Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Purpose of Gun Ownership in America??

narvinyenarvinye Registered User
edited September 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
I find myself in a serious minority on this issue. Mostly arguments over guns come down to "omg, nothing is worse than kids dying because of lethal weapons", and, "my right to hunt and defend my home is in the Constitution"

Almost never do I see many folks thinking of it as I do. Our right to bears arms is there to keep the ultimate power in the hands of the People. In 1787, the primary tool of abuse by governments was the Army. The founders did not envision a standing Army for the country for exactly this reason. By the wording of the 2nd amendment, "necessary to the security of a FREE State." This right is there for the assurance of a free state. By referring to militias, they were delineating between hunting/protection, and the resistance of the people to abuses by the government. They enshrined a private right to bear arms so that the government could not remove/control this final protection of freedom.

As far as the left's argument, I am an asshole. Freedom does not come without sacrifice and the bearing of risk. The individual danger of keeping and bearing arms does not outweigh the long term dangers of an unarmed populace. I believe this right is essential to passing freedom to my great-great-grandkids.

For the hunting/personal protection crowd. Get over yourself. It's not about YOU. It's about US, inclusive of those unborn Americans.

Funnily enough I do not support people having much heavier than long-arms. In a true revolt/revolution. much of the military will split. If it has gone far enough that the services are segregated emotionally from the rest of the US, we're fucked anyway, even if a large group of people have access to a few heavy weapons.


What do YOU think?


For ease of argument;

The 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

narvinye on
«13456713

Posts

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2008
    The army would blast your ass to pieces as soon as you said something. Not to mention that gun owners would probably be the first to scream "AMURICA, FUCK YEAH!" if the President tried to become a dictator (yes, I'm stereotyping, I know, it's fun).
    And yes, I agree that the founders did not and could note predict America becoming the most powerful nation in the world. But just because they lived in the 18th century doesn't mean that we need to attempt to read their minds. Times change.
    I'm actually on the same side as you, but rather because I don't see how gun control laws can help places that are wracked with gun violence. Most of the guns that the common street thug uses are handguns which are bought illegally and thrown away soon after a crime is committed in order to avoid incriminating evidence. On that basis an assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons ban is totally useless and is basically supported by the "guns are scary!" crowd. The Brady Bill was reasonable because it might have prevented some illegal guns to be used by said thugs, but it just pushed things underground into the massive black market for firearms.

    Picardathon on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Guns used in crimes still have to come from somewhere. They are stolen, or bought illegally, etc. They aren't being shipped in from overseas for use by drug dealers.

    My basic problem with the second amendment is that it's obviously written for a different time and a different set of circumstances. In a society where a militia is raised frequently and on an ad hoc basis by grabbing whatever of-age men are handy, the two clauses work together and make a lot of sense. In the modern era, with organized, professional military and law enforcement operations (as well as fire, rescue and medical), they make no sense.

    I don't care if people want to own guns, and I'll even concede that a fundamental right to own firearms does exist. But the state can regulate them, too; you aren't going to use a fully automatic rifle for home defense, and even if you wanted to, the danger to those in the community around you probably outweighs their utility versus, say, a shotgun.

    I also don't have much of a problem with municipalities taking drastic action in response to serious problems, i.e. the DC handgun ban, even if that particular legislation was uncomfortably ham-handed.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    The army would blast your ass to pieces as soon as you said something.

    My ass singly, yes. But that's my point. Your asses, is a completely different critter. In a full revolution, the military would have an awefully difficult time against an armed and pissed population. Straight up conventional power has not been shown to be very effective against a guerrilla campaign by a committed foe. ex;Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan(think Soviets). I recognize without some heavy weapons, the long term picture is not good, but I doubt it would be the entire Military vs. Man with 30-06.

    Not to mention that gun owners would probably be the first to scream "AMURICA, FUCK YEAH!" if the President tried to become a dictator (yes, I'm stereotyping, I know, it's fun).

    I find this argument diturbingly compelling...
    And yes, I agree that the founders did not and could note predict America becoming the most powerful nation in the world. But just because they lived in the 18th century doesn't mean that we need to attempt to read their minds. Times change.

    No, but what has NOT changed is human nature, which they did an excellent job of allowing for. I see much danger in tossing out their intentions, or rather what their intentions attempted to address, simply because they lived ~200 years ago. If only they had forseen the power of massive corporations as opposed to only the danger of the power of the State's treasury...

    narvinye on
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    My basic problem with the second amendment is that it's obviously written for a different time and a different set of circumstances. In a society where a militia is raised frequently and on an ad hoc basis by grabbing whatever of-age men are handy, the two clauses work together and make a lot of sense.

    See my post above.
    In the modern era, with organized, professional military and law enforcement operations (as well as fire, rescue and medical), they make no sense.

    This actually argues for MORE gun ownership, as the last part of what worried the founders has happened. The State has a permanent armed force. The only way, at the end, to offset that power is for the populace to be armed as well.
    I don't care if people want to own guns, and I'll even concede that a fundamental right to own firearms does exist. But the state can regulate them, too; you aren't going to use a fully automatic rifle for home defense, and even if you wanted to, the danger to those in the community around you probably outweighs their utility versus, say, a shotgun.

    I also don't have much of a problem with municipalities taking drastic action in response to serious problems, i.e. the DC handgun ban, even if that particular legislation was uncomfortably ham-handed.

    The whole point of the right to bear arms was not home protection/hunting. It was a final barrier against the State taking your freedoms. In that context, the danger posed by your weapons to the neighborhood at large is less than the danger of losing your children's ability to take back their freedom, or keep it from being taken should that become necessary.

    narvinye on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I'm pro gun but the idea that it's to fight off the government is idiotic.

    The United States government declaring war on its citizens is a United States government that's stopped giving a damn about any rules of war. Don't even try and pretend they wouldn't carpet bomb your neighborhood to kill a few people at the cost of dozens of others.

    Quid on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    In a liberal state it is the burden of the government to show what good is achieved or evil averted by any restriction of liberty. My impression is that there is very little connection between gun legislation and crime (I saw some good statistics on this, but I'm too lazy to dig them out). Therefore I can't really see much point in anti-gun legislation, and thus I don't see any need to defend the right of people to bear arms as distinct from the right of the people to drive cars or own swimming pools.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    My basic problem with the second amendment is that it's obviously written for a different time and a different set of circumstances. In a society where a militia is raised frequently and on an ad hoc basis by grabbing whatever of-age men are handy, the two clauses work together and make a lot of sense.

    See my post above.
    In the modern era, with organized, professional military and law enforcement operations (as well as fire, rescue and medical), they make no sense.
    This actually argues for MORE gun ownership, as the last part of what worried the founders has happened. The State has a permanent armed force. The only way, at the end, to offset that power is for the populace to be armed as well.
    I don't care if people want to own guns, and I'll even concede that a fundamental right to own firearms does exist. But the state can regulate them, too; you aren't going to use a fully automatic rifle for home defense, and even if you wanted to, the danger to those in the community around you probably outweighs their utility versus, say, a shotgun.

    I also don't have much of a problem with municipalities taking drastic action in response to serious problems, i.e. the DC handgun ban, even if that particular legislation was uncomfortably ham-handed.
    The whole point of the right to bear arms was not home protection/hunting. It was a final barrier against the State taking your freedoms. In that context, the danger posed by your weapons to the neighborhood at large is less than the danger of losing your children's ability to take back their freedom, or keep it from being taken should that become necessary.

    For this argument to make sense, the populace has to have access to weapons that have a reasonable chance of defeating an armed oppressor. This was true in the revolutionary period, and even as late as the Civil War. In the modern era it's a fucking farce. If there was a regional revolution that the United States government decided needed to be put down forcibly, a bunch of dudes with small arms would not stand in their way. It didn't in Iraq, and the Iraqi resistance is considerably better-armed than anyone is talking about the U.S. population being.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • CoffeyCoffey Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I always had the gun debate summed up to me in one sentence: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

    Personally, it's a non-issue for me and it is never a bullet point as one of my determining political factors when choosing a candidate to vote for.

    Coffey on
    camo_sig2-400.png

    Skelemania on Steam, Steamgifts & Twitter. Skelemania812 on Twitch.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Coffey wrote: »
    I always had the gun debate summed up to me in one sentence: "If you outlaw guns, many fewer outlaws will have access to guns."

    Fixed that for you.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    For this argument to make sense, the populace has to have access to weapons that have a reasonable chance of defeating an armed oppressor. This was true in the revolutionary period, and even as late as the Civil War. In the modern era it's a fucking farce. If there was a regional revolution that the United States government decided needed to be put down forcibly, a bunch of dudes with small arms would not stand in their way. It didn't in Iraq, and the Iraqi resistance is considerably better-armed than anyone is talking about the U.S. population being.
    Seriously. How many people are stashing AKs, rpgs, grenades, C-4, and mortars?

    Quid on
  • A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius It has been a doozy of a dayRegistered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I'm going to be honest. The reason I own guns is because they're amazingly fun.

    A Dabble Of Thelonius on
    Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Coffey wrote: »
    I always had the gun debate summed up to me in one sentence: "If you outlaw guns, many fewer outlaws will have access to guns."

    Fixed that for you.

    Our track record with alcohol and drugs kind of disagrees with you. Banning guns at this point in the US isn't locking the door after the horses have left the barn; its locking the door after they've left, had 3,000 grandchildren, and died of old age.

    Phoenix-D on
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    Coffey wrote: »
    I always had the gun debate summed up to me in one sentence: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

    Personally, it's a non-issue for me and it is never a bullet point as one of my determining political factors when choosing a candidate to vote for.

    Not quite a non-issue for me, however the danger posed by the Republicans' basic attitude of, "OMG, the sky is falling, the ends justify ANY means" is a far greater danger. Our country has been flirting with the downslope leading to Fascism, along with a terrifying polarization which closely mimics attitudes just prior to the Civil War, that I certainly can't see anyone BUT Obama at this time. Maybe at some time in the very very far future, when the Republicans divorce themselves of the religious right, and remember their Consitutional roots, I may consider one of their candidates.

    Sorry, off topic.

    narvinye on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Coffey wrote: »
    I always had the gun debate summed up to me in one sentence: "If you outlaw guns, many fewer outlaws will have access to guns."

    Fixed that for you.

    Our track record with alcohol and drugs kind of disagrees with you. Banning guns at this point in the US isn't locking the door after the horses have left the barn; its locking the door after they've left, had 3,000 grandchildren, and died of old age.

    Well, where are they going to get more of them? Secret firearm breeding grounds?

    I'm not even in favor of banning guns, but this isn't difficult to understand. If firearms are legally banned, the domestic market will become nonexistant quickly. New firearms will not be entering circulation at anywhere close to the rate they are now. Even if all we did was ban the sale of new guns, it would not be a very long time before obtaining a new one became difficult for the average criminal.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    I'm pro gun but the idea that it's to fight off the government is idiotic.

    The United States government declaring war on its citizens is a United States government that's stopped giving a damn about any rules of war. Don't even try and pretend they wouldn't carpet bomb your neighborhood to kill a few people at the cost of dozens of others.

    What he said.

    Guerilla warfare only works against nations attempting to maintain civility/morality or lacking in technology.

    Imagine for a moment that for some reason, America had no military at all, just a populace armed with roughly what's available to be purchased in lax gun law states like texas, and maybe including some automatic weapons. Now imagine China decides to invade the USA and take its land over. The armed populace resists with all its might and goes guerilla vietnam style. Do you know what China would say?

    "Fuck it! We're just going to kill every last man, woman, and child and repopulate the damned place ourselves. It's not like we'd have any problem doing it either."

    It's a pipe dream to believe any armed populace can win against a 1st world country's technologically advanced military if they are willing to stop being moral and start being practical. All you'd be doing is condemning the entire nation to become casualties of war.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    For this argument to make sense, the populace has to have access to weapons that have a reasonable chance of defeating an armed oppressor. This was true in the revolutionary period, and even as late as the Civil War. In the modern era it's a fucking farce. If there was a regional revolution that the United States government decided needed to be put down forcibly, a bunch of dudes with small arms would not stand in their way. It didn't in Iraq, and the Iraqi resistance is considerably better-armed than anyone is talking about the U.S. population being.

    I disagree about Iraq. Not to say the insurgents HAVE won. However, they're not beaten. The continuous drain has obviously had an effect, since the majority of both countries simply want us to leave. House to house warfare against a bunch of "dudes with small arms" is NOT a joke. Unless you're willing to carpet bomb the whole damned area. This has its own dangers, against an armed populace. You take the serious risk of causing the rest of the populace to rise up, in your example of a regional problem. If your populace is not armed, or not densely armed, then the liklihood of the carpetbombing working goes up. Again, making my argument for me. It is for the preservation of a free State that we have been given the right to bear arms. Note by armed, I'm talking about small arms. At some level, the military has to get boots on the ground. Lead moving over the speed of sound is deadly no matter what launched it.

    narvinye on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Coffey wrote: »
    I always had the gun debate summed up to me in one sentence: "If you outlaw guns, many fewer outlaws will have access to guns."

    Fixed that for you.

    Our track record with alcohol and drugs kind of disagrees with you. Banning guns at this point in the US isn't locking the door after the horses have left the barn; its locking the door after they've left, had 3,000 grandchildren, and died of old age.

    Well, where are they going to get more of them? Secret firearm breeding grounds?

    I'm not even in favor of banning guns, but this isn't difficult to understand. If firearms are legally banned, the domestic market will become nonexistant quickly. New firearms will not be entering circulation at anywhere close to the rate they are now. Even if all we did was ban the sale of new guns, it would not be a very long time before obtaining a new one became difficult for the average criminal.

    The millions of old guns in circulation aren't going to up and disappear, you know. Seize them, buy them back, whatever- you aren't going to get them all. Plus its damn simple to make basic firearms. Ammo a bit less so, but that's doable as well.

    Phoenix-D on
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2008
    I've never understood why need based arguments were ever made for anything consumed in America. We're gamers. Where's Jack Thompson?

    PeekingDuck on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    I've never understood why need based arguments were ever made for anything consumed in America. We're gamers. Where's Jack Thompson?

    There's a slight difference between a game and a lethal weapon.

    Phoenix-D on
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    I've never understood why need based arguments were ever made for anything consumed in America. We're gamers. Where's Jack Thompson?

    There's a slight difference between a game and a lethal weapon.

    Not if you're making generalized statements about the progression of society. Which is all this gun rhetoric boils down to on both sides, if you're talking about need. Do we need designer jeans, shoes, televisions, large vehicles, or swimming pools? Arguments could be made for all of them resulting in more death than if we didn't have them.

    PeekingDuck on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    I've never understood why need based arguments were ever made for anything consumed in America. We're gamers. Where's Jack Thompson?

    There's a slight difference between a game and a lethal weapon.

    Not if you're making generalized statements about the progression of society. Which is all this gun rhetoric boils down to on both sides, if you're talking about need. Do we need designer jeans, shoes, televisions, large vehicles, or swimming pools? Arguments could be made for all of them resulting in more death than if we didn't have them.

    Particularly the swimming pools, considering that they actually kill more people than guns do in America today.

    Picardathon on
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    It's a pipe dream to believe any armed populace can win against a 1st world country's technologically advanced military if they are willing to stop being moral and start being practical. All you'd be doing is condemning the entire nation to become casualties of war.

    Straw man. I have not made the argument that our right to bear arms is there to protect us against an external threat. That is what the military is for. It is there to ultimately protect us against our own gov't, should it go bad.

    However, you make a point about the use of the military that bears discussion. The Romans (and many civs before them) proved overwhelming conventional power could be used to rule with. However, a major shift happened in how most people of the western world viewed the rights of man. Before Christianity flamed through the world, the idea was "might made right" I personally think the general personal injustice of this lead directly to Christianity, however, that's another topic. Post Christianity, this use of power is not accepted on an intrinsic level.

    Today, if someone uses these tactics on a Western people, I think the reactions of an armed populace will be very different. In any revolution, the military WILL split. How much goes one way, and how much goes another, thats up for debate. There will be hvy weapons battles. However, the difference between an armed populace and a not armed populace on such a conflict would be night and day.

    narvinye on
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2008
    I just see it as two groups of people. One group wants to sterilize the public living environment, including the workplace. The other group believes in human rationality and freedom, at the expense of some personal safety.

    Your life wasn't ever meant to be free from emotion or danger. Why in the hell do people think we can achieve this or that it would make us any happier or a more moral society?

    PeekingDuck on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    However, the difference between an armed populace and a not armed populace on such a conflict would be night and day.
    Well, of course. In the former, they'll start mowing down neighborhoods that show any signs of coherent resistance. In the latter they'll just subjugate us.

    :rotate:

    EDIT: Given that this is an appropriate use of the :rotate: emoticon, which is rare, I am overjoyed with this post

    Oboro on
    words
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    narvinye wrote: »
    However, the difference between an armed populace and a not armed populace on such a conflict would be night and day.
    Well, of course. In the former, they'll start mowing down neighborhoods that show any signs of coherent resistance. In the latter they'll just subjugate us.

    :rotate:

    EDIT: Given that this is an appropriate use of the :rotate: emoticon, which is rare, I am overjoyed with this post

    rollin', rollin', rollin'...

    narvinye on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2008
    We need a :glass: emoticon.

    For those moments when you just need to reflect the complete and utter military domination of a place or people.

    Oboro on
    words
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    For the hunting/personal protection crowd. Get over yourself. It's not about YOU. It's about US, inclusive of those unborn Americans.

    I happen to be one of these people.

    I love my guns, convince me why I shouldn't be able to own them.

    RocketSauce on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    For the hunting/personal protection crowd. Get over yourself. It's not about YOU. It's about US, inclusive of those unborn Americans.

    I happen to be one of these people.

    I love my guns, convince me why I shouldn't be able to own them.

    Guns are SCARY!!!

    Picardathon on
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    For the hunting/personal protection crowd. Get over yourself. It's not about YOU. It's about US, inclusive of those unborn Americans.

    I happen to be one of these people.

    I love my guns, convince me why I shouldn't be able to own them.

    Guns are SCARY!!!

    That's part of why I own them. :P

    RocketSauce on
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    For the hunting/personal protection crowd. Get over yourself. It's not about YOU. It's about US, inclusive of those unborn Americans.

    I happen to be one of these people.

    I love my guns, convince me why I shouldn't be able to own them.

    Wow, that's sure a loaded question you're packing there, hoss.

    There are plenty of gun control laws that aren't about preventing you from owning guns, but regulate the process of manufacturing and purchasing them.

    Lawndart on
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2008
    The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • The ScribeThe Scribe Registered User
    edited August 2008
    The idea that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is an idea that has certainly appealed to folks like Jesse James, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and others of their profession. I think guns are disgusting. I think people who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by taking their guns. :P:lol:

    The Scribe on
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    For the hunting/personal protection crowd. Get over yourself. It's not about YOU. It's about US, inclusive of those unborn Americans.

    I happen to be one of these people.

    I love my guns, convince me why I shouldn't be able to own them.

    Ummm...read the entire OP???

    TL;DR You should own guns, but realize that right has more to do with protecting the rest of your freedoms, rather than an end in and of itself.

    narvinye on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    OK first the previous post: when you "need" something that potentially puts others in danger, the standard for it goes up. We allow pool chemicals. Having 500 gallon vats of liquid chlorine? Not so much. Fertilizer? OK. ANFO? Aahhh..NO. (all for personal use, naturally). You can drive an SUV, but a car with a giant spike or running jet engine, no. Pesticides? Sure. Ebola? Not so much.

    (my personal opinion on ANY of those isn't the question here).
    I just see it as two groups of people. One group wants to sterilize the public living environment, including the workplace. The other group believes in human rationality and freedom, at the expense of some personal safety.

    Your life wasn't ever meant to be free from emotion or danger. Why in the hell do people think we can achieve this or that it would make us any happier or a more moral society?

    For this you're just being silly. Taking reasonable steps to avoid potential threats is a fine, sane response. And generally a happier one. I know I'm happier knowing that the machine I'm working on isn't going to break down and lethally irradiate everyone within line of sight.

    Trying to get rid of all threats is insane, and leads to some rather bizarre situations. The dispute comes on just where to draw the line.

    People in general are very much NOT rational, by the way. In some situations individuals can be. Throw in a large group or a stressful situation and things get weird fast.

    Phoenix-D on
  • narvinyenarvinye Registered User
    edited August 2008
    The Scribe wrote: »
    The idea that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is an idea that has certainly appealed to folks like Jesse James, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and others of their profession. I think guns are disgusting. I think people who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by taking their guns. :P:lol:

    Yeah, those minutemen...dirty disgusting rotten bastards, all of 'em. Too bad the good and rightly King didn't put em in their dirty rotten traitorous place, hanging on a noose. Look what we got now...rights and shit...

    o_Oo_O

    narvinye on
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    narvinye wrote: »
    For the hunting/personal protection crowd. Get over yourself. It's not about YOU. It's about US, inclusive of those unborn Americans.

    I happen to be one of these people.

    I love my guns, convince me why I shouldn't be able to own them.

    Wow, that's sure a loaded question you're packing there, hoss.

    There are plenty of gun control laws that aren't about preventing you from owning guns, but regulate the process of manufacturing and purchasing them.

    I have no problem with the right people owning guns.

    RocketSauce on
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    The Scribe wrote: »
    The idea that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is an idea that has certainly appealed to folks like Jesse James, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and others of their profession. I think guns are disgusting. I think people who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by taking their guns. :P:lol:

    Yeah, those minutemen...dirty disgusting rotten bastards, all of 'em. Too bad the good and rightly King didn't put em in their dirty rotten traitorous place, hanging on a noose. Look what we got now...rights and shit...

    o_Oo_O

    If you're setting the Wayback Machine to the 18th Century, bear in mind that a lot of the time "the militia" was considered a method of violently repressing slave rebellions, not a method of protecting white folks against the excesses of the government. An armed populace isn't always that concerned about protecting certain rights.

    Lawndart on
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.

    Yep.

    RocketSauce on
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.

    Yep.

    To be fair, the ban on high-capacity magazines made sense, even though that whole "Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law" thing made it only marginally effective.

    Lawndart on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    narvinye wrote: »
    However, you make a point about the use of the military that bears discussion. The Romans (and many civs before them) proved overwhelming conventional power could be used to rule with. However, a major shift happened in how most people of the western world viewed the rights of man. Before Christianity flamed through the world, the idea was "might made right" I personally think the general personal injustice of this lead directly to Christianity, however, that's another topic. Post Christianity, this use of power is not accepted on an intrinsic level.

    Today, if someone uses these tactics on a Western people, I think the reactions of an armed populace will be very different. In any revolution, the military WILL split. How much goes one way, and how much goes another, thats up for debate. There will be hvy weapons battles. However, the difference between an armed populace and a not armed populace on such a conflict would be night and day.
    So if the military would have massive desertions then it's foolish to think owning guns would be the reason for the government's downfall. It's people not bombing their own countrymen that saved you, not the revolver.

    Quid on
«13456713
Sign In or Register to comment.