|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2012 21:55 Silvertine wrote:
Carry on your argument with yourself, it has nothing to do with me.
It has everything to do with you if you present a point and then someone counterpoints. Kindly gtfo and don't take part in the first place if you aren't willing to carry on with what you start imo. Don't pretend like I'm sitting here talking to myself when you clearly brought up a point for a reason. What was that reason if you didn't want to have a discussion?
|
On a slightly related note:
Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to develop and own nuclear weapons?
When you get at a state level a gun clearly is not enough for ones self defence and stronger deterents are needed.
Iraq had tons of guns still they got overrun by the usa and its alies.
Following the same arguments people have used to defend the right to own guns, one could argue that north korea and iran have the right to develop and own nuclear weapons.
Yet the majority of people in favor of the right to own guns come from a country wich will go to war to prevent this.
Am kinda curious to know how theythink about this.
|
On March 01 2012 22:11 Rassy wrote:
On a slightly related note:
Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to develop and own nuclear weapons?
When you get at a state level a gun clearly is not enough for ones self defence and stronger deterents are needed.
Iraq had tons of guns still they got overrun by the usa and its alies.
Following the same arguments people have used to defend the right to own guns, one could argue that north korea and iran have the right to develop and own nuclear weapons.
Yet the majority of people in favor of the right to own guns come from a country wich will go to war to prevent this.
Am kinda curious to know how theythink about this.
Because Korea and Iran are bad kids. They never obey to the teacher.
On a side note if they were to launch a nuclear bomb it would be on Israel or the US.
|
On March 01 2012 21:57 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:26 allerion wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Ryder. wrote:
Not saying they could or should ban guns, but I really dislike the whole argument about 'it is in our constitution, therefore it is our god given right'. Has it ever considered to you that society's values can change, and what may seem appropriate several hundred years ago no longer is? Everything from women's rights to slavery, things have changed over the years as we realised some things we thought were ok and normal no longer are. Australia had a referendum in the 60s to include aboriginal people as part of our population, because previously the Constitution didn't classify them as part of our population. Because the majority of people supported this change then they changed the law.
I'm not trying to imply that Americans do or don't want to change the law on gun ownership, I'm saying that quoting a document that the 'founding fathers' wrote 300 years ago isn't exactly a good argument against change.
Do you honestly believe that things listed in the Constitution should never change, even if it is what society as a whole wants? What I am opposed to is the idea that the government can take away the rights of the people. Whether you agree with those rights is irrelevant, the idea that someone could support the idea that the government should take away a right currently guaranteed to the people is disturbing. Well, in regards to quoting the constitution isn't a good argument against change- The US Constitution is a guideline as to how the country is run. It has been amendended quite a bit, actually, once you take into account the process of ratifying an amendment. It is a document that is able to adapt if a vast majority of the federal or state governments see fit. To disregard it as irrelevent because the original document was written 230ish years ago is frankly quite silly. Taking that attitude toward the document is undermining what progress the country has made in it's lifespan, and in my opinion, a view that will only delay progress. I wasn't talking about the government just taking it away, I was implying something more along the lines of a referendum where it is evident that the majority of the population was in favour of it. And I'm not saying it is irrelevant because it was 230 years old, I'm saying that values can most definitely change over that kind of time length, so treating it as gospel for the sole reason that it is the constitution doesn't make much sense to me. If people are happy with the way things are then don't fix what isn't broken, but saying that it will never ever be changed purely because it is what it is just seems silly to me. At least judging from this thread alone most Americans seem to be pro gun ownership, so this is all hypothetical anyway. Anyway, has been interesting reading through this thread to see all the flip side arguments, but I still think a lot of them are without merit. These seem to be the common ones; 1. Guns have other uses besides shooting other people, like hunting- Whilst somewhat relevant, this doesn't explain why handguns are legal. 2. The whole 'government becoming a tyrannical dictatorship thing'- Why would the military side with the government if this happened? I find it hard to believe they would turn on their friends and family and stand behind a crazy government. Even if that did happen, what are a couple of handguns going to do when a trained military start rolling down with tanks and airstrikes? 3. Defending your country in case of invasion; Honestly I just find this one silly; similar to point 2, if another country has the capacity to take down the most powerful military on this planet, I really don't think the rubble armed with handguns will stop them. 4. The hypothetical situations about somebody breaking into your house to rape and kill your family is just ridiculously unlikely. Unless they are psychopathic, a thief will choose not to confront the owner, the same way (as someone said earlier) that most rapists are cowards, and would much prefer to attack an alone, vulnerable woman down a dark alley, not break into your house and do it in front of you. In which case, self defense lessons/mace would probably be a better option for a woman to arm herself with. How does the law work over in the US anyway? If you shoot and kill somebody who has broken into your house, is that a punishable offense? I have heard of so many cases over here that people trying to defend their property (without guns) have been liable if they injure the thief (either directly or indirectly). Anyway getting tired so I will finish this post up here, not trying to be offensive so I hope my post doesn't come off the wrong way.
1. Handguns are for self defense against people at close range. There are other guns designed for hunting animals. Although pistols are used to finish off the prey when hunting.
2. Implying these type of Americans don't also own semi-automatic rifles for such purpose. You're right, handguns don't fit that purpose.
3. See point 2.
4. Handguns are the perfect choice for these situations, but you're right these situations are very uncommon. But when you add them to a. carjackings b. muggings c. road rage assault d. relationship related assault e. gang activity f. armed robberies ETC ETC ETC ETC there are many many real, likely risks that all add up to justify owning personal protection handguns. And not all handgun owners carry with the intent to use. Some simply carry for the threat. I know several people who travel with unloaded weapons. Sometimes all you need is the visual. That's why I have a larger handgun. Less chance I'll have to ever use it.
As far as criminal law when it comes to defense with firearms, it varies by state (again, sorry I don't have more definitive answers, but there are 50 states lol). Some states like Texas, the minute someone steps on your property with malicious intent (whether armed or not) you can blow their head off and the judge will let you off clean in court. Other states are exactly like the cases you have seen where political correctness runs rampant and they try to charge you with crime, even though it is pretty much universal that you have a right to defend your self and your property if they are on it and you feel you are under threat. Or at least it's a battle in court, unlike Texas.
|
On March 01 2012 22:06 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:55 Silvertine wrote:
Carry on your argument with yourself, it has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with you if you present a point and then someone counterpoints. Kindly gtfo and don't take part in the first place if you aren't willing to carry on with what you start imo. Don't pretend like I'm sitting here talking to myself when you clearly brought up a point for a reason. What was that reason if you didn't want to have a discussion?
You seem incredibly angry and I think that's connected to this bizarre love of guns. If only your type understood what peace and love are capable of.
I never claimed that only high ranking soldiers take part in air strikes, or that they're cold emotionless killers, or that we've evolved as a society or that a majority of soldiers would side with the government. Those are just your straw men, they have nothing to do with me.
|
On March 01 2012 22:11 Rassy wrote:
On a slightly related note:
Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to develop and own nuclear weapons?
When you get at a state level a gun clearly is not enough for ones self defence and stronger deterents are needed.
Iraq had tons of guns still they got overrun by the usa and its alies.
Following the same arguments people have used to defend the right to own guns, one could argue that north korea and iran have the right to develop and own nuclear weapons.
Yet the majority of people in favor of the right to own guns come from a country wich will go to war to prevent this.
Am kinda curious to know how theythink about this.
North Korea and Iran are both ages from developing this technology, and also North Korea has recently conceded to back down on Nuclear arms development, and allow foreign aid in.
That said, Americans apply the liberty to keep firearms to their own citizens. They don't provide constitutional protections to members of other countries. I'm confused where you were going with the whole 'guns in Iraq' point? Could you clarify?
In my opinion unless there is a grave threat of nuclear proliferation followed by possible attack from an 'unstable' country where the leaders are giving the free world the middle finger, the whole free world should act to intervene, not just America.
But based on the facts I've seen both of these countries are lightyears from it, so it's a moot discussion, and the talks about Iran here in America is mostly political propaganda and fearmongering run rampant, just like with the illusionary WMD's before we invaded Iraq, by people who want another war. These people are idiots.
In my opinion we should only go to war in the gravest of circumstances. Our foreign policy of policing the world and selling democracy in blood currency is just wrong.
Pretty much (broad generalization) the only group in this country who wants to go to war with Iran are the hawkish or religious right. And most of them happen to be proponents of gun rights. But not all gun rights proponents are hawkish or religious right aligned. Not even close.
Was that clear? I feel like I didn't word it quite right.
|
Peace and love, lmfao.
You realize its common for people to get shot in cold blood so people can mug their bodies with less resistance right? And rape and murder happen daily... I think your peace and love point of view is incredibly naive. People need the means to protect themselves from people who don't play by the rules. The real world isn't disney land, and bad shit happens whether you like it or not.
Besides, the implication that if you own guns you can't be peaceful and loving is hillarious. If anything I'd say someone who doesn't care enough to bother taking the necessary steps to protect their family is the one who is not loving. Also, did you ever consider that the "peace" you speak of will very realistically be a product of armed people? Would you break into a house where you knew people were armed? Risking your life for a few dollars? Doubtful.
|
On March 01 2012 17:10 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 06:52 Gustis wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? What gives you the right to forbid me to piss on your face? Well, ignorant one (may the possibly existing diety give blessing to your country), social convention does. Peace! Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 07:21 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? Me, nothing. Society on the other hand can give you the privilege of owning a gun, but can also take it away if considered necessary. Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 06:58 hzflank wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? The same thing that gives the taxman the right to take your money away from you. No one is truly free. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is what side of the line should firearms fall on? I don't know the answer but I do no that using 'freedom' as an argument is ridiculous. "People can because we can" is not an answer. Neither is "Cause the government feels like it." Governments exist because people consent to be ruled by them. Period. Otherwise revolution happens. When people start a country, they often put limits on what the government can do. Plainly speaking, the authority granted to the government is not unlimited and they cannot do something just because they want to. They are only authorized to perform certain functions. This is true of ALL non-authoritarian governments. In America, we cede our rights to the government so they can perform actions and duties outlined in the constitution. However, the founders also recognized that the government wants to enlarge itself and grow it's own power. Politicians want to be more powerful right? So in order to have the citizens adopt the constitution, they also explicitly recognized some of the rights that the people have. So the government has an outlined job, and powers. They also have things they cannot infringe upon, (although, current slow infringement and exceptions and such can be a whole other topic) without a significant governmental interest. So, people have basically decided that the government can in specific instances restrict said recognized rights of the people when there is a "compelling government interest" (pursuant to something that they are charged with doing....) and these instances must be tailored to be as in-obtrusive as possible. "social convention" is just another way of saying, well, just because people decided to they can. - This isn't true. PEOPLE cannot take anything away from me. The government can. However, they can only do this if it is pursuant to one of their charged objectives, and only if it is directly necessary for that. And they minimize harms on recognized rights. Of which owning guns is one. So, really, no. People thinking I can't own a gun isn't a good enough reason. The government cannot take away my 'privilege' of gun ownership, because it is not a privilege granted by the government. It is an extension of a natural right that the people have not ceded authority to the government to regulate. The taxman takes my money, because as much as I gripe about it there is a necessity for the government and the government does need money to operate. They don't take my money because they say they can. They take my money because I allow it. Somebody else posted earlier that individual rights are just social constructs and basically are derived from whatever society grants you the ability to do. That's completely backwards. Natural rights are what people are born with. Again, life, liberty, property. These are real natural rights and not privileges because they do not require anybody to do anything for you to have them. They exist. Other rights, like a supposed right to healthcare or some such requires an obligation on the part of somebody else to provide you with things. These aren't strictly rights per-se, but privileges. Thats actually what the definition of a privilege is. In short, gun ownership is not a privilege because it was not given to you by somebody else. It's a right, and to restrict that, a person needs to give up or cede the right to the government to do so. Without a specific, compelling interest directly related to the function of government they cannot do this. Then in the instances where they can, it must be tailored as specifically as possible to achieve the goals without eradicating the right. Did you guys ever learn about locke, hobbs, kant etc in government?
Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government.
As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one.
My point is that people saying you are born with rights take it too literally. They are not a property of yourself, they are something that human society guides itself by, because it is statistically good way of going about things. They do not exist outside of societal interactions. If you disagree show me where can I find them ?
And note that I am not saying rights, even though they are just societal constructs, are arbitrary. They are in the end based in biology and so are anything but arbitrary. But they are not the basis of morality/ethics. If they were then they would actually be arbitrary as there would exist no justification for their existence. On the other hand when rights are constructs based on actual biological basis of morality, you have justification for their existence and can actually argue why are they good idea. Whereas if you consider them basis of ethics I will just ask you why and you have no satisfying argument to answer me other than "it feels so".
No, I did not learn about them in school I read them on my free time and found that they have some interesting insights, but are in the end limited by the times they lived in with their limited understanding of biology and lack of our historical experience.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 01 2012 21:57 Ryder. wrote:
I wasn't talking about the government just taking it away, I was implying something more along the lines of a referendum where it is evident that the majority of the population was in favour of it.
And I'm not saying it is irrelevant because it was 230 years old, I'm saying that values can most definitely change over that kind of time length, so treating it as gospel for the sole reason that it is the constitution doesn't make much sense to me. If people are happy with the way things are then don't fix what isn't broken, but saying that it will never ever be changed purely because it is what it is just seems silly to me.
At least judging from this thread alone most Americans seem to be pro gun ownership, so this is all hypothetical anyway.
This is in many cases a tyranny of majority, and a serious flaw to unfettered democracy. The Constitution can be amended with a super majority, but gun control isn't a majority position and the people in opposition are more passionate.
On March 01 2012 21:57 Ryder. wrote:
Anyway, has been interesting reading through this thread to see all the flip side arguments, but I still think a lot of them are without merit. These seem to be the common ones;
1. Guns have other uses besides shooting other people, like hunting- Whilst somewhat relevant, this doesn't explain why handguns are legal.
2. The whole 'government becoming a tyrannical dictatorship thing'- Why would the military side with the government if this happened? I find it hard to believe they would turn on their friends and family and stand behind a crazy government. Even if that did happen, what are a couple of handguns going to do when a trained military start rolling down with tanks and airstrikes?
3. Defending your country in case of invasion; Honestly I just find this one silly; similar to point 2, if another country has the capacity to take down the most powerful military on this planet, I really don't think the rubble armed with handguns will stop them.
4. The hypothetical situations about somebody breaking into your house to rape and kill your family is just ridiculously unlikely. Unless they are psychopathic, a thief will choose not to confront the owner, the same way (as someone said earlier) that most rapists are cowards, and would much prefer to attack an alone, vulnerable woman down a dark alley, not break into your house and do it in front of you. In which case, self defense lessons/mace would probably be a better option for a woman to arm herself with.
How does the law work over in the US anyway? If you shoot and kill somebody who has broken into your house, is that a punishable offense? I have heard of so many cases over here that people trying to defend their property (without guns) have been liable if they injure the thief (either directly or indirectly).
Anyway getting tired so I will finish this post up here, not trying to be offensive so I hope my post doesn't come off the wrong way.
1. Hunting can be for sport or sustenance. Gun control advocates usually yield such uses of firearms, and gun control proponents don't think it's a salient issue. It doesn't matter. Why even bring it up?
2 & 3. In case of occupying and tyrannical governments attempting to rule, achieving silent obedience is essential for smooth operation. Such a government needs to project power into all parts of society and intimidate the population into compliance. It absolutely does not want to fight a shooting war since it doesn't have enough manpower to force the issue at all points in society. Handguns interfere with the power projection and threatens any quislings and other agents of governments with armed response in cases of inadequate armed forces to force the issue. If the police are part of the tyrannical government, then the people will need to take out their long arms, assault rifles, shot guns, and sniper rifles.
Armed conflict in uniform and occupation of nation state for purpose of governance are two entirely different competencies. Just look at the US army in Afghanistan.
4. Some people are at risk more than others. Discretion necessary.
None of this demonstrates why handguns should be illegal.
US generally doesn't punish citizens that injury or kill criminals on their property or in the immediate vicinity. If a citizen chases a criminal off property and then fires a lethal shot, then it could be punishable in some jurisdictions. Laws vary from state to state.
|
On March 01 2012 22:31 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:06 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 21:55 Silvertine wrote:
Carry on your argument with yourself, it has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with you if you present a point and then someone counterpoints. Kindly gtfo and don't take part in the first place if you aren't willing to carry on with what you start imo. Don't pretend like I'm sitting here talking to myself when you clearly brought up a point for a reason. What was that reason if you didn't want to have a discussion? You seem incredibly angry and I think that's connected to this bizarre love of guns. If only your type understood what peace and love are capable of. I never claimed that only high ranking soldiers take part in air strikes, or that they're cold emotionless killers, or that we've evolved as a society or that a majority of soldiers would side with the government. Those are just your straw men, they have nothing to do with me.
I am not angry at you at all. Did I come across that way? It was not intentional. It just seemed cowardly trolling to say what you did, and I don't respect that. But since you are responding with points now, I see that I was wrong to think that.
Speaking of strawman, I don't love guns. I love freedom. Peace and love and hugs and solidarity and warm fuzzies and why can't we just all get along only get you so far in this fucked up world. Someone has to make tough painful calls, good men have to sometimes do things that will eat at their soul and cause them to lose sleep at night. This is the price of maintaining freedom and order. So that the others can enjoy their peace and love and not have to worry about it.
So why isn't your supposition that the majority of American soldiers overthrow a tyrannical government baseless? I already told you how my supposition that a majority would is not baseless because their sworn oath is based on upholding the Constitution and the people. I was trying to work out your possible thought-following implications, sorry for putting words in your mouth, I'll give you the chance to speak for yourself in the defense of this -> you think the majority would not abandon their military superiors if they were given orders to violate the constitution or rights of the american people.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 01 2012 22:41 mcc wrote:
Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government.
As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one.
This is a clear expression of the validity of the tyranny of the majority. Just because 90% society decides to enslave the other 10% does it make it right? And what if the 10% couldn't defend themselves against such popular transgressions of their persons with weapons like guns?
The one big disconnect that seems to be underneath the argument is the premise that societal decisions drives government policy, as if government was the perfect expression of public choice. Democratic government generally carries out its own separate agenda while loudly advertising itself as acting in the public good or acting in accordance to public choice.
|
On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for.
Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change.
Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time.
Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong.
|
On March 01 2012 22:16 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:11 Rassy wrote:
On a slightly related note:
Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to develop and own nuclear weapons?
When you get at a state level a gun clearly is not enough for ones self defence and stronger deterents are needed.
Iraq had tons of guns still they got overrun by the usa and its alies.
Following the same arguments people have used to defend the right to own guns, one could argue that north korea and iran have the right to develop and own nuclear weapons.
Yet the majority of people in favor of the right to own guns come from a country wich will go to war to prevent this.
Am kinda curious to know how theythink about this.
Because Korea and Iran are bad kids. They never obey to the teacher. On a side note if they were to launch a nuclear bomb it would be on Israel or the US.
How is Iran a bad kid compared to Israel or US ? Because they decided not to bow to your will ?
|
On March 01 2012 23:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:16 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 22:11 Rassy wrote:
On a slightly related note:
Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to develop and own nuclear weapons?
When you get at a state level a gun clearly is not enough for ones self defence and stronger deterents are needed.
Iraq had tons of guns still they got overrun by the usa and its alies.
Following the same arguments people have used to defend the right to own guns, one could argue that north korea and iran have the right to develop and own nuclear weapons.
Yet the majority of people in favor of the right to own guns come from a country wich will go to war to prevent this.
Am kinda curious to know how theythink about this.
Because Korea and Iran are bad kids. They never obey to the teacher. On a side note if they were to launch a nuclear bomb it would be on Israel or the US. How is Iran a bad kid compared to Israel or US ? Because they decided not to bow to your will ?
It was ironic mate
|
On March 01 2012 22:41 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 17:10 dogabutila wrote:On March 01 2012 06:52 Gustis wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? What gives you the right to forbid me to piss on your face? Well, ignorant one (may the possibly existing diety give blessing to your country), social convention does. Peace! On March 01 2012 07:21 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? Me, nothing. Society on the other hand can give you the privilege of owning a gun, but can also take it away if considered necessary. On March 01 2012 06:58 hzflank wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? The same thing that gives the taxman the right to take your money away from you. No one is truly free. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is what side of the line should firearms fall on? I don't know the answer but I do no that using 'freedom' as an argument is ridiculous. "People can because we can" is not an answer. Neither is "Cause the government feels like it." Governments exist because people consent to be ruled by them. Period. Otherwise revolution happens. When people start a country, they often put limits on what the government can do. Plainly speaking, the authority granted to the government is not unlimited and they cannot do something just because they want to. They are only authorized to perform certain functions. This is true of ALL non-authoritarian governments. In America, we cede our rights to the government so they can perform actions and duties outlined in the constitution. However, the founders also recognized that the government wants to enlarge itself and grow it's own power. Politicians want to be more powerful right? So in order to have the citizens adopt the constitution, they also explicitly recognized some of the rights that the people have. So the government has an outlined job, and powers. They also have things they cannot infringe upon, (although, current slow infringement and exceptions and such can be a whole other topic) without a significant governmental interest. So, people have basically decided that the government can in specific instances restrict said recognized rights of the people when there is a "compelling government interest" (pursuant to something that they are charged with doing....) and these instances must be tailored to be as in-obtrusive as possible. "social convention" is just another way of saying, well, just because people decided to they can. - This isn't true. PEOPLE cannot take anything away from me. The government can. However, they can only do this if it is pursuant to one of their charged objectives, and only if it is directly necessary for that. And they minimize harms on recognized rights. Of which owning guns is one. So, really, no. People thinking I can't own a gun isn't a good enough reason. The government cannot take away my 'privilege' of gun ownership, because it is not a privilege granted by the government. It is an extension of a natural right that the people have not ceded authority to the government to regulate. The taxman takes my money, because as much as I gripe about it there is a necessity for the government and the government does need money to operate. They don't take my money because they say they can. They take my money because I allow it. Somebody else posted earlier that individual rights are just social constructs and basically are derived from whatever society grants you the ability to do. That's completely backwards. Natural rights are what people are born with. Again, life, liberty, property. These are real natural rights and not privileges because they do not require anybody to do anything for you to have them. They exist. Other rights, like a supposed right to healthcare or some such requires an obligation on the part of somebody else to provide you with things. These aren't strictly rights per-se, but privileges. Thats actually what the definition of a privilege is. In short, gun ownership is not a privilege because it was not given to you by somebody else. It's a right, and to restrict that, a person needs to give up or cede the right to the government to do so. Without a specific, compelling interest directly related to the function of government they cannot do this. Then in the instances where they can, it must be tailored as specifically as possible to achieve the goals without eradicating the right. Did you guys ever learn about locke, hobbs, kant etc in government? Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government. As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one. My point is that people saying you are born with rights take it too literally. They are not a property of yourself, they are something that human society guides itself by, because it is statistically good way of going about things. They do not exist outside of societal interactions. If you disagree show me where can I find them ? And note that I am not saying rights, even though they are just societal constructs, are arbitrary. They are in the end based in biology and so are anything but arbitrary. But they are not the basis of morality/ethics. If they were then they would actually be arbitrary as there would exist no justification for their existence. On the other hand when rights are constructs based on actual biological basis of morality, you have justification for their existence and can actually argue why are they good idea. Whereas if you consider them basis of ethics I will just ask you why and you have no satisfying argument to answer me other than "it feels so". No, I did not learn about them in school I read them on my free time and found that they have some interesting insights, but are in the end limited by the times they lived in with their limited understanding of biology and lack of our historical experience.
I think most of us understand how society and sociological constructs work. Most of us know the difference between physical reality and ideas. And most of us aren't naive enough to think that man has the 'natural right' to anything outside of what his society says he has the rights to.
But our society has agreed that the rights that have been agreed to in our Bill of Rights are solid and don't need a second look. Sure there are many proponents of stricter gun control, there are many proponents of national registration, and there are those who would like to redefine what the words in the 1st amendment say (there's a Bear Arms joke here, get it?), there are even those small minority who want an outright ban. But as you said, a vast majority would have to be of the same opinion to change it, and that won't happen as long as our country is the same country it has been (ie our form of government doesn't change). Maybe in a hundred years when all the conservative ideals finally die off with generations and we become a social state like half of the EU. But even then, as I said before, it will still be an basic American tradition that will have to be fought tooth and nail.
|
On March 01 2012 22:39 Deadlifter wrote:
Peace and love, lmfao.
You realize its common for people to get shot in cold blood so people can mug their bodies with less resistance right? And rape and murder happen daily... I think your peace and love point of view is incredibly naive. People need the means to protect themselves from people who don't play by the rules. The real world isn't disney land, and bad shit happens whether you like it or not.
Besides, the implication that if you own guns you can't be peaceful and loving is hillarious. If anything I'd say someone who doesn't care enough to bother taking the necessary steps to protect their family is the one who is not loving. Also, did you ever consider that the "peace" you speak of will very realistically be a product of armed people? Would you break into a house where you knew people were armed? Risking your life for a few dollars? Doubtful.
And do you get it that there are places where by buying a gun you are actually endangering your loved ones more, because the risk of violent crime is so low ? Also few more burglaries are more than ok if you have less deaths and injuries.
|
On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong.
You underestimate the power of a concerned American citizen with a rifle that he has practice with. You also underestimate the power of an armed populace. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully. The right to bear arms is a mutual understanding and respect from the government and its people that this will never happen.
|
On March 01 2012 23:06 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:41 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 17:10 dogabutila wrote:On March 01 2012 06:52 Gustis wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? What gives you the right to forbid me to piss on your face? Well, ignorant one (may the possibly existing diety give blessing to your country), social convention does. Peace! On March 01 2012 07:21 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? Me, nothing. Society on the other hand can give you the privilege of owning a gun, but can also take it away if considered necessary. On March 01 2012 06:58 hzflank wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? The same thing that gives the taxman the right to take your money away from you. No one is truly free. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is what side of the line should firearms fall on? I don't know the answer but I do no that using 'freedom' as an argument is ridiculous. "People can because we can" is not an answer. Neither is "Cause the government feels like it." Governments exist because people consent to be ruled by them. Period. Otherwise revolution happens. When people start a country, they often put limits on what the government can do. Plainly speaking, the authority granted to the government is not unlimited and they cannot do something just because they want to. They are only authorized to perform certain functions. This is true of ALL non-authoritarian governments. In America, we cede our rights to the government so they can perform actions and duties outlined in the constitution. However, the founders also recognized that the government wants to enlarge itself and grow it's own power. Politicians want to be more powerful right? So in order to have the citizens adopt the constitution, they also explicitly recognized some of the rights that the people have. So the government has an outlined job, and powers. They also have things they cannot infringe upon, (although, current slow infringement and exceptions and such can be a whole other topic) without a significant governmental interest. So, people have basically decided that the government can in specific instances restrict said recognized rights of the people when there is a "compelling government interest" (pursuant to something that they are charged with doing....) and these instances must be tailored to be as in-obtrusive as possible. "social convention" is just another way of saying, well, just because people decided to they can. - This isn't true. PEOPLE cannot take anything away from me. The government can. However, they can only do this if it is pursuant to one of their charged objectives, and only if it is directly necessary for that. And they minimize harms on recognized rights. Of which owning guns is one. So, really, no. People thinking I can't own a gun isn't a good enough reason. The government cannot take away my 'privilege' of gun ownership, because it is not a privilege granted by the government. It is an extension of a natural right that the people have not ceded authority to the government to regulate. The taxman takes my money, because as much as I gripe about it there is a necessity for the government and the government does need money to operate. They don't take my money because they say they can. They take my money because I allow it. Somebody else posted earlier that individual rights are just social constructs and basically are derived from whatever society grants you the ability to do. That's completely backwards. Natural rights are what people are born with. Again, life, liberty, property. These are real natural rights and not privileges because they do not require anybody to do anything for you to have them. They exist. Other rights, like a supposed right to healthcare or some such requires an obligation on the part of somebody else to provide you with things. These aren't strictly rights per-se, but privileges. Thats actually what the definition of a privilege is. In short, gun ownership is not a privilege because it was not given to you by somebody else. It's a right, and to restrict that, a person needs to give up or cede the right to the government to do so. Without a specific, compelling interest directly related to the function of government they cannot do this. Then in the instances where they can, it must be tailored as specifically as possible to achieve the goals without eradicating the right. Did you guys ever learn about locke, hobbs, kant etc in government? Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government. As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one. My point is that people saying you are born with rights take it too literally. They are not a property of yourself, they are something that human society guides itself by, because it is statistically good way of going about things. They do not exist outside of societal interactions. If you disagree show me where can I find them ? And note that I am not saying rights, even though they are just societal constructs, are arbitrary. They are in the end based in biology and so are anything but arbitrary. But they are not the basis of morality/ethics. If they were then they would actually be arbitrary as there would exist no justification for their existence. On the other hand when rights are constructs based on actual biological basis of morality, you have justification for their existence and can actually argue why are they good idea. Whereas if you consider them basis of ethics I will just ask you why and you have no satisfying argument to answer me other than "it feels so". No, I did not learn about them in school I read them on my free time and found that they have some interesting insights, but are in the end limited by the times they lived in with their limited understanding of biology and lack of our historical experience. I think most of us understand how society and sociological constructs work. Most of us know the difference between physical reality and ideas. And most of us aren't naive enough to think that man has the 'natural right' to anything outside of what his society says he has the rights to. But our society has agreed that the rights that have been agreed to in our Bill of Rights are solid and don't need a second look. Sure there are many proponents of stricter gun control, there are many proponents of national registration, and there are those who would like to redefine what the words in the 1st amendment say (there's a Bear Arms joke here, get it?), there are even those small minority who want an outright ban. But as you said, a vast majority would have to be of the same opinion to change it, and that won't happen as long as our country is the same country it has been (ie our form of government doesn't change). Maybe in a hundred years when all the conservative ideals finally die off with generations and we become a social state like half of the EU. But even then, as I said before, it will still be an basic American tradition that will have to be fought tooth and nail.
Well most people maybe, that is why I was directing it at him specifically 
Also there are two issues that seem to be getting mixed up. My point in this post was mainly about what gives society "the right to do something". Another issue is that of course you can criticize society's current view on things if it is causing suffering. That is the issue I addressed in other posts, where I specifically commented on US situation.
|
On March 01 2012 23:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:06 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 22:41 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 17:10 dogabutila wrote:On March 01 2012 06:52 Gustis wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? What gives you the right to forbid me to piss on your face? Well, ignorant one (may the possibly existing diety give blessing to your country), social convention does. Peace! On March 01 2012 07:21 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? Me, nothing. Society on the other hand can give you the privilege of owning a gun, but can also take it away if considered necessary. On March 01 2012 06:58 hzflank wrote:On March 01 2012 05:05 dogabutila wrote:
All statistics, semantics, what ifs, and where-do-you-draw-the-lines aside it all comes down to this:
What gives you the right to take my firearm away from me? The same thing that gives the taxman the right to take your money away from you. No one is truly free. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is what side of the line should firearms fall on? I don't know the answer but I do no that using 'freedom' as an argument is ridiculous. "People can because we can" is not an answer. Neither is "Cause the government feels like it." Governments exist because people consent to be ruled by them. Period. Otherwise revolution happens. When people start a country, they often put limits on what the government can do. Plainly speaking, the authority granted to the government is not unlimited and they cannot do something just because they want to. They are only authorized to perform certain functions. This is true of ALL non-authoritarian governments. In America, we cede our rights to the government so they can perform actions and duties outlined in the constitution. However, the founders also recognized that the government wants to enlarge itself and grow it's own power. Politicians want to be more powerful right? So in order to have the citizens adopt the constitution, they also explicitly recognized some of the rights that the people have. So the government has an outlined job, and powers. They also have things they cannot infringe upon, (although, current slow infringement and exceptions and such can be a whole other topic) without a significant governmental interest. So, people have basically decided that the government can in specific instances restrict said recognized rights of the people when there is a "compelling government interest" (pursuant to something that they are charged with doing....) and these instances must be tailored to be as in-obtrusive as possible. "social convention" is just another way of saying, well, just because people decided to they can. - This isn't true. PEOPLE cannot take anything away from me. The government can. However, they can only do this if it is pursuant to one of their charged objectives, and only if it is directly necessary for that. And they minimize harms on recognized rights. Of which owning guns is one. So, really, no. People thinking I can't own a gun isn't a good enough reason. The government cannot take away my 'privilege' of gun ownership, because it is not a privilege granted by the government. It is an extension of a natural right that the people have not ceded authority to the government to regulate. The taxman takes my money, because as much as I gripe about it there is a necessity for the government and the government does need money to operate. They don't take my money because they say they can. They take my money because I allow it. Somebody else posted earlier that individual rights are just social constructs and basically are derived from whatever society grants you the ability to do. That's completely backwards. Natural rights are what people are born with. Again, life, liberty, property. These are real natural rights and not privileges because they do not require anybody to do anything for you to have them. They exist. Other rights, like a supposed right to healthcare or some such requires an obligation on the part of somebody else to provide you with things. These aren't strictly rights per-se, but privileges. Thats actually what the definition of a privilege is. In short, gun ownership is not a privilege because it was not given to you by somebody else. It's a right, and to restrict that, a person needs to give up or cede the right to the government to do so. Without a specific, compelling interest directly related to the function of government they cannot do this. Then in the instances where they can, it must be tailored as specifically as possible to achieve the goals without eradicating the right. Did you guys ever learn about locke, hobbs, kant etc in government? Actually people can easily take away things from you, no government necessary for that. If 90% of the society decides to take away your guns, they will do it and no government and no "rights" will protect you. You have extremely simple and naive view of the actual relationship between individual, society and government. As for your argument about people being born with rights. Can you show me on an infant where can I locate those rights when he is born ? If you cannot, they are societal or mental construct as they do not have physical existence. And since "rights" is part of ethics/morality and that governs interactions within a society it is not individual mental construct, but societal one. My point is that people saying you are born with rights take it too literally. They are not a property of yourself, they are something that human society guides itself by, because it is statistically good way of going about things. They do not exist outside of societal interactions. If you disagree show me where can I find them ? And note that I am not saying rights, even though they are just societal constructs, are arbitrary. They are in the end based in biology and so are anything but arbitrary. But they are not the basis of morality/ethics. If they were then they would actually be arbitrary as there would exist no justification for their existence. On the other hand when rights are constructs based on actual biological basis of morality, you have justification for their existence and can actually argue why are they good idea. Whereas if you consider them basis of ethics I will just ask you why and you have no satisfying argument to answer me other than "it feels so". No, I did not learn about them in school I read them on my free time and found that they have some interesting insights, but are in the end limited by the times they lived in with their limited understanding of biology and lack of our historical experience. I think most of us understand how society and sociological constructs work. Most of us know the difference between physical reality and ideas. And most of us aren't naive enough to think that man has the 'natural right' to anything outside of what his society says he has the rights to. But our society has agreed that the rights that have been agreed to in our Bill of Rights are solid and don't need a second look. Sure there are many proponents of stricter gun control, there are many proponents of national registration, and there are those who would like to redefine what the words in the 1st amendment say (there's a Bear Arms joke here, get it?), there are even those small minority who want an outright ban. But as you said, a vast majority would have to be of the same opinion to change it, and that won't happen as long as our country is the same country it has been (ie our form of government doesn't change). Maybe in a hundred years when all the conservative ideals finally die off with generations and we become a social state like half of the EU. But even then, as I said before, it will still be an basic American tradition that will have to be fought tooth and nail. Well most people maybe, that is why I was directing it at him specifically Also there are two issues that seem to be getting mixed up. My point in this post was mainly about what gives society "the right to do something". Another issue is that of course you can criticize society's current view on things if it is causing suffering. That is the issue I addressed in other posts, where I specifically commented on US situation.
I see
|
On March 01 2012 23:11 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 22:59 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 21:10 Herculix wrote:On March 01 2012 21:00 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 20:43 Silvertine wrote:On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers. That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47. Implying real soldiers wouldn't take up arms against their tyrranical overlords along with the people. Spoiler: military discipline only goes so far in free nations. Soldiers are real people with real individual ideals, and statistics among military members in the US show they are the biggest sect of proponents of individual liberties in our society, so they would be the first to defend them, even against orders from their superiors. i didn't get to see the post you quoted because apparently they deleted it, but you said what i would've. i think it's clear just by the last few posts in this thread that i'm arguing with a bunch of europeans who have no clue what america is like about how america should be like based on european standards the likes of which i have very little historical understanding of and which differ immensely in political basis. in other words, learn US history and hopefully the next time this thread comes around, we can have a decent argument where you euros can actually understand what i'm talking about rather than trying to force your own political agenda on me. i respect the logic that even if guns don't kill people, giving everyone access to guns makes it easier to get guns illegally, but that's not a basis to ban people from owning them if the people who would get guns illegally can still get them with only slightly more difficulty. it is not worth it to disarm every decent citizen due to fear mongering. also, if we were ever to declare war on our government, our army would not back our government. they are the most patriotic of all of us, and while i'm sure plenty of soldiers would defend their government, many would defend the people because that is what they signed up for. Your claims that we do not know our history are completely wrong and projection of your own issues. That you do not know European history does not mean we do not know yours. How your country was founded 300 years ago is no reason not to base national decisions on reason instead of tradition. All of Europeans nations were created in myriad different ways based on myriad political theories or circumstances. But times change and societies change. Your last paragraph also defeats your own point. If army will rise with the people then private ownership of guns is useless in overthrowing a government. If not then your private guns won't help you either. And if you think that is uniquely American thing, no army in every European first world country would behave in completely the same way. That is why we do not worry about not being able to get rid of out governments without massive private gun ownership. They bring nothing significant to the table when we are talking about rare revolution compared to problems they bring in times when there is no revolution going, which is like 99.9999% of the time. Also with effective enforcement of gun bans it is actually extremely hard for any but very wealthy and well organized criminals to get their hands on the gun. Of course the whole issue is between strictness of enforcement and not limiting other freedoms too much. Also it depends a lot on geographical circumstances. But your statement that the it is just slightly more difficult is wrong. The point isn't that the people with rifles would stand much of a chance against F22 fighter jets or cruise missiles, it is that the government would have to commit mass genocide against it's own people to disarm them if they are literally up in arms against tyranny, because they would not go peacefully.
So in your mind mass genocide is a better alternative to going peacefully? It really is an angry and violent worldview you present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
