A question for gun control advocates.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'd like to ask our resident gun control advocates a question. Just answer me this, any one of you.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that the driving concept behind gun control is that people's right to own guns must not be allowed to endanger the safety of other people?

And yes, this is in the American context, in which the Second Amendment recognizes the right to bear arms.

This statement basically says that we may slice off the right to handguns here, or perhaps the right to "assault weapons" there, as long as it will save lives or keep people safer. I was watching old footage of the Democratic presidential debates, and I think that this statement effectively summarizes their views. Keep in mind that I am making the generous assumption that these restrictions actually would save lives. But that is another topic for another day.

Now, if you agree that the above is an accurate statement, I'd like you to reflect on that before you read on. "Freedom must not endanger public safety."

...

Finished reflecting? OK. Now I'd like you to read a little something that a very wise man said a long time ago.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin

For the record, the origin is debatable. Franklin did publish this quote, but it is said that it was originally written by Richard Jackson. Regardless, the words are there. If the verbage throws you off, here is a popular paraphrase:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

You catch that? Trimming off a little bit of our freedom in order to get a little more safety. Or, at least, we like to think we will get a little more safety. Now, let us not simply accept an old quote at face value, let's study it. Why would he say that?

Simply put, what is the key assumption there, when you sacrifice your freedom for security? You are making the assumption that the person or group to whom you are surrendering your freedom is actually CAPABLE of keeping you safe. You are also assuming that they have your best interest at heart. You are in effect putting your trust in that person/group rather than in yourself. Rather than being governed, you become ruled. If anything, history gives us an abundance of reasons not to trust other people over onesself. Depending on a complex network of thousands of people? Well, that's even worse.

So now we understand what Franklin says as well as why he said it. What does that make you think about gun control?

And this is not only applicable to gun control. The following activist, for example, highlights (among other things) the way in which fear of terrorism is used to manipulate the public. I.e. they will surrender their rights in order to keep themselves secure from harm.

[Alkarin]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

PATRIOT act anyone?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

@Alkarin, DarkLordSeth, Oswald von Wolkenstein, and Time Commander Bob:

PATRIOT act anyone?

I completely agree.

This is a non-issue -- like many non-issues it was introduced to U.S. politics by the Republican party to distract voters while the GOP destroyed the middle class and our economy.

Much as I wish that was true, it is an issue because the left has challenged it whether it's constitutional or not. It is quite possible that it has been used as a distraction though, in some cases.

Gun control is not equal to ban for all guns for good. Yeah, keep your right to own a gun but it should be controlled very tightly.

Of course we agree with that statement. But we also agree with the statement that freedom stops when it starts interfering with somebody else's.

Of course not. Just handguns. Oh, and assault weapons. Oh, wait; while we're at it, let's get rid of all those pesky semi-autos just to be consistent about it. And, ya know... maaaayyybe those lever-action repeaters 'cause they shoot kinda fast. And then we'll just tax the rest to death and require people to sell their souls to the ATF.

Right. I bought that one hook, line, and sinker; how about you guys?

Would you like to show me the country that has taken only handguns and semi-autos? UK? Australia? Or how about Canada, whos criminally overexpensive registration program was basically a convenient means to seize firearms throughout the country?

And don't just blow that off. Do you know the people you're aligned with? There are a lot of people out there who have plainly expressed their firm desire to ban semi-automatic everything.

Finally, you misunderstand the issue of interfering with somebody else's rights; rather typical of anti-gun advocates, because their focus is messed up. Am I interfering with anybody's rights when I buy a gun? Nope. Even if it's one of those (eeeviilll) AK's? (Which, by the way, are only cosmetically distinguishable from other rifles, in civilian-legal configuration) Nope. When I buy... AMMO? Nope. How 'bout when I shoot em? Nope.

Only when I fire upon someone am I breaking anybody's rights. And that's going pretty far to assume that I'm going to do that just because I brought a gun. Sounds more like an excuse to me.

It could equally be used to apply to the police force, courts and the government which people put their trust in and these institutions effectively have a monopoly on what they do.

Well, essentially, yes. You lose a little freedom to get that security. I think what Franklin means is that you can't be completely free, but you should err on the side of keeping as much freedom as possible. There is a line between the point at which this is good and when it is not. Furthermore, in the case of the police we can influence it by voting, and the government we also direct through voting. Although often it seems like that just controls what politicians can get away with, not their platform.

Also, another line is the Constitution. Those institutions were set up by the Constitution. After all, some degree of government is necessary. However, the legislation challenges the Constitution. Finally, in the specific case of guns, one reason for guns is so that I don't have to put all my trust in the police to keep me safe.

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course not. Just handguns. Oh, and assault weapons. Oh, wait; while we're at it, let's get rid of all those pesky semi-autos just to be consistent about it. And, ya know... maaaayyybe those lever-action repeaters 'cause they shoot kinda fast. And then we'll just tax the rest to death and require people to sell their souls to the ATF.

Right. I bought that one hook, line, and sinker; how about you guys?

Would you like to show me the country that has taken only handguns and semi-autos? UK? Australia? Or how about Canada, whos criminally overexpensive registration program was basically a convenient means to seize firearms throughout the country?

And don't just blow that off. Do you know the people you're aligned with? There are a lot of people out there who have plainly expressed their firm desire to ban semi-automatic everything.

Finally, you misunderstand the issue of interfering with somebody else's rights; rather typical of anti-gun advocates, because their focus is messed up. Am I interfering with anybody's rights when I buy a gun? Nope. Even if it's one of those (eeeviilll) AK's? (Which, by the way, are only cosmetically distinguishable from other rifles, in civilian-legal configuration) Nope. When I buy... AMMO? Nope. How 'bout when I shoot em? Nope.

Only when I fire upon someone am I breaking anybody's rights. And that's going pretty far to assume that I'm going to do that just because I brought a gun. Sounds more like an excuse to me.

Keep the cynicism to yourself. Argue the right argument.

There is not a single reason why some should have an assault rifle. People only need a handgun if they really feel unsafe.

Argue against the right to have handgun but don't argue against all other types of guns.

Why don't you make the argument that the sedatives used for tranquilizer guns to be much more stronger so that they can take out a guy in a second. It can be still as effective as a real gun if you were confronted by a criminal but has a less of a probability of killings someone. If you were practical you would also make that argument but it's this obsession of Americans and guns that we see all around USA.

You do interfere with other people's rights when you fire one. The main purpose of guns is to harm or kill people. Nobody buys a gun because it looks nice when nailed to a wall. If the main purpose of a gun was not to harm other but something else then you'd have a much stronger argument.

I'll give you the famous Japanes quote. Change the "sword" to "gun" and the "Kenjutsu" to "Shooting":

"A sword is a weapon. Kenjutsu is the art of killing. Whatever pretty words you use, this is its true nature."

Well, essentially, yes. You lose a little freedom to get that security. I think what Franklin means is that you can't be completely free, but you should err on the side of keeping as much freedom as possible. There is a line between the point at which this is good and when it is not. Furthermore, in the case of the police we can influence it by voting, and the government we also direct through voting. Although often it seems like that just controls what politicians can get away with, not their platform.

Still the point remains that you can't use that quote freely. The quote covers every single freedom as it's rather vague.

[Pickle_mole]

Keep the cynicism to yourself. Argue the right argument.

There is not a single reason why some should have an assault rifle. People only need a handgun if they really feel unsafe.

Argue against the right to have handgun but don't argue against all other types of guns.

Why don't you make the argument that the sedatives used for tranquilizer guns to be much more stronger so that they can take out a guy in a second. It can be still as effective as a real gun if you were confronted by a criminal but has a less of a probability of killings someone. If you were practical you would also make that argument but it's this obsession of Americans and guns that we see all around USA.

You do interfere with other people's rights when you fire one. The main purpose of guns is to harm or kill people. Nobody buys a gun because it looks nice when nailed to a wall. If the main purpose of a gun was not to harm other but something else then you'd have a much stronger argument.

I'll give you the famous Japanes quote. Change the "sword" to "gun" and the "Kenjutsu" to "Shooting":

"A sword is a weapon. Kenjutsu is the art of killing. Whatever pretty words you use, this is its true nature."




Still the point remains that you can't use that quote freely. The quote covers every single freedom as it's rather vague.

So no hunting?

[PointOfViewGun]

So no hunting?

You should be able to do it in confined places like clubs. They can provide you a rifle or a shotgun. No need to buy one.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Keep the cynicism to yourself. Argue the right argument.

Ha; I'd like to think it's just cynicism.

The fact that every time handguns have gone, other things have gone, added to the fact that the leaders of the gun control movement would outright ban 99% of firearms if they had the chance (and they've said as much) makes it much more realistic than you'd like to admit.

There is not a single reason why some should have an assault rifle. People only need a handgun if they really feel unsafe.

Well, you seem to know a lot about what people need. Tell me; what personal experience do you have with firearms? How many rifles, handguns, and shotguns do you own? How many competitions have you entered? How many types of game have you hunted? What gun clubs do you belong to?

I have to say, your use of the assault weapons cliche indicates that you have minimal experience in any of those categories.

After you've chewed over that one, tell me what characteristics set "assault weapons" apart from other semi-automatic firearms in such a way that they make them inherently more dangerous.

Do you even know what defines an assault weapon or do you just like to say it because it sounds scarier?

Argue against the right to have handgun but don't argue against all other types of guns.

So... lop off about 1/2 or 2/3 of the cases in which civilians defend themselves with a firearm, just so that criminals have to make a special phone call to get their guns? Right.

Why don't you make the argument that the sedatives used for tranquilizer guns to be much more stronger so that they can take out a guy in a second. It can be still as effective as a real gun if you were confronted by a criminal but has a less of a probability of killings someone. If you were practical you would also make that argument but it's this obsession of Americans and guns that we see all around USA.

I already told you all quite explicitly that I welcome less-than-lethal alternatives. IRONICALLY, civilians cannot legally own ranged tasers. Which I find to be quite amusing. Of course, the problem with tasers, and most non-lethal alternatives, is that you've got one shot, and if you miss you're screwed.

Regardless, for the time being, those options are not available.

You do interfere with other people's rights when you fire one. The main purpose of guns is to harm or kill people. Nobody buys a gun because it looks nice when nailed to a wall. If the main purpose of a gun was not to harm other but something else then you'd have a much stronger argument.

If someone enters my house illegally or threatens my person, I am well within my rights, legal AND ethical, to put him down. Actually, if he just enters my house that would be debatable, but then I wouldn't shoot a guy for just entering my house. I'd hold him 'till the police arrived. If he was armed and/or came at me, well then I wouldn't have many options.

Furthermore, you notice that it is ME FIRING the gun that violates someone's rights. So arrest me and put me away.

And, yet furthermore, people DO buy guns to nail them to walls. They are called collectors.

Also, you are quite wrong as to the purpose of guns in the first place. Hasn't it occurred to you that it's rather obtuse to label a broad class of tools with a single label? No offence, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

Many, many guns are built expressly for the purpose of target shooting. Because, you see, the actual purpose of a firearm is to propell a small piece of metal at great speeds downrange.

Furthermore, what's wrong with killing? Why do I say that? Because you are creating an artificial link between the word "killing" and the idea of homicide. We kill birds, deer, moose, elk, grouse, turkey, all manner of creatures. And many guns are built for that purpose.

Really, there are MANY guns that I wouldn't advise killing people with; they're just not built for homicide and all the complexities that entails.

But... you wouldn't know that because you have no personal experience with guns. Well, consider yourself informed anyway. Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about, here's something that annoys me about the legal process as it relates to gun control.

Sorry to be an arrogant little snob, but there it is. I think it's only fair. If you run down to the EMM and open a thread on creationism, they will eat you up for lunch. Why is it that we comply with people's lack of knowledge?

I mean, it's not an insult, Seth. You just need to research before you talk, that's all.

When our legislative bodies make decisions on agriculture, they talk to farmers. And when they make decisions on medicine, they talk to doctors. When discussing building code, they confer with engineers. So why on earth is it, whenever guns are brought up, that any idiot politician will do just fine? Honestly, some of these people have no business discussing firearms, let alone voting on them.

I'll give you the famous Japanes quote. Change the "sword" to "gun" and the "Kenjutsu" to "Shooting":

"A sword is a weapon. Kenjutsu is the art of killing. Whatever pretty words you use, this is its true nature."

Do you have any idea what miniscule percentage of firearms are used to take a life? Or even threaten one?

Still the point remains that you can't use that quote freely. The quote covers every single freedom as it's rather vague.

Right, because even though I have pointed out how it is quite accurate and relevant to this situation and context, I can't use it because you say so without provision of any rationale.

[Hattushilish]

Well, essentially, yes. You lose a little freedom to get that security. I think what Franklin means is that you can't be completely free, but you should err on the side of keeping as much freedom as possible. There is a line between the point at which this is good and when it is not.

I don't see how mob of gun-toting coffee drinkers in Starbucks constitutes "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State."

People need to keep in mind the reason why "a well regulated militia" was deemed "necessary to the security of a free State" in the first place.

In the 1780s, a lot of people in the United States lived near the borders of hostile Indian tribes, who would raid frontier settlements and flee before the US Army could arrive to do anything about it. A "well regulated militia" capable of making a coordinated defense at a moment's notice was actually "necessary to the security of a free State" back then.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I don't see how mob of gun-toting coffee drinkers in Starbucks constitutes "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State."

Don't you think you're being just a tad reactionary and just a tad melodramatic? Come on; let's be fair.

They are in no way a mob. The (approx.) 9 million carriers in the country have excellent records. They do not encourage crime (who would register with the police and then commit a crime), they have only a few accidents, and they never mob people.

I'll give you a chance if you establish a pathway between the brain and the fingers next time.

People need to keep in mind the reason why "a well regulated militia" was deemed "necessary to the security of a free State" in the first place.

"People" also need to keep in mind that they also have an explicit "right to bear arms," as well as the right to a "well-regulated militia."

Tell me something, if you will. If the militia (I assume you're referring to the Nat'l Guard) is supposed to protect us from the State... who protects us from the Nat'l Guard? You are aware that they are under government orders also?

In the 1780s, a lot of people in the United States lived near the borders of hostile Indian tribes, who would raid frontier settlements and flee before the US Army could arrive to do anything about it.

Either you really think that I am stupid and you're trying to pull one past me, or you desperately require a refresher history course.

1780. Hmmm, 1780... Ooooh yes. That whole "American Revolution" business! Nearly slipped my mind.

Yes, the American Revolution. Because the British actually managed to keep the peace fairly well between Natives and Colonists by forbidding the Colonies to expand beyond the Appalachians. But then, because the government(remember that word) violated the people's rights in a number of ways discussed at length in the Declaration of Independence, the common people deemed it necessary to rise up in armed rebellion against that government.

This resulted in a war which, for many years, depended mostly on either a hastily-assembled regular army (little better than a militia itself), or upon individuals who took their personal firearms and banded together into militias of their own. That war ended in 1783, and for all non-Americans out there, I am entirely aware that the Americans neither felt the full brunt of the greatest military on the planet at that time, nor could they have won that war without the supplies and eventual intervention of the French.

Furthermore, your "Indians" to which you falsely attribute the 2nd Amendment could be compared to the violence we face from gangs and other criminals today, in which case it still stands.

[Hattushilish]

Don't you think you're being just a tad reactionary and just a tad melodramatic? Come on; let's be fair.

They are in no way a mob. The (approx.) 9 million carriers in the country have excellent records. They do not encourage crime (who would register with the police and then commit a crime), they have only a few accidents, and they never mob people.

They are certainly not a "well regulated militia." They are not organized or "well regulated" to defend the country in any way.

I'll give you a chance if you establish a pathway between the brain and the fingers next time.

Grow up.

"People" also need to keep in mind that they also have an explicit "right to bear arms," as well as the right to a "well-regulated militia."

Read the amendment again:
"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 right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Not because you want to own guns.

Tell me something, if you will. If the militia (I assume you're referring to the Nat'l Guard) is supposed to protect us from the State... who protects us from the Nat'l Guard? You are aware that they are under government orders also?

No, I am not referring to the National Guard. You're arguing with a straw man.
I am referring to the colonial militias that defended frontier settlements from hostile border tribes.... y'know the militia that's actually referred to in the 2nd amendment.

And if you really believe that your right to bear arms is needed to defend the country from it's own military, then let's follow this through logically.
If you're really going to fight off the National Guard, Army, Marine Corps etc., you're going to need heavy weapons capable of destroying armored fighting vehicles. You'll also need some hand-held rocket launchers to take down aircraft.

Do you believe that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own hand-held rocket launchers? This is a serious question.

This resulted in a war which, for many years, depended mostly on either a hastily-assembled regular army (little better than a militia itself), or upon individuals who took their personal firearms and banded together into militias of their own. That war ended in 1783, and for all non-Americans out there, I am entirely aware that the Americans neither felt the full brunt of the greatest military on the planet at that time, nor could they have won that war without the supplies and eventual intervention of the French.

What point are you trying to make here, exactly?

Furthermore, your "Indians" to which you falsely attribute the 2nd Amendment could be compared to the violence we face from gangs and other criminals today, in which case it still stands.

Not really. The gangs and criminals we face today fall within the jurisdiction of our police departments. The border tribes who necessitated our "well regulated militia" couldn't be held to account by the police and the court system.
And I shouldn't even have to compare the scale of violence back then compared to today. American citizens were killed by the hundreds in skirmishes at the height of the American Indian Wars.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is something that people who criticize gun control do not understand. Gun control is not equal to ban for all guns for good. It's sort of the middle ground as how it should be. Yeah, keep your right to own a gun but it should be controlled very tightly. This alone of course not enough. Both have a tight control and work a lot harder to keep obtaining an illegal very hard.

Of course we agree with that statement. But we also agree with the statement that freedom stops when it starts interfering with somebody else's.

Though the statement you use can be extrapolated to be used for any condition.

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

*

[Time Commander Bob]

Simply put, what is the key assumption there, when you sacrifice your freedom for security? You are making the assumption that the person or group to whom you are surrendering your freedom is actually CAPABLE of keeping you safe. You are also assuming that they have your best interest at heart. You are in effect putting your trust in that person/group rather than in yourself. Rather than being governed, you become ruled. If anything, history gives us an abundance of reasons not to trust other people over onesself. Depending on a complex network of thousands of people? Well, that's even worse.

Though I myself do not really care at all for American gun control laws one way or the other, I find this line of reasoning dubious. It could equally be used to apply to the police force, courts and the government which people put their trust in and these institutions effectively have a monopoly on what they do. One could say that people have surrendered the freedom to govern to the government, the freedom to police and the freedom to pass legal judgement to the courts. However, I do not think many would support the abolition of such institutions and I also think that they make society have greater stability and safety. I would agree that freedoms should not unnecessarily be removed though I do not think one can simply say that no freedom should be removed.

[MaximiIian]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
PATRIOT act anyone?

Which most people opposed and were outraged about. It's not like we have a say in congress- that's what legislators are for. Unfortunately, they're conniving bastards. The PATRIOT act was a stupid law and should be thrown out.

Gay Marriage -- also a non-issue because the Constitution grants the State no powers over marriage at all

Yes, it does. Not only the clause about states issues documents and licenses, but the 10th Amendment specifically states that any powers not held by the federal government is devolved to the states.
So, while I would like to see all states allow gay marriage and the like, it is the right of the states to legislate on the matter.

And before you mention it- the Defence of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and should be thrown out.

[Alkarin]

It's a non-issue because the right to bear arms in Constitutionally guaranteed.

like that's stopped the american government before? ever heard of HUAC? Japanese Internment Camps? the list goes on.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

This is a non-issue -- like many non-issues it was introduced to U.S. politics by the Republican party to distract voters while the GOP destroyed the middle class and our economy.

It's a non-issue because the right to bear arms in Constitutionally guaranteed.

It is an issue because the precedent has been set that governments, local and federal, can regulate firearms beyond the regulation the Constitution allows - which is none. They have, and will continue to chip away at the 2nd amendment over the course of decades until it is gone, unless it is made an issue.

Abortion -- also a non-issue because fetuses - like it or not - have no legal status

This is highly debatable.

Gay Marriage -- also a non-issue because the Constitution grants the State no powers over marriage at all - gay or straight.

Which means that under the tenth amendment there should be no federal laws banning it or mandating its acceptance. It should also be noted that the State heavily regulates heterosexual marriage, and bans polygamy.

[s.rwitt]

It's sort of the middle ground as how it should be. Yeah, keep your right to own a gun but it should be controlled very tightly

You mean like, say, regulations on the type of gun you can own, not allowing those who commit serious crimes to have any gun, and background checks on those who purchase guns?

[reavertm]

You mean like, say, regulations on the type of gun you can own, not allowing those who commit serious crimes to have any gun, and background checks on those who purchase guns?

You suggest those regulations are already in place I assume.
I'd include mandatory periodical excessive psychological tests and actually the need to have expirable and renewable license to own a gun, no guns (especially concealed ones) in public places and more severe punishment for illegal (without valid license or illegal gun type) gun possession.

I think still it's more important to impose more restrictions to gun producers and especially distributors and implement more effective gun tracking. it seems gun business is way too much profitable...

[roy34543]

To be honest he said "essential" freedoms, Last I checked guns werent exactly essential for your well-being.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

To be honest he said "essential" freedoms, Last I checked guns werent exactly essential for your well-being.

It's #2 on the list. And, considering the historical context, I'm betting it was #2 in his mind also. There's a reason for the order.