Politics

[Dude]

This is fun to watch.

Continue.

[Cobraroll]

@SFK, I think Spitllama's point is that Hitler didn't rise to power because of gun control but was able to more effectively oppress because of it.

Too bad for that argument that the gun laws in Nazi Germany were more liberal than in any European nation today. Sure, guns had to be registered, but most citizens were free to own one. It was the Allied troops who disarmed the civilian German population.

As for protecting yourself against an oppressive government with handguns... no chance in hell. Sorry to say, if the government wanted to get you, there's no way you could protect yourself on a household budget. A modern Armoured Personnel Carrier can comfortably kill targets at ranges exceeding two kilometres. The heaviest guns in civilian use (.50 calibre machine guns) would maybe scratch its armour to the point it would need a new paint job.
This, of course, is assuming the oppressive government is generous enough to send a slow-moving, big target into the oppression zone and give the civilians a chance to return fire. If the government really wanted a civilian dead, they could send an artillery shell from some 30 kilometres away. The civilian could have spent millions on the fanciest home protection equipment on the market, but a $500 shell would still ruin his day, and probably take parts of the neighbourhood with it. With a good artillery hunting radar he would learn about the shell about a minute before it hit his house.

In short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.

[ur borked tags, i fixed them]

[Waddle Bro]

This is fun to watch.

Continue.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

And don't give me this, "It's to protect myself!" shit. You have legs. USE THEM. And if you haven't the sense to hide, then you're too stupid to live. Get security installed and move to a nicer area. Problem is solved.

If it were that easy, don't you think people would be doing that already?

[spitllama]

Oh hey posts. And a lot of them..

I think that quite a few of them could have been prevented with stricter gun control, and quite a few of them might have been solvable without using guns.  By making it more difficult to acquire a gun, it ensures that there are much fewer in distribution and decreases the likelihood that someone does something stupid.

Currently, in the US, there are over 250 million firearms. Limiting production would hardly touch the fact that disturbed individuals are finding firearms.

Which brings me to another point-- the focus of the current gun arguments is really off the real point. Nancy Lanza, the mother of Adam Lanza, was irresponsible in allowing her mentally disturbed son (which news sources are beginning to report that she knew about ahead of time) to use her firearms. The fact that she makes a bad decision means everyone else has to lose their right? Consider this conversation:

"It's wrong to try to take my guns"
"Why do you need them?"
"In case the government comes after me."
"That's ridiculous, the government isn't going to come after you."
"So you're not going to try to take my guns?"
"Of course we are, you don't need them."
"But I'm innocent."
"Too bad, hand them over or we will come after you."

Another issue I haven't seen discussed with regard to guns is the potential for false diagnosis of government tyranny.  What if the birthers decided Obama shouldn't be president and marched on the White House armed?  I think insane people declaring war on the government is much more likely than the government becoming so tyrannical that we need to use guns to stop it.

This is absolutely a concern... But it's getting off topic. The Federalist papers claim that the cause must be morally and politically right. Governments which do not protect personal freedoms and securities of its citizens lose their legitimacy in failing to protect them. Getting angry because Obama was reelected would be unjustified, because no rights were invaded upon.
But again, it's getting off topic. The part I'm arguing is the right to do so (which is impossible without allowing the mass population to be armed), not when.

Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, it's pretty clear that government officials fear falling out of favor with us.  If they didn't fear popular opinion of them, then there wouldn't be so much partisan politics.

That's extremely relative, so again I won't spend much time on it. I would argue that businesses buying out votes and logrolling means that politicians are more concerned with bettering themselves and their party than actually remaining in favor with the population or protecting the nation. In fact, the entire argument over the debt ceiling shows their irresponsibility-- give more and more free stuff to more of the population to garner additional votes? Or actually decide that we cannot spend more than we have and bring it down.

Stuff

There have been three break-ins on my home street in the last month, and I live in an effing resort. One of the home-owners was threatened with a knife when the thieves didn't realize he was home. I'm pretty sure we're justified in having a gun in our home or on our person while staying in our neighborhood. Honestly, I think it's absurd to solely leave your life in the hands of other people (i.e. police). They do their jobs better than any of us, but they respond after crises have already started. They are evidently an insufficient preventative in keeping crime down.

This addresses Ruto's comments.

Too bad for that argument that the gun laws in Nazi Germany were more liberal than in any European nation today.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

Apparently we need a historian of our own to settle the dispute. This document, of the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, describes growing gun restrictions in Nazi Germany from post WWI to his solidified place of power in 1933.

In short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.

"It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the Guerrilla has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength."

- Col. Jeff Cooper

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/17/syrian-army/1775669/


Beyond these points of argument though, I'm surprised that your argument would not be to give citizens more weapons. If there's no chance, then we're on our knees and at our feet right? What's the solution then?

EDIT: Agh formatting.

[Ruto]

We should also listen to Cobraroll, he was actually in the military.

In short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.

Yahhh.

@Spit

Hate to say this, but what you're saying about the government worries quite a few of us here.  I think you can remove the fear aspect altogether and still have liberty and all that stuff. The last thing we need is for everyone to live in a state of fear, citizens or politicians...Cobraroll talked about Hitler already so I don't really need to say any more, other than guns don't prevent Hitler.  The other moral issue you mentioned is discussed in intro philosophy, so that's slightly off topic and would lead to another boring discussion on why people should be just.  The real issue here is how to prevent potentially dangerous people from getting weapons to kill other innocent people. BDS said before that one of the gun nuts (such as Kent Hovind) might need counseling, yet the police had found a SKS semiautomatic rifle and a bunch of other guns in his house. This is the same guy who was so anti-government, anti-taxation that he actually prepared for something. I'm sure that he isn't the only one.

For the responsibility thing, you really have to think that having guns around, it's just a disaster waiting to happen. She could have been the most responsible gun owner ever and her son could still have beaten the crap out of her with a chair and taken them by force. There are even cases where kids find guns in the house and it accidentally goes off and hurts someone.

I think people have made an excuse to use any sort of weapon if they wanted to. Definitely for defense or protection. Nevermind if someone gets hurt killed? >__>

I think you really need to move somewhere else...

[Mashi]

I feel that a few of you are being a bit harsh on gun ownership (or a bit too adamant in support of it!).  I also believe that it's a problem that must be combatted, however, through stricter regulation.  A straight out gun ban probably wouldn't be so effective; the black market still exists and more vigilante/bad cops would most likely emerge.  Furthermore, the psychological effect would probably create more gun violence in consideration to gangs, mob lords, or what have you who would feel that they need to fear nothing when committing felons.

Guns aren't the problem, people are.  So there are two main remedies, excluding the gun ban:
Educate People - People who commit crimes through gun violence often fall into two categories; criminals of low intelligence and (very rarely) slightly above adequate (or even significantly) intelligence, sociopathic masterminds.  The criminals of low intelligence don't often commit crimes out of evil or greed or anything (if my memory of Criminal Justice serves me correct, I don't remember for sure).
Gun Restrictions + Gun Down the Black Market (that was totes punintentional) - I would recommend following the stringent European Model gun restrictions, but alas, America is significantly different from Europe.  One solution there won't necessarily work here for complicated reasons.  I have no knowledge of how the black market works (as far as you all know!!! ), but I would imagine the government to be more than capable to deal with it or start dealing with it more effectively. 

I wrote the above yesterday and am too lazy to continue that train of thought, so I'll make a different one instead!!!

In regard to the Second Amendment and gun ownership being a right, here it is for reference: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let me give some background on the Second Amendment.  During the time of the French and Indian/Seven Years' War
and American Revolution, there was no legitimate national militia.  Under Washington's Continental Army, he was merely leading a pack of inexperienced men.  Even under the Articles had we no national militia (ergo, the disaster of Shays' Rebellion).  The Second Amendment hoped to amend that problem by instilling the right to own guns to the people to act as a military.  The people had the right to bear arms because they were the military; they're not the general public, they're soldiers who are, more often than not, drafted with no other options.  During the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington was able to organise the national army quickly and efficiently to deal with the insurgents because that's what the Second Amendment facilitated.  The Second Amendment protects the government from mob rule, not the other way around.  During the War of 1812, the government wasn't the primary source of soldiers and training, it was privateers and (mostly) fervent Westerners.  We had a militia of the people for the national government.

In regard to the quote by George Mason, if the quote is dissected correctly, America (the government) is the object in regard to the British foreign rule.  It clearly states that the militia (the American military of the people who support and constituents of the American government) is being weakened through the American people.  The reason the British did so was to be rid of American resistance against colonial rule, not of government rule.  That quote in particular is against colonialism, not a corrupt America government.  A better quote could probably have been found for that purpose!

Anyhow, many Framers were paranoid and proponents (Mason especially) of gun ownership to protect the people, but only as an extreme precaution.  The point of bearing arms is to give people the right to revolt against the government if the representatives of the people betray them and the government begins to act as Great Britain did under colonial rule.  In fact, however, the ability to bear arms is even more complicated than that; the idea is that if the state government becomes corrupt, the federal government will take action.  And if the federal government becomes corrupt, the state governments will take action (hence the existence of state militias that most closely relate to the people).  The idea of both becoming corrupt was never feared, since the state and federal governments are rivals, so we don't need to worry about that.  Of course, in a modern time, gun ownership would probably be useless, but in that same regard, I highly doubt a tyranny of the government will occur any time soon or ever, for that matter.  The government has infringed on people's rights all the time through history anyhow, so I don't see why so much passion is maintained in keeping the Second Amendment.  I'm lecturing now, but all of you shouldn't be controlled by the party.  You shape your own rights, not the Republican or Democratic Party.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Guns aren't the problem, people are.  So there are two main remedies, excluding the gun ban:
Educate People - People who commit crimes through gun violence often fall into two categories; criminals of low intelligence and (very rarely) slightly above adequate (or even significantly) intelligence, sociopathic masterminds.  The criminals of low intelligence don't often commit crimes out of evil or greed or anything (if my memory of Criminal Justice serves me correct, I don't remember for sure).

Is that not what I have said in the times previous to this one?

[Yugi]

This is fun to watch.

Continue.

[/bandwagon]

[Mashi]

The problem is how to educate them.  Recidivism is quite bad in America.  Americans hardly understand the political system, so will they have the patience to learn of proper gun usage?
And that doesn't defeat the purpose of gun regulation.  A combination of both methods I mentioned would be most effective.

[Ruto]

We learn karate, so that we need never use it.

First you must fill your head with wisdom, then you can hit ice with it.

Doesn't seem like a lot of people can do either. It's a shame that most people are like Bart and would rather have the nunchucks already. Just an accident waiting to happen -.-

[spitllama]

I like a lot of what you said Mashi. Your facts are in order. Don't necessarily agree with your analysis, given Mason's quotes just days apart and 10 USC Sec. 311, but regardless--

Yes to education. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"Well-regulated" entails proper discipline and training. So until the "militia" is adequately trained (meaning potential gun owners are taught safe techniques and investigated with background checks), their right to keep and bear arms must be infringed.

And for clarification's sake @ Ruto, Nancy Lanza actually taught her son how to shoot. She was evidently handling the situation and the fact that she owned firearms very ignorantly.



I'm sorry if I'm worrying "quite a few" of the members here. I do want to clarify that I am not a conspiracy theorist or right-wing nutjob The government is a necessary institution and secures the ability, when structured correctly, for a nation to be successful. However, I don't think that worrying about what big government means for America should be reason enough to call me a fool or suggest joining "the Alex Jones brigade." It's pretty disrespectful (not to mention immature).

Anyhow, I'm done unless anyone really wants to continue.

[Clanker37]

There have been three break-ins on my home street in the last month, and I live in an effing resort. One of the home-owners was threatened with a knife when the thieves didn't realize he was home.

Umm... I'd be packed and out of there straight after the first break in.

Honestly, I think it's absurd to solely leave your life in the hands of other people (i.e. police).

But it's OK to take matters that you have no training in, into your own hands and kill someone?

They do their jobs better than any of us, but they respond after crises have already started.

Well of course. If there was a police person present in ever crisis that ever happened, we'd have to many police!

They are evidently an insufficient preventative in keeping crime down.

Now that's just wrong. They are the only preventative we have of keeping crime down. There isn't a magical machine that can lock someone away the moment they think of killing someone. Another way of keeping crime down is to make guns illegal. This will greatly reduce the number of murders, and will make society a safer place. Trust me, in Australia, it just doesn't happen.

I am also finished, I cannot be bothered arguing any more. (lol I made 2 posts ) I respectfully disagree with your opinions, Spitllama and Black Dragon Slayer, but I do not think ill of you.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Umm... I'd be packed and out of there straight after the first break in.

That's the thing:
1: Not everybody can afford to move.
2: Not everybody WANTS to move.
3: Now THAT is paranoid. You can't just jump up and leave at the slightest sign of trouble... if you did that, you'd have a new home every week.

[Ruto]

I think some of you aren't reading all the arguments so I'm not going to bother with super long posts again -.- I think Clanker really brought up some good points too.

That's the thing:
1: Not everybody can afford to move.
2: Not everybody WANTS to move.
3: Now THAT is paranoid. You can't just jump up and leave at the slightest sign of trouble... if you did that, you'd have a new home every week.

I don't see how you'd risk your family by staying in a place like that, or want to move when your house has been broken into multiple times. How can you think of money being an issue when you move, if by staying, you'd get robbed or someone gets hurt in a burglary? It's not being paranoid at all to think about safety and it's not what you'd call "a slightest bit of trouble."

Having your house broken into doesn't justify carrying a gun in public. It is paranoia to think you'd always need one...and just delusional to think you'd be able to play a hero and stop a crime with it someday.

As for the Sandy Hook shooter (no names please), it's another example of a careless gun owner. You might not be one, but the fact is there are many more careless gun owners like that, selling their guns to some stranger on eBay, not securing them, or are just plain crazy. Politicians are trying to prevent another tragedy from happening and you're crying about them taking your guns away? That's really selfish.

Another thing is that you should cite recent sources. Quotes from 200-300 years ago don't necessarily reflect the modern views. Does anyone remember what the 3/5 compromise was? Is that a little racist by today's standards or what?

*repeats Clanker* I don't have anything against Spit or BDS personally but I don't agree with your views on guns.