nearly have an orgasm every time I pull the trigger on my 9mm. Of course part of the thrill comes from whom I am imagining is in my sights. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Jimbo

[MMMMMM]

"I would like to see an example where the government got out of hand (and there are plenty of govts that have gotten out of hand) and the people who were armed could then take back the government and get their freedoms. Preferably from lets say the last 75years. As Cyrus says, it cant happen its in the numbers.[/i]"

This is pretty close to what happened in the colonial war of independence against Great Britain, although it wasn't in the last 75 years. The right to self-governance and freedom was won by use of guns against an oppressive government.

[andyfox]

"Of course part of the thrill comes from whom I am imagining is in my sights"

Isn't that part of the thrill of all orgasms?

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

A gun's purpose is to actively fire a bullet into another person. It may be a tool for self-defense for you, but it's a tool for murder for others. I think it's self-evident that a gun is not the same thing as a spare tire or a written insurance policy.

As for my failing grade in logic 101, I said in my post I didn't know if a gun was in and of itself evil. Certainly you are correct that an inanimate object, or a thought, can only result in evil when used to do evil. By racism, I meant racist thoughts, not the results of racist thought. So in that sense, racism is like a gun in that an inanimate object not used, or a thought not put into action, cannot have results, evil or otherwise.

[MMMMMM]

"A gun's purpose is to actively fire a bullet into another person. It may be a tool for self-defense for you, but it's a tool for murder for others. I think it's self-evident that a gun is not the same thing as a spare tire or a written insurance policy."

It's a different sort of tool.

Animals are born with long sharp teeth, razor claws, etc. which they must use for defense and to attack (if they are to eat). We are not born with such tools so we must invent tools for such purposes.

Since there will always be some who possess guns no matter how much we might legislate against guns (if only because government people will always have guns), to deprive others of guns is in a sense similar to declawing wild animals and removing their only means of personal self-defense against other animals who still have their claws and teeth. In my view it is immoral to remove an animal's or a human's means of personal self-defense unless that particular animal or human has shown itself to be an aggressive attacking menace in unjustified situations. And I sure don't have the faith which you seem to that all will be well if only only government officials have guns. They're people too. Deprive all citizens of personal defense weapons and watch how the foxes eventually devour the chickens in the coop. Or just think how a group of animals would turn out if you declawd and defanged 80% of that group. Do you really think the 20% would not eventually take full advantage. Just because YOU wouldn't take advantage if you were in that 20% doesn't mean many wouldn't. You operate on a higher plane than most but I suspect that can lead you to be too trusting.

Come to think of it, you have said all politicians are liars. Why the heck would you would you trust their ilk to be the only ones with guns?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Join a shooting club and keep your gun there.



[/ QUOTE ]

I am curious about the mind set that presumes to know, better than I, how I should live and what I should do. If you choose not to own a gun, that is your business. If I choose to own one, that is my business. I take no personal offence, but the implication of a statement like that is that I am too frickin stupid to make such a decision on my own, and that more reasonable people have to make such decisions for me.

At the risk of stereotyping, why do so many of such people come from Massachusetts? My guns have killed fewer people than your Senior Senator's cars. Which are more dangerous?

[ QUOTE ]
2. Buy a kitten.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think cats are evil and should be outlawed.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
A gun's purpose is to actively fire a bullet into another person. It may be a tool for self-defense for you, but it's a tool for murder for others. I think it's self-evident that a gun is not the same thing as a spare tire or a written insurance policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is obviously not self-evident, or we would not be discussing it. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet, not to fire a bullet into another person. Olympic shooters use very specialized guns designed to fire a .22 bullet at a fixed target at a set distance. Skeet shooters use very specialized guns designed to fire a group of bullets (bird shot) at moving clay pigeons.

At the risk of repeating myself, a gun is a tool. Murder is the misuse of a tool, whether it be a gun or an axe or a kitchen knife or a frozen leg of lamb (old Alfred Hitchcock reference).

One reason I keep harping on this is that calling a gun evil or a tool for killing people is sloppy thinking that leads to a denial of responsibility. People kill people. Guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people (unless they are defective), alcohol doesn't kill people, people kill people. To say that a gun is designed solely to kill people is to shift the blame and to focus on the wrong solution to a problem. Banning guns isn't going to get rid of guns, let alone get rid of murder.

Saying guns kill people is like saying that fast food makes you fat. It shifts the responsibility, and it gives big brother government an easy target for a solution. Fat people aren't responsible, they are too stupid to think for themselves, so McDonalds is responsible. Lets pass some laws regulating McDonalds, and there won't be any more fat people. It won't work, but we will seem to be doing something, and no one has to feel guilty, except those evil burger pushers.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

While arguing that guns can be of any practical use against a government is not just absurd, it's the very height of absurdity.

You're right. Look how easily the US Government pacified those Iraqis.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm no match for an armed and trained force that is bent on oppression or killing me, so why should I have the freedom of owning a firearm?"

If you have a government that is this much evil and is after your hide, you'd be a fool not to own a gun, run for the hills, try to find others on the run like you and fight against that government!


[/ QUOTE ]


Your first post sounded so defeatist in tone that I wanted to find out some of your thinking on the subject. I concur. One voice does and can mean a lot and so can one gun.

But I just realized something that I guess I have glossed over and not given much thought to. I may start another thread on it.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"If you have a government that is this much evil and is after your hide, you'd be a fool not to own a gun, run for the hills, try to find others on the run like you and fight against that government!"

Well how the hell would he be able to do these things if the government has first confiscated all guns?

[andyfox]

I'm only arguing that a gun is a very different thing than a spare tire or an insurance policy.

On the main argument of this thread, I believe in an armed militia to protect ourselves from possible government tyranny. The weapons that both criminals and non-criminal citizens have in our country have nothing to do with this.

[John Cole]

Well, I am a reasonable person--or at least I have that reputation with some people--and I did not mean to imply you are incapable of making your own decisions since you already have. Instead, I was merely offering a couple suggestions, tongue in cheek ones at that. I don't expect to convert gun owners, even if I marshalled statistics to show guns in the home are dangerous.

Although I live in Massachusetts, I am a Rhode Islander at heart. And I don't think my attitude towards guns--which is really the attitude I wished to convey--is endemic to those who live in Massachusetts. Nor do those who live around me seem obsessed with determing how others should live or what they should do.

I do not own a gun and never will. I feel safe in my home. A gun at home would make me feel less safe somehow.

So, I hope you have gleaned a bit more information about the "mind set" (really, I'm much more than a "mind set") that has no great desire to know or mandate how you should live and think and what you should do and know.

[andyfox]

The fact that we're discussing something doesn't mean it's not self-evident. I can say a golf club is the same as a computer and because we discuss it does not make it self-evident that it is not. You say a gun is the same as a spare tire or an insurance policy because it's tool. You're missing the big difference between a gun and a spare tire. That difference, with all due respect, is self-evident.

A gun is a tool that, in the United States, is used to kill large numbers of people. Ignoring the necessity for an armed militia (which I believe is indeed necessary), let's just consider the way guns are used in the United States to kill people. Many people in our country use a gun as tool with which to fire a bullet into another person. Many thousands die each year who would not die if there were no guns. Of course guns kill people. Perhaps we should say the use of guns by people kills people. [I just saw a trailer for Tom Cruise's new movie and Jamie Foxx asks him, when a man who had been shot falls out of a window, did you kill him. Cruise says no, he shot him, it was the bullets and fall that killed him.] Yes, it takes a person to use that gun.

[andyfox]

What if I choose to have a thousand guns. Or a million. Or a nuclear weapon. Or some anthrax. Is that my business and nobody else's?

[Zeno]

I generally concur. And this usually happens in piecemeal fashion, as a steady eroding of certain rights or turning rights into privileges, and seemingly good intended laws for the common good, etc. and etc. Although it can and has happened rather quickly.

For a 'flyer' let's say that you detect certain tendencies about a government that you live under and feel that danger is coming. At what point would you, John Cole, arm yourself? After all to quote you:

[ QUOTE ]
repressive regimes usually round up the books and the intellectuals and stop the presses.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this occurs obviously some group, or officials, or brown shirts, have to physically ‘round up’ or get someone or confiscate books and presses etc. At some point some minion may knock on, or knock down, your door and say "In the name of John Ashcroft' John Cole is under arrest and his books and movies will be torched, his belongs and property confiscated by the state and he will be sent, without trail, to a reconstruction center. This may seem silly. But I assure you it is not. A point is reached were individual conscience and honor trump the methods of an oppressive government. Do you give up? Do you run? How do you prepare? Do you met the thugs with a gun and at least die with a little dignity and shoot a few morons in the processes and perhaps as an example for others?

What’s the measure of your trust in government, which is, after all usually made up of your fellow citizens? And given that your fellow citizens are in general, all morons, this should give you pause. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Le Misanthrope.

[John Cole]

In the main, I agree with your agrument, but how many people climb a tower, walk into a school, or go to work in the morning with a leg of lamb and start picking off citizens?

Yes, change the mentality that guns=individuality=freedom=America.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not own a gun and never will.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is, in my opinion, misguided thinking on your part John. See my reply to your other early post (your response to natedogg).

-Zeno

[John Cole]

Zeno,

I wouldn't arm myself in that situation. It would be useless. I think I'd rather live like a coward than die with dignity anyway.

Of course, there's something in my Yankee blood that might overwhelm my reason in that situation. Ancestors on both sides of my family fought in the Revolutionary War, but that was a long time ago and perhaps the gene pool has been a bit watered down.

[ACPlayer]

If you finally wish to learn what an orgasm is, rather than the daily near orgasm you have with your gun -- try stroking a different barrel /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Lets see, you listen to 18th century music, provide 18th century examples to support weak positions, per chance do you ride a horse to work every day?

Times change, we now live in the 21st century. Listen to some Guns and Roses and figure out that guns are a problem in today's society and not a solution or prophylactic.

[Cyrus]

"Look how easily the US Government pacified those Iraqis."

The Iraqis who are resisting the American occupation (and the Iraqi puppet government) are able to do so because they are organised, because they are part of a militia, in a sense.

I never disputed that a militia can be an effective tool of resistance against government power. But without joining something like that, the individual is doomed.

So my question to gun owners still stands : DO YOU BELONG TO A MILITIA ?

In case you don't belong to a militia, the argument that you alone and your gun can be used to deter government abuse is crap. You may have other reasons for owning a gun, but claiming that you have it to protect yourself against government abuse is not a valid one. It runs contrary to the math.

(You have not been paying attention.)

[Jimbo]

It appears those here that lean to the left are anti-gun ownership and those towards the right are pro personal ownership. I wonder if this has any relationship to the right believing we can take better care of ourselves than the government wheras a common position on the left is "I'm from the government and am here to help you."

Jimbo

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question to gun owners still stands : DO YOU BELONG TO A MILITIA ?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the common chicken and egg question. Without first having guns I doubt the Militia could have developed successfully. Therefore just in case I ever wish to join a militia I believe it might prove prudent to bring my own firearm.


Jimbo

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I choose to have a thousand guns. Or a million. Or a nuclear weapon. Or some anthrax. Is that my business and nobody else's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that you do that is legal and does not infringe on my rights is none of my business. I don't understand why anyone thinks that anything that I do that is legal and does not infringe on their rights is their concern.

BTW, anything you do that is illegal, between consenting adults, and does not infringe on my rights is also none of my business.

[andyfox]

Would my having a thousand guns, or a million guns, or vials of anthrax, or a nuclear weapon, infringe upon your rights?

[andyfox]

As those who are regulars here know, I am on the left and I think the government is a bunch of liars. and I'm anti-gun. [Democrats and Republicans. I happen to agree with Lewis Stone that the the Democratic Party is the party of no ideas, but the Republican Party is the party of bad ideas.]

Most of the conservatives I know don't care about taking care of themselves. They've used the government all their lives to take care of them. They just don't want to admit it or to have the government giving help to anybody else if it doesn't help them.

[MMMMMM]

"On the main argument of this thread, I believe in an armed militia to protect ourselves from possible government tyranny. The weapons that both criminals and non-criminal citizens have in our country have nothing to do with this."

I think that ccording to certain states' statutes, all able-bodied male residents of are already in the militia (whether they know it or not). I submit that if ever a state militia actually goes so far as to become an organized militia, then, as Jimbo says, it might be a good idea to bring your own gun (I much doubt these militias have ready stores of firearms for newly organized members).

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if this has any relationship to the right believing we can take better care of ourselves than the government wheras a common position on the left is "I'm from the government and am here to help you."

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an expression of the extreme liberal school of thought, led by Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and others, that "We from the government, and we're here to help you because you are too fricking stupid to make your own decisions."

It amazes/amuses me that extreme liberals profess to represent the people, but don't trust those people to make their own decisions. The leadership on the left are the true elitists, expressing their concern about "the people", but truly abhorrent of individuals because they are annoying and bothersome and think they know best how to make their own decisions and to live their own lives.

Gore lost the election for many reasons. But holding every thing else equal, he would have won were it not for his position on gun control. Gore went to great lengths to avoid the gun issue, but enough of his beliefs and attitudes slipped out that those who cared about the issue knew that Gore was very much in favor of gun control. Again, an elitist attitude, given a history of gun ownership and use by Gore and his family. This was known to the public, and the message it carried was it's OK for us, but not for you. You cannot be trusted with guns.

In support of my own objectivity on this issue, I do not belong to either party, and I did not vote in the 2000 elections. I could not vote for Gore because of his elitist, Big Brother attitude about people (gun control being one indication), and I could not vote for Bush because I thought he was an incompetent lightweight. I was having second thoughts about Bush right up through Afghanistan, but Iraq proved my initial impressions correct.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question to gun owners still stands : DO YOU BELONG TO A MILITIA ?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I do belong to a gun club. And I submit, and am quite certain, that if and when 'government oppression' or abuse becomes overbearing that the gun club members would be an excellent nucleus for organized actions. Peaceful protests at first but certainly violent confrontations if necessary. Gun clubs would prove to be a very effective organization as a seed or germ for the formation of militias. And there are many gun clubs and shooting organizations throughout the United States that provide a safe and responsible learning environment for the proper use of firearms. There is also a citizens marksmanship program run through many gun clubs that is sponsored by the U.S. Military (or use to be, I think it is now an organized trust) in training citizens in the use of various firearms, you can also purchase older military weapons and ammunition from the government through this program.

I regard Gun Clubs and other shooting organizations as pseudo-militias. They can certainly quickly be turned into an effective and organized militia fairly easily.


I grew up around guns, both rifles and handguns. Almost everyone I knew had one. I learned how to shoot from my father. I learned that gun ownership is a responsibility and part of the heritage of this country. Guns are part of our family. My parent’s will provides for who receives the family firearms. I have honestly never regarded guns as anything evil or even dangerous, if properly handled.

The second amendment protects the right of the people to own firearms. Why people choose to own said firearms is a personal choice and does not require formal justification to anyone.

If reason or math were used as a basis for all decisions, then the US would not have been formed by an organized rebellion against one of the most powerful nations on the planet at the time. And a very poor under funded and equipped rebellion it was at that.

And I submit that a single person can deter governmental abuse, if only symbolically. Sometimes one martyr starts another and another and the fire starts and puts other things into motion. One person with a pen can do wonders with the proper material and martyrs or a few brave souls fighting oppression are excellent material.


-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"Times change, we now live in the 21st century. Listen to some Guns and Roses and figure out that guns are a problem in today's society and not a solution or prophylactic. "

Things change, but History is constant.

Shakespeare is Ageless: human drama does not read the Times.

Just when a group thinks they are safe, someone unplugs the dam and washes away great cities and plains.

The dangers of tyranny will be present as long as humankind exists. Observe the instinctive tendency to tyranny in their young.

Cavemen killed each other with clubs, later bows and arrows, then with high-powered weapons. The impulse to murder, or to war for advantage, will always be present in their kind. If not guns, it would be something else. "But guns make it too easy", they debate amongst themselves. "Just wait", I think silently, "someday there will be handheld weapons to make guns as water pistols. Where will you humans be then?"

Humankind must evolve to a higher plane: emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually--else perish. Banning guns will not accomplish that evolution, and someday their problems will be much greater. Not that we should care. We shall obtain what we want from them, regardless, before they go.

Always be careful signing powers of attorney, and with real estate documents, and in laying down of weapons.

Treachery is as old as the hills. Strangers don't even consider it treachery.

Humankind is divided into three great classes: those craving dominion, those craving helplessness, and those few craving neither. We barter slyly with the former, take our wants from the middle, and nod our heads in passing respect to the latter. Other than that, we have no expectations or business with humans.

Those seeking mercy seldom receive their expectation.

We see their history; we know with whom we are dealing and we smile at them. They do not perceive. Our struggles are not theirs: they know not us. We know their Songs of Ages: they know not their own music. Whyever would they wish to know?

It is time. Go to the hilltops, make the old fires, and watch as evening falls.


-M, Veldara's Nightsong

[MMMMMM]

"The leadership on the left are the true elitists, expressing their concern about "the people", but truly abhorrent of individuals because they are annoying and bothersome and think they know best how to make their own decisions and to live their own lives. "


"We must stop thinking about the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton


"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]


"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]


"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)]


"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." [Ayn Rand]


The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. [H.L. Mencken]


The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights. [H.L. Mencken]


"Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?" [Alan Keyes]

[ACPlayer]

Not quite. Those that are in favour of gun control are labelled as left by the folks in favour of gun violence.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears those here that lean to the left are anti-gun ownership and those towards the right are pro personal ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lean slightly to the left. I took a quiz online to find where I stand politically because I wasn't really sure. But I do, and always will, own a gun. I believe in my family's protection. And it's not the government that I am worried about. When I was younger, I hung around a not-so-nice crowd. Many of them are in prison now. So from my experiences, It's the criminal element and the Right Wing fanatics who I worry about. So If it's to shoot people, then so be it.

The quiz I took to find where I stand politically is this link:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[natedogg]

It's very simple. Not everyone who owns a gun needs to be in a militia in order for mass gun ownership to be a deterrant. Once the government starts rounding up Jews to send them to the ovens, I will load up my guns and join the militia. It's pretty simple actually. I'm not sure what you think you've disproven by asserting (without demonstrating i might note), that one individual with a gun can't deter oppression. So what. As soon as oppression rears its head, all us individuals with guns become a militia. Not too hard to understand. For most.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

"As soon as oppression rears its head, all us individuals with guns become a militia."

There is no "as soon", in such matters. Oppression is usually not announced over the airwaves and there is no count-down to a dictatorship! Outright oppressive regimes, such as dictatorships, are passé.

Oppression will creep up on you. No sharp warning to organise militias and the like. The powers that be have the tendency to isolate and pick selective targets. There are several instructive stories, some of them involving the BATF, some not.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

All leftist ideology is naive.



Agreed, that oppression tends to gradually creep up.

Freedoms tend to be gradually removed.

Guns tend to be gradually confiscated.

Patterns are nothing new in this world.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Would my having a thousand guns, or a million guns, or vials of anthrax, or a nuclear weapon, infringe upon your rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you acquired and used them legally and responsibly, the fact of your ownership does not infringe upon my personal rights, and it is none of my business. Which gets back to the point that a thing that has a legitimate use cannot be evil in and of itself, but it can be used evilly.

So the question is, if I legally and responsibly own a gun, what business is it of anyone else? Why do some people make it their business to try to change my life and modify my behavior to fit their image of the way the world should be?

The answer, of course, is that such people think that I am wrong and that the laws are wrong, and that guns are evil or necessarily result in evil. They believe that no one, other than the proper authorities, should have guns. They believe that gun ownership is based on a misguided if not corrupt value system. And since such people are in the minority (otherwise the laws would be changed to prohibit gun ownership), they believe that they know better than the majority how the majority should live. So we are back to a philosophy of elitism, based on the premise that the majority are too stupid to know what is good for them, and need to be led by their betters. The elitists do not and cannot offer proof for their positions, they just know what is right and moral and good for society.

The elitists can sometimes achieve their goals, as when they decided that the common man was too stupid to use alcohol responsibly. We know what a fiasco that turned out to be. I find no difference in mind set and attitude between those who would ban guns and those who banned alcohol. Banning guns and prohibition of alcohol are both based on the premise that most people are mentally or morally incapable of properly using these things, so no one should have them. They claim the moral highground based solely on the "fact" that they know better than the rabble what is good for society. I am always amazed by the arrogance of presuming to make moral decisions for other people.

While this discussion is an interesting exercise, it is an exercise in futility. No one will ever convince an elitist through debate that he is wrong, or that his beliefs are right for him but wrong for others. And no elitist will ever convinve me that my beliefs are morally and intellectually inferior to his.

[Boris]

I can't beleive you are trying to make this argument. By your own logic(?) a well armed citizenry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to prevent widespread fascism. How does this make gun ownership futile?

[andyfox]

Because somebody disagrees with you does not make them an elitist. Everyone who runs for political office does so because he thinks he has good ideas and can contribute to the public good.

In our country, tens of thousands of people are killed by guns and by drunk drivers. To protect my rights not to get shot, or not to be killed by a drunk driver, government makes laws requiring licensing, registration, testing, etc. It's similar to what we do at our airports. I'm a law-abiding citizen, I don't carry weapons, I've never committed a misdemeanor, I have no intention, nor would anybody have reason to suspect I have an intention, to cause any mischief at the airport or on a plan. Yet they stop me and search me and my luggage at the airport. Why? For the common good. The policy is not based on elitism but on the fact that three thousand people died on 9/11 and that in the era of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, thousands of people's live were put at risk.

I wouldn't worry about guns and alcohol in anybody's hands if few people were hurt or killed by them.

Wanting to see fewer people killed by guns or alcohol or hijackers is not make an arrogant, elitist argument. Insisting that government has no right to try to accomplish these things might well be.

[MMMMMM]

"In our country, tens of thousands of people are killed by guns and by drunk drivers."

To be consistent it should be "guns and cars" or else "irresponsible or criminal gun-users, and drunk drivers"--not "guns and drunk drivers". This may seem nitpicking but conceptually I think it matters for the rest of the argument.

"Wanting to see fewer people killed by guns or alcohol or hijackers is not make an arrogant, elitist argument. Insisting that government has no right to try to accomplish these things might well be."

Then you ought to be for Prohibition because alcohol kills in more ways than one, and kills more people than guns kill; and perhaps for criminalizing cigarettes as well, because cigarettes kill even more.

Gun deaths are fewer than drunk driving deaths, right? And drunk driving threatens you, not just the user of alcohol, correct? So if you are going to be for banning guns because you feel endangered by them, to be consistent you must be also for banning alcohol because you feel endangered by it (presuming you drive). But you're not for banning alcohol...right?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
"In our country, tens of thousands of people are killed by guns and by drunk drivers."

To be consistent it should be "guns and cars" or else "irresponsible or criminal gun-users, and drunk drivers"--not "guns and drunk drivers". This may seem nitpicking but conceptually I think it matters for the rest of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely the logical break-down in this line of thinking. A Freudian slip if you will, but the idea expressed is that guns kill people and drunk drivers kill people. In the first case, the inanimate object is morally responsible. In the second, an irresponsible human is the cause. Why is a gun more evil than a car?? Or a human??? Just because.

[Cyrus]

"All leftist ideology is naive."

I would bet good money that your idea of what is "leftist ideology" is choke-full of hyperbole, prejudice and ignorance.

[ACPlayer]

All idealogues, including the ones on this forum, are typically self described rightists. Leftists are less adamant in their viewpoints, willing to change and put people before ideology, big business, and big governemnt. The rightist idealogues are the ones who have the solutions down pat, usually with little thought (see fearless leader of the rightists for a good example) and usually from a completely self centered world view.

Some of them are still living in the 18th century.

[andyfox]

Our government is attempting to limit the deaths caused by abuse of alcohol and cigarettes. There are strategies short of outright prohibition that can have beneficial effects. Same thing with guns.

Nobody ever got behind the wheel of their car and ran it into another car because they had too much nicotine. Nobody ever shot somebody in anger (or by accident) because they were smoking too much.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody ever shot somebody in anger (or by accident) because they were smoking too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I've often wanted to shoot somebody in anger because they were smoking too much.

[MMMMMM]

"Our government is attempting to limit the deaths caused by abuse of alcohol and cigarettes. There are strategies short of outright prohibition that can have beneficial effects. Same thing with guns."

OK...so are you for banning guns or just limiting them?

How about restricting guns as alcohol is restricted?

It seems to me that since misuse of alcohol kills more people than misuse of guns, perhaps alcohol should merit even greater restriction than guns.

I submit that you are likely in greater danger from alcohol than from guns, because you are in greater danger from drunk drivers than from misusers of firearms. And that isn't even counting the damage alcohol does to the user: just the danger that misuse of alcohol presents to others.

[andyfox]

Aha! Something upon which we can agree. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

You might be right about alcohol, if indeed my freedom ends where yours begins. I don't care, in a sociological sense, about the damage alcohol causes to the user, unless I have to pay for his medical bills. (Of course I care in the sense I don't wish for anyone to phsycially damage themselves.)

On guns, I'm for fewer deaths. (As I think we all are; our disagreement is over what policy will produce that result.)

[Gamblor]

The "defense against government abuse" argument is a joke.

The difference between militias and vigilantes is virtually non-existent. In the United States (and any close-to-properly-organized state), the method of determining policy is via vote - anyone can run, anyone can vote. Government is an extension of the people, not an opponent of the people. You want communism? Vote in a communist. You want theocracy? Vote in a Priest.

Ergo, there is no reason for a private citizen to need a gun.

You want to defend yourself? Buy a baseball bat. You never need to defend yourself from more than 60'6".

Hunting might be fun, but so is ping pong.

[HDPM]

In a free society you wouldn't "have to pay" for the medical bills of an alcoholic or a smoker. We all make choices that might hurt our lives or cause medical expenses. The health nut riding a bike to work might get hurt worse in an accident and thereby run up big medical bills. The thing we must do is end all government spending on medicine. If we don't, we will have little personal liberty left. This year the legislature in my "conservative" state passed anti smoking laws that deprive people of personal property rights. They also passed a starter bill on being fat. All of this BS is justified by "conservatives" concerned about medical bills. Well, it's simple. Stop the communism. Really, if the trend continues for 100 years we will have bureaucrats weighing us, fining us for being fat, locking us up to lose weight, etc... It is all BS. I just don't want to be forced pay for anybody else's medical care under any circumstance.

[Boris]

I'll bet you all those pogrom victims wish they had guns instead of baseball bats.

[andyfox]

We pay lots of medical bills and we have lots of personal liberty left. What anti-smoking laws were passed that deprived you of personal liberty?

One can, basically, not smoke in any public indoor place in California. If indeed second-hand smoke is a health risk, then your liberty to smoke traspasses on my liberty and it must be restricted. Smoke all you want in your own car or home. (There are even streets here in L.A. where you can't smoke, in the canyons, where fire risk is high.)

I like certain aspects of communism. The communal aspects. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Gamblor]

If both sides were permitted guns, which side do you think would have the bigger ones? In fact, caged in ghettos as the Jews were, how many pogromists do you think would even have to put themselves in any real danger?

[Gamblor]

Humankind must evolve to a higher plane: emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually--else perish. Banning guns will not accomplish that evolution

It is not the banning of the guns that accomplishes that evolution; it is the outspoken desire to ban guns that accomplishes it.

I, for one, don't think guns are needed. You want one? Have it. But don't point it at me.

[MMMMMM]

"The "defense against government abuse" argument is a joke.

The difference between militias and vigilantes is virtually non-existent. In the United States (and any close-to-properly-organized state), the method of determining policy is via vote - anyone can run, anyone can vote. Government is an extension of the people, not an opponent of the people. You want communism? Vote in a communist. You want theocracy? Vote in a Priest."

So you are saying elected officials never pass laws conducive to tyranny, if you only elect the candidates that seem reasonable? Tyrannical govrnments never started out as freely elected governments?

Israelis are bound together presently and historically by a mutual need for solidarity in the face of an oppressive and and threatening outside world. Some day the rest of the world may not be so threatening or crazy (I know, not in our lifetime) and then some Israelis will likely start thinking more of how to exploit each other. You cannot be sure that in the future one group of Israelis will not try to opress another group of Israelis. Do you really want everyone to be unarmed if that oppressing group is controlled by the government?

"Ergo, there is no reason for a private citizen to need a gun."

I'm afraid I don't see the "ergo" in all the above.


"You want to defend yourself? Buy a baseball bat. You never need to defend yourself from more than 60'6"."

So how are you supposed to defend yourself against someone with a gun? How is a 100-lb. woman supposed to defend herself against a 240-lb. man, for that matter? How is an elderly citizen supposed to defend against a couple of young street toughs who force their way into his house?

"Hunting might be fun, but so is ping pong."

Ping-pong is more fun than hunting, IMO. That doesn't give me the right to outlaw either activity.

[HDPM]

Well, bowling alleys can allow smokers here, but pool halls can't. Bars can, but restaurants can't. It is stupid. But anyway, those "public places" you mention are generally private businesses. If I own a business, I have the right to allow smoking or not. To do otherwise deprives me of my property rights. I think each business owner should be compensated for a taking when an anti-smoking law passes. Simply put, I might want to open a restaurant called "Cardiac Charlies" where everybody, including the cooks, smoke constantly. I might want to serve only heart stopping grease bomb food. I might want to serve a lot of whiskey with the chicken fried steak. That is purely my own business. And my employees would know going in that they were going to work in a cancer causing smoke pit. That is their choice and they have no right to work for me or dictate the smoking policy of my restaurant. The only people who could be hurt are people who come there or work there voluntarily. Another restaurant might decide they woanted pure air and bean sprouts. Fine. I have no right to make them let me smoke there or to serve me biscuits and gravy and bacon. Needless to say, I am against all smoking restrictions on private businesses. Without the government meddling, I think there would be plenty of non smoking places.

(Government buildings like courthouses are different, because people don't have a choice and they aren't private.)

[MMMMMM]

The leverage of a better gun against a small gun is not nearly so great as the leverage of any size gun against someone with no gun at all. Two men with guns can control twenty men without guns, easily. Two men with better guns against twenty men with small guns is a far less one-sided proposition.

[Cyrus]

"In the United States, the method of determining policy is via vote - anyone can run, anyone can vote. Government is an extension of the people, not an opponent of the people. You want communism? Vote in a communist. You want theocracy? Vote in a Priest.

Ergo, there is no reason for a private citizen to need a gun."

I'm sorry but the conclusion does not follow from your establishing presuppositions. In other words, it doesn't follow!

For the record, I do not dispute that government can be abusive. Even democratically-elected government. (We are not going to throw the Tom Paines, the Lockes and the others down the drain now, are we?)

What I do dispute is the method of countering abuse - or the possibility of abuse. I believe that guns without organisation do not do it, if only because of the math. Others here believe that an AK-47 will scare off the BATF. It's a free country.

[andyfox]

See, this is the part of communism I like. You might also want to have a restaurant where blacks or Jews or women or old people are not served. But we all band together and decide that in the interests of a civil society you're not allowed to do that. The laws we make are not perfect. But we strive to act morally and decently.

You don't want to serve Jews because they're Jews? I say, F-you, we're gonna force you to. And I think it's better that you get F-ed than all the Jews who you would not serve. [Of course I'm using the proverbial "you" here.]

It's justice, pure and simple.

There, that should stir things up a bit. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

"It is not the banning of the guns that accomplishes that evolution; it is the outspoken desire to ban guns that accomplishes it."

Well-said. There's hope for you yet, my friend.

[andyfox]

"Ping-pong is more fun than hunting, IMO. That doesn't give me the right to outlaw either activity."

If tens or thousands of people were being killed by people using ping-pong rackets or balls, then it does givs us the obligation to try to reduce, if not eliminate, the killings. There's no greater infraction upon a human's liberty than depriving him of his life, no?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
On guns, I'm for fewer deaths. (As I think we all are; our disagreement is over what policy will produce that result.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can refine this to: What policy will produce a positive result that has the least adverse effect on individual freedoms and choice. This is always a sticky problem.

And in another view, (which I have stated before in some form or other)- Freedoms do have social costs. Freedoms do 'cause deaths', are subject to abuse by many and, in the case of free speech for example, can exacerbate the spread of nonsense and hate.

-Zeno

Edit: I guess I should add that I err to the side of always protecting our freedoms and rights to the utmost, and take the social costs as part of the human payment that is sacrificed for freedom. It is that important - for everyone.

[Gamblor]

Of course governments can be abusive. Look at your own right now.

But in your case, this November it's all over. That's the beauty of mandated, frequent, elections. Any mistakes can be corrected without violence. Only in a situation whereby a government is provided the right to avoid election can power be abused permanently.

The conclusion is that with regular, secret balloted, free voting elections, a gun is not needed to defend against perpetual government abuse - all you need is citizenship and a pen (or something else to punch out that little hole).

[Gamblor]

There's no greater infraction upon a human's liberty than depriving him of his life, no?

So are you against euthanasia?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Gamblor: "It is not the banning of the guns that accomplishes that evolution; it is the outspoken desire to ban guns that accomplishes it."

Andy Fox: "Well-said. There's hope for you yet, my friend."

[/ QUOTE ]


It's neither that can accomplish it; only an overall evolution in the human race in terms of rationality, sanity and compassion can accomplish it. In other words, most of the human species is currently inferior to the task.

When handheld gun-like weapons the size of a .38 Special can blow up office buildings or city blocks instead of pumpkins, and carry multiple charges, you will understand.

It is not the banning or lack thereof that will make the difference; to reach the bar, the human race must become a higher order of being.

[HDPM]

The race discrimination part is the toughest for me. I have always been a little uncomfortable with the commerce clause analysis the Supreme Court used in the restaurant desegregation cases. I liked the result, but thought the opinions might have had more force had they decided on 13th and 14th Amendment bases. Hard question because of the evil of racism, the history of our country, and the government backed racism in the south. Smoking, however, isn't Jim Crow.

Religious discrimination is a hard one too. The problem is that religion is a choice, where race or gender are not. At some point, however, private discrimination must be allowed. Like the article someone posted here where a church in Europe couldn't fire an athiest priest. But again, a tougher issue than smoking.

Also, if a restaurant discriminates, there is usually another one to go to. so I wouldn't go to a restaurant that discriminates, just as I have decided for myself that I won't play golf, even as a guest, at a club that discriminates. But the fact some private clubs discriminate doesn't really affect me and doesn't injure my inalienable rights. Why would I want hang out with people who are idiots or to force stupid people to hang out with me? I get my fill of them without trying. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Gamblor]

I'm afraid I don't see the "ergo" in all the above.

With mandated free and regular elections, the means to influence policy will be in the voting booth, not the

When no government can prevent an open election, that government can not risk losing its power by abusing it in a way that guns are necessary to protect a citizen.

While there's some truth to the old adage "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them", a stronger and more accountable police force and a proper edumacation system can deter even the desire to own guns.

I don't believe it's right to ban guns. I also don't believe it's right to own one in the first place.

[Sloats]

Am I allowed to spank my child?

[Boris]

not if you leave a bruise.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I allowed to spank my child?

[/ QUOTE ]

Children are like bells; they function best when they are struck regularly.

(And I am totally clueless as to why this was asked in response to one of my posts. /images/graemlins/confused.gif)

[andyfox]

I respectfully disagree with your refinement. I'm willing to give a little of my individual freedoms to save lives. Or to make life better. And yes, better by my definition. Sometimes the social costs exceed the benefit of the personal freedom. I think we're all better off if you're not allowed to not allow Jews or women to eat in your restaurant simply because they're jews or women. Or if you're not allowed to pass through onto an airplane without being metal-detectified. And so I've voted for government representatives who are in tune with my morality and in tune with my views on social issues.

[andyfox]

Aha! Another area of agreement! Who would have thunk it!

[andyfox]

Gamblor said it's not the banning that will make the difference; I equate his "outspoken desire" with your "higher order of being."

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I allowed to spank my child?

[/ QUOTE ]

Children are like bells; they function best when they are struck regularly.

(And I am totally clueless as to why this was asked in response to one of my posts. /images/graemlins/confused.gif)

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently either I didn't scroll too the VERY top to hit reply, or the Board database got buggy.

[MMMMMM]

"The conclusion is that with regular, secret balloted, free voting elections, a gun is not needed to defend against perpetual government abuse - all you need is citizenship and a pen (or something else to punch out that little hole)."

But if only the government has guns, they can decree an end to free elections and there's not a damn thing the populace can do about it.

[MMMMMM]

"If tens or thousands of people were being killed by people using ping-pong rackets or balls, then it does givs us the obligation to try to reduce, if not eliminate, the killings. There's no greater infraction upon a human's liberty than depriving him of his life, no?"

So then I ask you again, are you for banning alcohol? If you are for banning guns (and you seem to be) then to be consistent I think you have to be for banning alcohol, as long as drunk drivers kill as many or more than people than do misusers of firearms.

Just trying to define your position before we proceed...

[jokerswild]

Well, the government did just that in Florida 4 years ago.I agree that there is not a damn thing the public can do about it.

[MMMMMM]

"With mandated free and regular elections, the means to influence policy will be in the voting booth, not the

When no government can prevent an open election, that government can not risk losing its power by abusing it in a way that guns are necessary to protect a citizen."

Herein lies the problem.

Take the U.N., for example: it can pass as many resolutions as it wishes, but the power ultimately lies only at the end of a gun. That is why the U.N. is such a toothless organization. U.N. resolutions mean nothing unless those who have the guns back them up.

Free elections also mean nothing if those who have the guns say so.

[andyfox]

Before we proceed? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

No, I'm not in favor of banning alcohol. And I'm not in favor of banning guns. I'm in favor of stricter controls on both.

For discussion:

-One DUI, no more driving. Sorry, Charlie, get a bus schedule.

-Use a gun in the commission of a crime, go directly to jail. Do not go past go. One strike and you're out. Let's say five years for using the gun, ten years if you hit someone, and life if you kill someone. Get all those non-violent drug abusers out of the jails and fill them with violent gun users.

[Zeno]

A fine argument. We disagree on the bar (or fuzzy gray line) on the sliding scale of freedoms/rights vs. the social costs they entail. I will not say you are wrong or that I am right, we just differ.

I will add one last comment. Tyranny and abuse by governments, or thugs that can and do take over governmental power, has resulted in a tremendous amount of human suffering and death at a terrible cost to humanity. History as shown conclusively that the precious freedoms we have are indeed fragile and can easily be lost or eroded away. One must weigh this overall historical human cost to the more specific ones you have called out.

This has certainly been a very good discussion and conducted in a civil manner. And I managed to contribute without resorting to glib sarcasms and misanthropic vituperation. Perhaps a first for me - I don’t know if that is good or bad.

-Zeno (Le Misanthrope)
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[sameoldsht]

Last night I used my pitiful li'l 12 gauge shotgun to kill a vicious dog who maimed my dog 3 times on my own f*cking land. This dog bared it's teeth at me every time I saw the SOB.

Problem solved.

[andyfox]

I'm in favor of a massive increase in the number of guns, provided they're used to kill every last living dog in the country. A quick death, please, so the animal rights activists have nothing to say.

[sameoldsht]

I still feel sort of guilty for killing an animal because of it's @sshole owner's stupidity. This dog messed my dog up a few times, almost killed 2 other neighbors dogs and attacked a lady who walks down the road to her mailbox every day and actually broke the skin. The owner had ample warning to keep his dog under control.

Vicious dog + irresponsible owner = dead dog

[MMMMMM]

Well, now you're talking along lines I generally tend to agree with.

[MMMMMM]

just kidding

[natedogg]

You say: " I believe that guns without organisation do not do it, if only because of the math. "

But how do you get the guns AND organization unless you have guns in the first place. You make no sense. You actually seem to agree that organized armed resistance is effective.

But you cannot be an organized armed citizenry without having the guns in the first place.

The reason a million disorganized gun-owners make would-be nazi regimes reluctant is that it's much easier to go from

Widespread gun ownership ----> organized resistance

than it is to go from

unarmed populace with dreams of freedom ---> widespread armed resistance

This is elementary.

You seem more interested in just claiming to be right than in actually debating the salient issue intelligently.


natedogg

[Gamblor]

I equate his "outspoken desire" with your "higher order of being."

By outspoken desire, I mean that it occured to someone to say, "You know what? We really don't need guns. They cause more trouble than they're worth, and if there are any real confrontations I'm sure we're more than capable of sitting down and arranging a solution to whatever it is that ails us."

Now, will you sit down with a burglar who broke into your home, or a government official who has come to empty your bank account? Obviously not, but the point is that the government ought to be run in a manner in which such events never occur, and that is done through peaceful, not violent means: Social programs for the poor, better police coverage, limitations of the powers of government, reminders that the government serves the people, not vice versa. Actually banning guns won't do anything other than make them harder to get for the people that don't want to have to use them.

But that someone is thinking, and preaching, along the lines of "let's not use guns and solve our problems diplomatically" is evidence of this "evolution".

Ideally, nobody would need a gun, be they soldiers patrolling in Gaza or a security guard in a gated community. But as of now, that's ideally, not reality. The greater the strength of the peaceful resolutions movement, the more likely we are to see that ideal come to pass. But nobody (Israeli soldier or Georgian billionaire) can possibly support peaceful resolution of conflict until he feels safe and secure, and be convinced that his life is not threatened or a negotiating point, but an inalienable right.