The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[Phier]

The gun control question is interesting because it strikes to the fundamental core between left and right. The individual vrs the collective.

I fear the collective more than the individual. I can defend myself from the individual. I have faith in my ability to do so.

Some would of course translate this into supporting anarchy but those people are either lying deliberately or are just clueless. Law and order would still be maintained, only the individual would be allowed to be part of the process. The line would not stop with the police.

I think gun control appeals to those who trust the collective and fear the individual. They give up their own right to self defense because they fear my right to the same.

Its very easy at this point as a male to question the testosterone level of those who are unwilling to defend themselves and their families. Its easy and in some cases undoubtedly correct, but I think it just comes down to that difficult area to quantify in personality.

I don't understand the desire to live unarmed and pray that those who do not follow the law will be unable to be armed. Its not even about statistics at this level but a fundamental thought process.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Which would be unconstitutional....

It's not the role of the Federal Government to tell the people of Texas how they mandate their gun laws vis a vis the gun laws of other states. A "uniform system for the entire country" would get benchslapped by the Supreme Court in record time.

Who says it is unconstitutional? How many other uniformed laws and regulations does the US have? Why is gun control different?

Anyway I understand your point but a lack of a uniformed system contributes to interstate trafficking of guns. Large quantities of guns end up in states with tough gun control laws.

Either we leave it as is, which is bad, or we create border controls to prevent weapons from coming in. That wont help very much since most states have hundreds of roads leading into the state. You wont stop gun smugglers. So another option is to create a national uniformed system. Its the only way to prevent guns from being smuggled into other states to commit crimes.

The gun control question is interesting because it strikes to the fundamental core between left and right. The individual vrs the collective.

Thats an interesting point your quite right in your analysis.

I fear the collective more than the individual. I can defend myself from the individual. I have faith in my ability to do so.

In a way your right. You can defend yourself against the individual better than the collective. Which is often why gangs hit suburban houses. A gang of robbers will hit one person and take everything he has. Or kill him. Thats the collective vs the individual.

But what your talking about is obviously you as an individual vs the state the collective. Rather the left sees the collective as the state as the public who group together to protect themselves, society, and their families. Taxes contribute to healthcare and security.

Some would of course translate this into supporting anarchy but those people are either lying deliberately or are just clueless. Law and order would still be maintained, only the individual would be allowed to be part of the process. The line would not stop with the police.

However, for every legitimate and responsible gun owner there is a non responsible purchaser who either smuggles the gun into another state or uses it in a crime.

I think gun control appeals to those who trust the collective and fear the individual. They give up their own right to self defense because they fear my right to the same.

There is a reason why the army focuses on the collective rather than the individual.

You would think humans have a very natural desire to socialize and protect themselves in groups or collectives. But for some reason modern society, or at least American culture has forgotten their collective instincts.

Its very easy at this point as a male to question the testosterone level of those who are unwilling to defend themselves and their families. Its easy and in some cases undoubtedly correct, but I think it just comes down to that difficult area to quantify in personality.

Wait why do you think gun control advocates are unwilling to defend their families. Gun control advocates dont call for the outright banning of all guns. Some are very willing to allow gun ownership. We just want stricter controls.

I don't understand the desire to live unarmed and pray that those who do not follow the law will be unable to be armed. Its not even about statistics at this level but a fundamental thought process.

Once again your missing the point. We just want stricter gun laws to prevent interstate trafficking of guns. Stricter controls on whom can purchase a weapon. Stricter controls on who can buy a semi-auto compared to a less restrictive hunting rifle.

[HissingNewt]

The ratio of responsible to irresponsible gun owners and buyers is nowhere near 1:1. To say that is uninformed at best and dishonest at worst.

[Pazu the Kitsune]

If you dont want your children to get shot in some movie theater then move to Canada....its a safer country to live in than the US....far safer, and nicer in general.

----------------

The problem with America is that there are too many 'doom-seers'....they think 'the world is gonna end soon and so i need a AR-15/M-16/SAW/FGM-148 to defend my home from roaming bands of looters who will steall all of my **** and potentially harm my family' OR they think 'Soon our government will turn into a Totalitarian state and they will come and try to take my stuff so i have to defend myself'

The problem with this logic is that, although it is possible that these things may happen eventually anybody who takes a good, grounded look at the world and America today knows that they are not likely to happen for a long time. Until then it really doesnt make a whole lot of sense to buy these sortof weapons, which are designed not for hunting/personal defence but are military weapons designed to flat out kill people.

If you allow political idealism to come before common sense, and you argue that 'every American should be able to have any gun/equipment they want' then of course your going to eventually have some nut who exercises that freedom, buys an AR-15 and shoots up a movie theater...I would argue that the first amendment is more important than the second....The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....when you allow everybody to have whatever weapon they want you are indirectly robbing several people of their lives.....if you want to defend your home save up for a good door lock, an alarm system, a taser/a can of mace, heck even buy a pistol if itll make you happy but then realize 99.9999999% of the time you wont need an assault rifle to defend your home, and by getting one moreso than anything you are putting yourself and your family at risk.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Its possible the right to life makes the right to own a gun complicated. Both sorta conflict. How do you balance the two? The founders obviously had no idea there would be semi-automatic pistols and rifles. So you cant say the constitution protects those arms.

Its like saying the bible was talking about evolution when it mentioned 6 days and 7 nights.

[Vanoi]

Its possible the right to life makes the right to own a gun complicated. Both sorta conflict. How do you balance the two? The founders obviously had no idea there would be semi-automatic pistols and rifles. So you cant say the constitution protects those arms.

The Supreme Court has found that they do. Semi-automatic pistols and rifles are still arms.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah true but my point was would the founders agree that everyone should have the right to own weapons that were twice as dangerous as muskets. You cant really go on a mass murder spree with a musket. A Musket was a defensive weapon.

[Vanoi]

Yeah true but my point was would the founders agree that everyone should have the right to own weapons that were twice as dangerous as muskets. You cant really go on a mass murder spree with a musket. A Musket was a defensive weapon.

You could still commit murder with it though and I doubt the founders would change their opinion.

The very reason why the 2nd Amendment was included was because the Founders were afraid of a tyrannical government and thought allowing the citizens to have their own arms would allow them to defend themselves form such government.

[OCWife]

Gun control advocates are power-hungry authoritarians who use fear-mongering tactics to trick average people into oppression by removing their arms. By disarming the population, they are more easily controlled by authoritarians. First is banning guns, what's next, banning Jews?

[Astaroth]

You could still commit murder with it though and I doubt the founders would change their opinion.

The very reason why the 2nd Amendment was included was because the Founders were afraid of a tyrannical government and thought allowing the citizens to have their own arms would allow them to defend themselves form such government.

So once again my statement from above has been confirmed: Americans want to own guns due to an irrational fear of the govt and of other people plus a lack of trust in the state (as in, the police).

Seriously, guns are just completely unnecessary. America is one of the few civilized nations that still considers it necessary to give random people easy access to guns.

[Vanoi]

So once again my statement from above has been confirmed: Americans want to own guns due to an irrational fear of the govt and of other people plus a lack of trust in the state (as in, the police).

And once again you mis-read my post. I didn't say this is what Americans thought, i said this was what the founders thought. Troll harder.


And btw back in 1783, it was not an irrational fear at all.

[OCWife]

So once again my statement from above has been confirmed: Americans want to own guns due to an irrational fear of the govt and of other people plus a lack of trust in the state (as in, the police).

Seriously, guns are just completely unnecessary. America is one of the few civilized nations that still considers it necessary to give random people easy access to guns.

Gun control stems from an irrational trust of the government. It is unfortunate that young people these days are too pampered and have never tasted oppression, so they dig their own graves. They invite evil in their own homes and they don't even know it. This is why Thomas Jefferson once said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Jefferson was perceptive indeed.

[Astaroth]

Azoth: Of course; but if that was the original reason, then it would still have to be valid, no?

OC: what BS.

[Vanoi]

Azoth: Of course; but if that was the original reason, then it would still have to be valid, no?

Technically yes, but thats not the reason most Americans own a gun for though.

[Diglytron]

Yes, Yes Yes! I was waiting for this lovely discussion. So, where does the Southern States 'rednecks versus the ''rest'' begins?

Oh, and for people who are interested. Again, our wise Mericans make the right decision. Since, after all, more guns is the solution to gun violence....

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...hooting/21530/

''Yet another unsettling backlash of the Arizona shooting: glock pistols, just like the one used to attack kill six people last Saturday, are now flying off the shelves. Michael Riley at Bloomberg reports that one-day handgun sales have risen 65 percent in Ohio,16 percent in California, 38 percent in Illinois, 33 percent in New York and 60 percent in Arizona from last year. Since Saturday the attendance list for a concealed weapons class at the Arizona Shooter’s World in Phoenix has already doubled. Riley quotes the stores manager who explains, "Whenever there is a huge event, especially when it's close to home, people tend to run out and buy something to protect their family."

[Admiral Piett]

So once again my statement from above has been confirmed: Americans want to own guns due to an irrational fear of the govt and of other people plus a lack of trust in the state (as in, the police).

Seriously, guns are just completely unnecessary. America is one of the few civilized nations that still considers it necessary to give random people easy access to guns.

Your argument is invalid.

Hell what about Finland even?

Gun ownership has only a small relationship with crime rates and everyone who lives in a nation with gun ownership sees that. Those who don't refuse to perceive anything otherwise out of their own personal morality rather than real sociological statistics for high crime rates.

[MathiasOfAthens]

You could still commit murder with it though and I doubt the founders would change their opinion.

Yeah but try committing mass murder with it. Fact is the founders had no idea the world would develop automatic weapons.

The very reason why the 2nd Amendment was included was because the Founders were afraid of a tyrannical government and thought allowing the citizens to have their own arms would allow them to defend themselves form such government.

Was that the only reason? They did just fight a war.

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

One could also argue "A well regulated" allows the state to regulate the ownership of guns. Hence stricter gun control laws by the national govt is being to the security of a free state.

Plus the early country, basically 13 colonies, were largely opposed to a standing army. States relied on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances, they were in essence the militias the constitution refers to.

The idea of a militia largely changed in the next century. Now we have standing armies, a professional army.



You what Switzerland also has? Healthcare, public transit, taxes. Everything the Republicans prefer not to allow the state to provide or do. And such a horrible ing comparison to the US a country with huge disparities in wealth. Switzerland is also a very homogenous country.

[Ciabhán]

So once again my statement from above has been confirmed: Americans want to own guns due to an irrational fear of the govt and of other people plus a lack of trust in the state (as in, the police).

Seriously, guns are just completely unnecessary. America is one of the few civilized nations that still considers it necessary to give random people easy access to guns.

I grew up in a time and place where being armed to protect yourself from agents of the government was considered a neccesity. First world and I'm not particularly aged.

Giving the state a monopoly on violence is never a good thing. Nor does it work. Criminals don't follow laws and the tools they use are just that, tools. Not causes.

Then again I don't believe anyone should ever be able to tell anyone else what they can or can't do. Particularly where it comes to what they can do to protect themselves or their families.

[Vanoi]

Was that the only reason? They did just fight a war.

Society was also rural so trying to ban guns when they were required if you wanted to put food on the table was possibly another reason.

One could also argue "A well regulated" allows the state to regulate the ownership of guns. Hence stricter gun control laws by the national govt is being to the security of a free state.

Except you ignore the very next words after it. Militia. the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean a National Guard. Hence why all states have a National Guard.

Plus the early country, basically 13 colonies, were largely opposed to a standing army.

Fear of the government again.

The idea of a militia largely changed in the next century. Now we have standing armies, a professional army.

Technically its illegal for the US to have one.

Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years.

Its just Congress has found a loophole that allows them to go around this clause.

You what Switzerland also has? Healthcare, public transit, taxes. Everything the Republicans prefer not to allow the state to provide or do. And such a horrible ing comparison to the US a country with huge disparities in wealth. Switzerland is also a very homogenous country.

So you are saying it isn't guns that are responsible for crime?

[Sphere]

Your argument is invalid.

Hell what about Finland even?

Gun ownership has only a small relationship with crime rates and everyone who lives in a nation with gun ownership sees that. Those who don't refuse to perceive anything otherwise out of their own personal morality rather than real sociological statistics for high crime rates.

Have you looked at Switzerland's firearms regulations? They are draconian by American standards.