I favour a small efficient government

[theweatherman]

Do you think that America might be past the point where citizens will have to take up arms to defend themselves?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that America might be past the point where citizens will have to take up arms to defend themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible, but it wouldn't be wise to count on it.

The history of human foibles and oppression, greed, brutality, and so on is as old as the hills. While we have developed technological wonders, I don't think we as a species have gotten nearly to the point where force will not be used for selfish purposes. Therefore wisdom would seem to suggest that it would be potentially foolish to put your faith in the benificence of strangers--especially strangers who might have something to gain by using force at your expense.

You know the old saying at the poker table: trust your friends, but see that the deck is cut. How much more true is that of strangers, and why should you trust strangers with your very life to the point of being defenseless should they decide to abuse you for their own gain.

One has only to look at the cut-throat style of litigation so prevalent in our country today, to realize that our civilized customs are but a thin veneer. When push comes to shove, "I-Me-Mine" is the loudest refrain, and ultimately raw force (or the threat of raw force) is the most powerful advocate, judge, and constable all rolled into one. If your opponents have that raw power and you don't, all of your arguments, and all of their pretensions of fairness, are apt to blow away like dry leaves in the autumn wind. So don't put complete faith in civilization or in laws; rather look to history and see how, ultimately, it is guns that determine which laws will be followed.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that America might be past the point where citizens will have to take up arms to defend themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like asking whether American citizens are "past" the point of needing to criticize the government through a free press. Regardless of whether individuals are able to mount an effective resistance to government oppression (foreign or domestic) via the pen or the sword, or even if it's never necessary, the fact remains the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms are among the fundamental civil liberties which form the cornerstone of a free society.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
.... one that only spends money on my priorities and passes laws I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this is supposed to be a caricature of small-govt proponents, since you are a proponent of big govt and near-universal expansive state control.

But it's a poor caricature. It does not accurately reflect the argument of small-govt proponents. But if might make authoritarian leftists feel better to laugh at a strawman I suppose.

natedogg

[theweatherman]

I can see the need for weapons to fight the upcoming revolution but certain guns are ridiculous. Semi-auto pistols can beas deadly in a crowded city as a suicide bomber. The fact of the matter is that loose gun restrictions allows for easily concelled hand guns to fuel violence and cause accidents.

While rifles and smaller weapons could be useful in a fight for freedom, snub nose revolvers with ranges measured in tens of feet instead of yards are not at all practical. Unless you are planning to rob a store, or mug someone, or take out a rival gang memember, all of which can be acomplished with such a weapon. However i wouldnt take my chances agianst a professional army with only a plam sized pistol.

Gun nuts are always flaunting theneed for guns to ensure our security. However I have never once seen one of these people use their guns to protect much of anything. Further more what happens when these armed citizens get the wrong ideas. Where were these 'freedom' loving gun owners in the 1960's during the race riots and civil rights movement, oh yeah they were standing behind the police, trampling others rigths with their death machines.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Semi-auto pistols can beas deadly in a crowded city as a suicide bomber.

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost any gun can be as deadly as a suicide bomber. What's your point? That guns are deadly? Brilliant deduction! Do you even know what "semi-auto" means? I have my doubts.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that loose gun restrictions allows for easily concelled hand guns to fuel violence and cause accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Nothing is stopping you (or any criminal, for that matter) from concealing a gun right now. All the law can do is punish those they catch doing so.
2) In cases where people are allowed to carry concealed guns, the number with such permits that are actually caught doing something illegal with said guns is ridiculously small.

[ QUOTE ]
Gun nuts are always flaunting theneed for guns to ensure our security. However I have never once seen one of these people use their guns to protect much of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the fact that they have been fortunate enough not to need to defend their life means they shouldn't have the ability to? Is this honestly your argument?

[ QUOTE ]
Further more what happens when these armed citizens get the wrong ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Punish them?

[ QUOTE ]
Where were these 'freedom' loving gun owners in the 1960's during the race riots and civil rights movement, oh yeah they were standing behind the police, trampling others rigths with their death machines.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make much sense. Is it your argument that because some "freedom loving gun owners" stood behind police and trampled others' rights means that no one should have guns? Perhaps because people have incited others to violence with their words means we should start banning speech?

[theweatherman]

I never claimed that no one should own a gun, however handguns are suspect. Because of their portability and concelability handguns are ideal weapons to kill with. It seems that such weapons have no place in modern day America.

If you live on a ranch in Alaska and fight bears every day then by all means buy the biggest gun you want. You can even jerk off to it ten times a day and congradulate yourself on being a 'big man' for owning such a device. However in the more mainstream American society guns (namely handguns) really have almost no purpose that outweighs the risk they pose.

FYI, my father is a cop so I know a thing or two about handguns as hes had one all my life.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
however handguns are suspect. Because of their portability and concelability handguns are ideal weapons to kill with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost any gun is an "ideal weapon to kill with". The benefit of a handgun is a little old lady and a huge 250 lb thug are now on a level playing field. I'm having a hard time thinking of a more equalizing tool. If just the thug is armed (and why wouldn't he be, he's a criminal), then the little old lady stands almost no chance. If both are armed, then the lady's chances increase substantially.

[ QUOTE ]
However in the more mainstream American society guns (namely handguns) really have almost no purpose that outweighs the risk they pose.

[/ QUOTE ]
...except for one of the most important purposes: self-defense. Again, little old lady vs. 250 lb armed criminal. Who'll win? Allow the little old lady the choice of having a gun. Now who'll win? Maybe she will, maybe the thug will, but the lady at least has a chance where before she had no chance at all.

[ QUOTE ]
FYI, my father is a cop so I know a thing or two about handguns

[/ QUOTE ]
From what you've posted, I don't believe you know anything of consequence regarding guns.

[theweatherman]

When you claim any gun is ideal to kill with you are just plain wrong. How far down main st. do you think you can go with a 6 foot musket strapped to your back. Now think of a 5 inch pistol hidden in your pocket. the pistol is obviously a better choice.

so this 250 lb thug comes up to this old lady, pulls a gun and says give me your purse. The lady then whips out her pistol and blasts the guy in the chest? I see how this makes her as strong as the thug, but does she really stand a chance against an armed criminal.

Of course if i was a criminal and saw that more and more oldladys were carrying guns id simply kill them first then take their stuff, why risk a "fair" fight?

The escalation of violence that can occur if everyine holds a gun is scary.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
When you claim any gun is ideal to kill with you are just plain wrong. How far down main st. do you think you can go with a 6 foot musket strapped to your back. Now think of a 5 inch pistol hidden in your pocket. the pistol is obviously a better choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what you meant to say was handguns are more ideal for concealment, not killing. Almost all guns are ideal for killing. Not all guns are ideal for concealing. Here we agree.

[ QUOTE ]
so this 250 lb thug comes up to this old lady, pulls a gun and says give me your purse. The lady then whips out her pistol and blasts the guy in the chest? I see how this makes her as strong as the thug, but does she really stand a chance against an armed criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haven't you just shown that? I don't understand what you're asking, I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if i was a criminal and saw that more and more oldladys were carrying guns id simply kill them first then take their stuff, why risk a "fair" fight?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's a big jump to go from armed robbery to murder. And with so many armed old ladies around, who's to say you won't get shot by the one behind you? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The escalation of violence that can occur if everyine holds a gun is scary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe to you, but to those who don't like being mugged and raped, it may not be the scariest.