ian_feverdream
I think we should all be required to be armed. Everyone. From age 18 and up. No exceptions for political rallies or PTA meetings or sporting events. 3-4 generations of that, and the ones that are left will be well behaved and good shots. Yeah, it would be sad for the families during the winnowing out period, but it's good for the culture and would reduce overpopulation pressures.

All Sarcasm aside...I think this is the most logical thing I have heard all day, you have my vote.

Every one should have a gun.

just My opinion.

And I Have been shot...by my Brother...when I was five years old...in the head with a 22 pistol.
right thru the ear.
Thank God he doesn't have My Aim.
ha ha.
Criminals and Politicians will always have Guns.

If every one had a gun in thier home, kept up high, behind glass...we would all be alot more safe.

If they Take the Gun from the people, taking the rest will be a cake walk, Baby.

that explains it


*rimshot*

I'm glad I'm living in a no-firearms and low-crime country. I have no fear taking a stroll out alone in a quiet alley at every night. People getting shot by gun in this country is almost unheard of. And it's actually quite peaceful when I take a stroll at night. No worry about getting shot or robbed.

Here's my 33 cents, and it's in response to another VT debate that I was a part of a bit back. I'll post it in it's entirety, only because it touches on a few things I'm pretty vehement about:

I've had a bit of time to collect my thoughts on the travesty that occurred at Virgina Tech. You read that right.

Travesty. Not tragedy.

The deaths of 31 people, shooter included, is a tragic event. I was heartsick when I heard the news. I was nauseous. I was angry.

I wasn't angry at the shooter. I was angry with the media. I was livid with the knee-jerk simplification and assumption. It's understandable to want to put a reason to things. Humans define their world that way- cause and consequence. Methodology and practice. But, in this case, I believe it was all too soon, and all for naught in the face of such catastrophic loss. At the end of the day, for all the theories, grandstanding, finger pointing and guesstimation, it turns out that this was nothing more than a young man with a mental problem and a festering grudge with no healthy outlet.

So, in turn, I answer the theories that fall short. I answer what I see as a travesty of people skirting the issue at hand in favor of blame assignment. I settle the only way to deal with my anger, and the VERY real problem we still have as a society of perpetually passing the proverbial buck.

Police response. Could they have done more? Should they? Emphatically: no. Who in their right mind, beyond the workings of a fevered and paranoid mind bordering on the psychotic, could have ever possibly known that this young man would have the single minded determination and fatal will to return to the campus almost two hours later after the initial shooting to continue in another location? The police responded quickly, secured the area in question, proceeded by a book that was written in response and refinement to every school shooting and gun crime that came before it. The police are not, as some think, omnipresent or omniscient. They did what they are trained to do, to the highest order. They are human beings trained to put their own safety aside for the sake of others, and they did the best they could.

Gun Control. I don't own a gun. I've no interest in owning a gun. I don't like guns. However, to say that gun control here is a factor is absolutely INSANE. There is, to date, NO gun control law that will deter a determined individual from getting access to a gun. A gun has no mind of it's own. A gun has no will to murder. Gun-free zone is a catechism. Don't believe me? Every single documented case of a school shooting in the United States since and including Columbine has occurred in "gun-free" zones. Criminals and sick minds don't care about laws. They don't care about jurisdiction, background checks, or possession statutes. The young man in question cleared his background check with flying colors, just like every other gun owner with a clean history and no predisposition to murder. Do I invoke the Utopian idea of a gun-free America? Absolutely not. Like it or not, the idea of the right to bear arms was NOT conceived as a forefather to NRA enthusiasts. It was penned with the single minded idea that the people of the union should have the rights to defend themselves from the kind of Government the founding fathers so ardently wished to avoid. It was penned with the idea that the PEOPLE should have the ability to inspire FEAR in their leaders, to check the misuse of power, and to secure the hard won freedoms laid down. Is that a bleak scenario? Yes. It is. The alternative, however, is that much worse. We can not put a stopper in the Nuclear Genie. We can not turn back the clock and implore Dr. Gatling to not lay down his blueprints. We can not undo ancient Chinese dynasties' invention and refinement of gunpowder. No one blames the ax of the ax murderer: he is an axemurderer, and insane. This young man was officially labeled as disturbed, and even if that had come into play at the gun shop and prevented him from purchasing a firearm, it would not have stopped him in the slightest. Had he brought a knife instead, this would probably be a non-issue. The ability to deal death at a distance is horrible, but death is death no matter the means. Gun control, new laws, stricter implications would have stopped precisely NOTHING.

Teachers: could they have done more? No. The teacher in question alerted the authorities. The boy was removed from class. The proper procedures in a country where the basic rights of a human must and are to be respected were carried out. Human beings tried, and human beings failed. That's what human beings do. Short of him openly threatening another human being, there was little anyone - authority or otherwise - could do. All the warning signs in the world of a disturbed mind do little when that mind is clever enough to guard the larger purpose of his actions. He was unnerving to those around him. He spooked other adults insomuch as they took what action they legally could. He was evaluated and found to be a possible danger to himself and others. "Possible", regardless of what you believe, is not carte blanche to lock someone up. Just as free speech must endure in this country, for good or ill, so must freedom to live, exist, and integrate with society as much as one can until such time as that person acts.

Parents: I've seen nothing on this, and I'm actually surprised. we might see more in the coming days, but let me settle this little debate right now: Parental control only extends so far. In case after case of juvenile delinquency, including some connected with school shootings, we see parents who are at a loss. Some kids just do bad things for the sake thereof - and this is without the impetus of chemical imbalance or history of any mental ailment. any parent worth their salt with a troubled child knows the absolute heartbreak and frustration of simply not being able to get through. But this wasn't a child. This was a young man. Legal to drink, smoke, drive, vote, serve in the armed forces, make his own sexual choices, and make his own way in life. Legal decisions aside, really ask yourself this: when do we become old enough to choose for ourselves? When were you old enough? Throw away the detachment you might have to anything pre-dating your 18th birthday. Humans are MORE THAN CAPABLE ENOUGH of deciding for themselves beyond influence. Age is rarely a factor unless you speak of the incredibly young. It merely takes the idea, the concept, the resolve, and the action.

Video games. And so begins my late love letter to Mr. Jack Thompson. Let's put aside the fact that you rushed to the air while blood was still pooling. Let's ignore the fact that every graph, chart, ratio, statistic, newsbite, quote, piece of data, connection, implication, accusation, or actual fact (real or imagined) concerning Video Game violence has been refuted and overturned at every level of court from precinct to federal. Let's overlook the legalities YOU are currently facing as direct result of your "God-backed" campaign to save our youth. Let's disregard every charge of contempt, every harassing letter, and every threat of lawsuit you have dispensed in reply to your nay-sayers. I'm here to address Jack Thompson the human being, not the failed lawyer:

Where, sir, is YOUR conscience? Where, in all the hoopla and nigh-melee that is your public persona, is YOUR grief? Where is your basic decency; your in-born mental checking system that would alert the rational mind to stop and think? Where is YOUR meanest effort to soothe and aid the wounded, the dead, the bereaved; rather than underline the hurt and equate it to something that serves YOUR agenda? Where then, sir, is your soul?

If teenagers can be trained to kill at will without batting an eyelash at the consequence, then I have to wonder what form of media has trained YOU to be able to so callously leap into the limelight time and time again so soon after another's heartbreak to shout your idiotic yawp over the rooftops of the world?

Oh yes. That's right. It's our own. I wonder, Mr. Thompson. When every judge from coast to coast, every court, every judiciary committee has slapped you with a gag order in perpetuity to keep you from continuing the crime of oxygen-theft from the world at large, what will you do; how will you react when someone else rises up to scrutinize the content of that same media that serves you so nicely? What will you do on that day when you sit, lost and rudderless in your failed campaign, and realize that the Constitution protects all media and all forms of expression including the one you refuse to validate and the other that allows you face time with the public?

What then, will you do Mr. Thompson? When you find out that not only are you wrong as every other prophet of scapegoats that has come before you, but that you caused more harm that actual good? I want to know, Jack; what will you do when you finally get your soul back?


((I left it in it's entirety, including the tirade on video games, just because it flows with what I tried to convey about simplifying things to the lowest common denominator))

less guns, less violence (australia, japan, UK)
more guns, more violence (africa, US, iraq)

a man with an ax can't kill 30 people simultaneously, so that logic is flawed.

they've already modified the 1st ammendment in many ways, I.E. when they saw grounds that a student who wrote about a fictional school shooting that caused him to be arrested and is not going to be graduating with his class.

why not change the "right to bare arms" to only those with responsibility to uplhold the law such as policeman, army, security.


the yakuza imports guns and commits gun homicide, but japan still has one of the lowest percentage of gun homicide.

why do americans love gun so much? it's a weapon of death more than it is a weapon of protection.

if you take into accounts of people that live in a gun controlled country like Eunice, you find that they live more comfortable when it comes to not fearing death everytime they drive through a bad nieghborhood.

guns give cowards the power to instantly kill

No, it's not flawed logic, so please back off on demeaning terminology here- it's just a discussion. And let's NOT levy this with "Americans love guns" shall we?

The outstanding problem is this: the only TRUE way to implement such an ideal of "no guns" is just that" NO GUNS. you must without leniancy destroy every single firearm in existence.The ideal you're invoking - policemen and army with weapons only - is assuming the human element as NOT being a part of the equation.

In every corner of the globe, we've seen misuse of power AND arms by people we entrust with our protection - this is an undeniable fact, and I'm sorry - I will not debate it, but I'll gladly pull up innumerable case files, news reports, and soundbites to illustrate it.

They have not modified the First Amendment - it is not a standing policy. Interpretation as it relates to individual cases regarding potential threat still remains solely in the hands of State Government - not Federal. If it were otherwise, every single panel, activist group, pundit, and congressional and Supreme Court overruling of various cases involving First Amendment rights would be moot. (Black Panthers, Larry Flynt, Minuteman cases to name just a few). The Amendment regarding the right to bear arms is in place for a REASON, and that reason is to keep the very REAL human element in check. It allows the common man some essence of security to know that he can return due force against illegal entry or oversight of habeus corpus. It was enacted to ensure that the public that elects the government can not be swayed by force unilaterally against things which are counter to their basic rights under the Constitution and Amendments thereof. This has NEVER been an issue of the ability to defend outselves from petty crooks - but since that seems to rear it's head- let's explore that:

Criminals like unarmed victims. Cut and dry. Gun free zones don't matter. They don't care about human rights, restrictions, egalitarian structure or utopian ideal. Disarm everyone but the police, and I guarentee you a person who is determined will find a way. Yes, Eunice is gun controlled. It's relatively safe. Unfortunately, it is inadviseable to think for one second that the element doesn't exist there. As stated, parts of Canada have lax gun control laws and still remain safer than areas within the US itself that have the strictest of gun control laws. Remember - it's BY STATE, not including the entirety of the United States.

No one is arguing that guns are evil. They deal death at a distance, and give weak minded men the ability to impose their will whenever they see fit. It's sad, but true.

But you can not unmake the gun. You can not trust that the Government will abide the will of it's people for the sake thereof. Look to any country being torn asunder- RIGHT NOW - because men in power with more armament than it's populous decided to press their advantage. The Congo. Dubai. Indonesia. Columbia.

It's not an American obsession, so drop it. The Gun is a worldwide problem, and it's a HUMAN ONE. The Gun has no will of it's own to do murder- period.

We can not undo the knife, the sword, the bow, Nuclear Fusion, Gunpowder, Missile Guidance or the schmatics that lead to the first handgun. It's a simple fact.

I do not like guns. i do not own a gun. I will, however, defend the rights of the people who choose to own one legally and responsibly because history itself and the current state of affairs WORLDWIDE illustrate the necessity for what was penned over 200 years ago regarding this country: "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."

We can not undo the gun or assume people will always act with our best interests in mind. All we can do is educate, be mindful and vigilant, and with all due sincerity that is shared by more gun owners than you'll credit; never have to fire on another human being in our lifetime.

Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

shaneronzio
And I Have been shot...by my Brother...when I was five years old...in the head with a 22 pistol.
right thru the ear.

Which is exactly why everybody shouldn't have guns. ;)
Young siblings shooting each other in the head isn't a trend you want to see spreading is it?

Yes, nice stuff and lots of passion xerjester , but you trample all that's been said before against your points. People in power are never scared of civilians owning guns. Why won't you guys get that? This is medieval logic... Jebus... Criminals aren't either, there's no better excuse to kill you than the idea that you might be able to kill them.

You can not trust that the Government will abide the will of it's people for the sake thereof. Look to any country being torn asunder- RIGHT NOW - because men in power with more armament than it's populous decided to press their advantage.

You do realize of course that the men in power in the US have more armament at their disposal than the civilians. This argument is seriously flawed. The only way for the people to brute force intimidate the government is to possess nuclear arms. The military doesn't run around shooting people with handguns wearing t-shirts and jeans. They're better trained and better equipped. They frequently use tools of mass destruction. Missiles, tanks, aircraft, gunboats, etc. Any one of those devices has the potential to kill hundreds, if not thousands of armed civilians in a single attack. So, what is stopping the US from being "torn asunder," because it certainly isn't those little pea shooters the people own.

People seriously misunderstand the constitution, particularly the second amendment. The second amendment supplements clauses which already exist in the constitution. It states very clearly that arms ownership and use are protected for the formation and maintenence of "well regulated militia" groups. The constitution claims militia are bound by restrictions placed upon them by Congress and are trained and managed by the state governments.

Our country had no strong military when the constitution was written. Allowing for state run militias which could potentially fall under the jurisdiction of Congress in a national crisis, gave us some leverage against the French and the British in the wake of the revolutionary war and the failed articles of confederation. Militias are defined as both a military and police force, not a way for the people to intimidate their government.

We can not undo the knife, the sword, the bow, Nuclear Fusion, Gunpowder, Missile Guidance or the schmatics that lead to the first handgun. It's a simple fact.

Yet we aren't allowed to own nuclear bombs or ballistic missiles. Funny that.

history itself and the current state of affairs WORLDWIDE illustrate the necessity for what was penned over 200 years ago regarding this country

That's odd, last time I checked there were quite a few countries with extremely strict gun control (to the point of banning) who had less crime and yet still maintained a level of democracy on par with the US (in some cases even more so).

As stated, parts of Canada have lax gun control laws and still remain safer than areas within the US itself that have the strictest of gun control laws. Remember - it's BY STATE, not including the entirety of the United States.

The Canada example is a poor one, as has been stated before. The problem with these arguments is that people look at everything in black or white terms. It's all or nothing with no evaluation of statistics or what they stand for. Canada has less gun crime, but also has a higher percentage of people living in rural areas and also a lower percentage of handguns. Also look at their gun control laws and you will see that they are not all that lax. For starters, you cannot carry a concealed weapon. ATC licenses are reserved primarily for people who drive armored vehicles and some trappers (for self defense against animals). Handguns are not permitted for hunting and are limited almost exclusively to range shooting. Shooting people for any reason is prosecutable in a court of law, even in cases of self defense. Guns are classified as prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted. The only non-restricted firearms are certain types of shotguns and rifles.

Gun Control = People Control. It is a practice of totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

The right to own a personal firearm, or other weapon, of ANY model is the right to protect and defend one's own life, property, and loved ones.

The Founding Fathers held this right, with all the others, to be "self-evident".

Law enforcement is almost never on the scene at the time of need; they usually show up after the victimization. On top of that, as the point was very well made, guns will ALWAYS exist for as long as current human civilization exist, whether they're banned in part or in full - hence the continued necessity of this right.

Mines, bombs, explosives, and nukes are not personal weapons, which is why they are not included in the Right To Bare Arms.

No government wishes to use extreme levels of violence against it's own people; if not for moral reasons, for tactical ones. When the populace is armed, those in power know that the only way to oppress the population will be through lethal violence, a natural deterrent in itself - not much to rule if you kill everybody, not to mention the inevitable damage to one's own forces. When the populace has no means of self-defence, even the least willed of corrupt politicians will take advantage of the situation. Hence, the use of the Second Amendment as a way to protect us from a corrupt government is still a valid one. The only thing that would be lacking for the populace to defend itself from such a government is the will to fight and potentially die for the cause of Liberty in the face of Tyranny.

Objectively speaking, both interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are pretty strong, but I'll be going with the one that protects individual human liberty, including the liberty to own a personal weapon.



J.

Isukun, Sub, I think we're involved in a proverbial Sisyphean task. We keep telling them why they're wrong, but they keep coming back and posting the same argument that we've already proved to be utterly fallacious time and time again. It's amazing.

I would say that the faith in the gun is stronger then the faith in any religion known to man, and with considerably less logic. We're fighting the tin-foil hat brigade here guys! :)

You know, on second thought, I bow out. The tone of reply has now gotten insulting, and assumption of hyperbole rather than statement's now reared it's ugly head.

For the record, again: I don't own a gun. I've no desire to. Nor am I a moron misreading the Constitution: I'm a college graduate with every notion of the difference between "Framer's Intent" and reality of application regarding the Bill of Rights. I am not in any hurry to don a tin-foil hat.

Nice to see that things were kept civil - if you were against the issue.

I'm done.

ozoneocean
Isukun, Sub, I think we're involved in a proverbial Sisyphean task. We keep telling them why they're wrong, but they keep coming back and posting the same argument that we've already proved to be utterly fallacious time and time again. It's amazing.

I would say that the faith in the gun is stronger then the faith in any religion known to man, and with considerably less logic. We're fighting the tin-foil hat brigade here guys! :)

*Scratches aluminum foil hat* (haven't actually seen tin-foil before) "Are you talking about me?" ;)

Perhaps we're at a stand-still.

I'm completely for gun control and regulations. I don't see the need for people to own guns without the authorities and/or government not to know about it. Register all guns; criminal background checks for all gun purchasing; waiting periods; stiffer penalties for gun law violaters and criminals - I'm for all these things.

So, for the majority of you in this forum and on this issue - I'm with you. Gun laws can/should be more strict and you have my opinion and vote on the issue.

But for those here for absolute gun abolishment and a zero civilian ownership policy, I have yet to see a clear justification for it. The best arguement I've heard is to cut down on gun related homicide. That's a valid point for gun control, but since the number of gun related homicide is ~12,000 in the U.S., I don't see it as enough to take away my rights to hunt, sport, and defend myself with firearms. 12,000 people is ~.0003 of the poulation. That's a very, very small amount of people. As subcutlured pointed out - it's enough to fill one small-medium sized town... and that's it. So the rest of the responsible population has to suffer (and I choose that word intentionally) because of a very small minority of abusers? It just doesn't fit logically for me. Sorry.

And, I'm guessing there isn't a valid arguement that could be made to sway my opinion on taking away my firearms. I do competition shooting, I hunt for my annual food, and I've witnessed first hand the life-saving potential of CWPs... none of which would be possible without my firearms. Generally, my opinion is always open for sway and "the truth"... but this is a solid point for me. I've already thought this through. I've already witnessed both ends of the spectrum.

Citizens should have guns. Period.

subcultured
21 deaths...not including the killer. That's madness.

Uhh, dude? wasn't it 32?

Anyway, the Right to Bear Arms was created back during the Reveloutionary War. That, and the whole part where It says, The people have the right to overthrow their government" kinda tie in together. We are meant to make sure our government is the way WE like it, and if not, we can impeach them, but if that dosen't work, we have the right to bear arms, and can fight our own government, and create a new one.

Cthulhu

subcultured
21 deaths...not including the killer. That's madness.

Uhh, dude? wasn't it 32?

Anyway, the Right to Bear Arms was created back during the Reveloutionary War. That, and the whole part where It says, The people have the right to overthrow their government" kinda tie in together. We are meant to make sure our government is the way WE like it, and if not, we can impeach them, but if that dosen't work, we have the right to bear arms, and can fight our own government, and create a new one.

that post was made early when there was still 21 deaths reported and 10 critical.

dang sub, how dare you!!!???!!!

what?

subcultured
what?

get the number wrong. lol.

I was just kidding. Apparently I needed another sentence in there for it to make sense. ;)

ozoneocean
Isukun, Sub, I think we're involved in a proverbial Sisyphean task. We keep telling them why they're wrong, but they keep coming back and posting the same argument that we've already proved to be utterly fallacious time and time again. It's amazing.

I would say that the faith in the gun is stronger then the faith in any religion known to man, and with considerably less logic. We're fighting the tin-foil hat brigade here guys! :)

The only thing you've argued effectively as "fallacious" is the car arguement, which I will agree is of no real use as a support for one's right to own and maintain a weapon.

As far as the Right To Bare Arms won't protect us from the government because no civilian population stands a chance against a better armed and trained government force arguement: I clearly explained to you how civilian gun ownership acts as a deterrent against government oppression.

I'll reiterate: Certainly a government force will most likely win, but not without taking casualities of it's own - that combined with the natural consequences of combat-induced population reduction is the deterrent. If the populace has NO means of self defence beyond the kitchen knife the psychology of people in power will be that much more at ease when it comes to enacting policies that remove or obstruct individual rights - the populace will be completely reduced to cattle living at the government's mercy.

Owning a gun gives an individual a fighting chance, albeit a miniscule one, but a chance that an individual would otherwise not have.

Hitler, and every tyrant dictator afterwards, knew that if he wanted to ensure his complete control he would have to disarm the populace and only give guns to loyal members of his political party. There's no debating that, it's a historical fact.

Even Saddam Hussein reportedly had to regularly bribe tribal chiefs because of the gun power their respective tribes wielded. An illustrative example of how gun-ownership acts as a degree of political leverage.

And when it comes to non-gun forms of self-defence: Let's look at mace - too short range, not to mention too wishy-washy in it's effectiveness ( if I wanted to mug somebody - hypothetically speaking - and they sprayed me with mace, I would just grab a hold of them and start beating the fuck out of them with my eyes closed, or stab them to death, or shoot them with the gun I stole from a government official - I work amongst government employees and I can attest that, as is typical of the government, incompetence is fairly prevalent so it's not difficult for me to imagine this happening, or even some corrupt official/military unit selling guns on the blackmarket - it happens with drugs it would DEFINITELY happen with handguns ). How about the taser - aside from the short range, it's a good weapon, unfortunately if handguns are banned, this weapon will shortly follow as there's already controvery surrounding their use. Hand-to-hand defence? Please, if I wanted to take on Jet Li, I'd shoot his ass from afar with the above mentioned hypothetical gun, end of story. It's not about cowardice or honor or any of that impracticaly idealism, it's about who walks away and who doesn't.

There's nothing "faith" about it. A handgun is an effective tool for self-defence, period. A human being's right to own a personal weapon is as fundamental as his rights to maintain his own oppinions and to keep the products of his labor, no matter what the Supreme Court says, assuming you believe in the concept of Individual Liberty.

Is gun violence higher in the U.S. than in countries with handgun bans? Sure. But it's a price I'm more than willing to pay for my right to own such a weapon. All liberties come at a price - the price of Freedom Of Speech is that you have to tolerate other people's ideas and oppinions, even if they are in fundamental opposition to your own. The price of Free Will/of Movement is that you're going to risk having some individuals abusing other individuals at varying degrees. All are worth it to me.

J.

Come on. That stuff about Hitler isn't "fact". The Nazi party controlled the populace through clever propaganda and terrorism. In the end they had enormous support, they had no fear of a gun owning populace, that's a laugh! lol!

Saddam Hussain didn't care about individuals with guns either. You're confusing powerful tribal chiefs who have functioning, heavily armed militias under them with scared individuals in the US who own their own pistols. Your examples are crazy. In fact, most totalitarian regimes make a point of specifically training all able bodied men and boys in warfare and requiring them to possess and be proficient with high powered military type firearms, so that blows your theory out of the water. :)

Pick a totalitarian regime and you'll find that's what happened. In Tito's Yugoslavia they made a good point of it! Everyone had to join the army in the USSR... etc.
You don't have guns to defend yourself against the government, unless you're a terrorist or a moron. But you could have them to support your government if that's what kind of country you live in. ;)

Then again you could live in a place like Somalia where your government has been imposed on you from outside, or the Sudan were the government is out to exterminate certain groups. But even there individuals stand no chance what so ever unless they're part of a rebel army, and even then your pistol wont protect you against the rockets from a Mil-Mi 24 D gunship helicopter.

Nazi's and Gun Control Article for you guys.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

the best form of changing the government (in a democratic society) in the last century is by nonviolent means.

that's why martin luther king is a national hero. not just to african americans but for everyone.

In the past changing governments or governmental ideas rely on taking it by violent means by one party and beheading/lynching the leader. then when the party comes in power they oppress the previous ruling class creating an endless cycle of violence.

you don't need to shoot up or blow up cars to get your message through. it actually makes it worse when you try to go against the govt with violence. So in America (an advance nation) the need for guns to overthrow the government or to prove a point is meaningless.


(side note)
you know if someone was writting a paper for school this five page thread would make a good resource since we have sited statistics and article. :)

I am from the camp that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I don't like to bear my arms, as I have really rough elbows, I generally wear shirts that cover them. But seriously, take away guns and the real sickos that want to kill anyway will find another way...It's a real double-edged Katana.

yet you can't kill 30 people simultaneously with a katana only on anime does that happen happen. it's like comparing nukes and guns.

you take away dangerous weapons off the street. you make it hard for sickos to kill many

subcultured
yet you can't kill 30 people simultaneously with a katana only on anime does that happen happen. it's like comparing nukes and guns.

you take away dangerous weapons off the street. you make it hard for sickos to kill many

He wasn't being literal. I was using the cliche "double edged sword" but substituted "katana".

ozoneocean
Come on. That stuff about Hitler isn't "fact". The Nazi party controlled the populace through clever propaganda and terrorism. In the end they had enormous support, they had no fear of a gun owning populace, that's a laugh! lol!

The Nazi party used those things as well, and yes they did have enormous support from their cowtowed populace, and despite the party itself having never enacted the actual laws that banned guns in Germany ( according to that linked article ), Hitler none-the-less knew that to MAINTAIN power, a de-armed regular citizenry was ONE of the necessities for meeting that goal.

From the very same linked article:


--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
, Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

GunCite does not have the German version, but Hitler continues, "Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order."

I think it's noteable that he said "troops" and not "people".

ozoneocean
Saddam Hussain didn't care about individuals with guns either. You're confusing powerful tribal chiefs who have functioning, heavily armed militias under them with scared individuals in the US who own their own pistols. Your examples are crazy. In fact, most totalitarian regimes make a point of specifically training all able bodied men and boys in warfare and requiring them to possess and be proficient with high powered military type firearms, so that blows your theory out of the water.

I haven't confused anything. My point with Saddam Hussain, and Hitler, is to illustrate the psychology of would-be political oppressors and how ruling an armed populace versus ruling a disarmed populace affects their decision making. With Saddam, what I was trying to say was that groups were able to remain independent of his regime because they were armed. The quote of Hitler above more clearly illustrates what I was trying to convey.

I did say that Hitler would allow those loyal to his party to carry weapons, I should have said that that includes those that he forcefully indoctrinated into his party as well, but that is what I originally meant.

ozoneocean
Pick a totalitarian regime and you'll find that's what happened. In Tito's Yugoslavia they made a good point of it! Everyone had to join the army in the USSR... etc.
You don't have guns to defend yourself against the government, unless you're a terrorist or a moron. But you could have them to support your government if that's what kind of country you live in. ;)

See above.

ozoneocean
Then again you could live in a place like Somalia where your government has been imposed on you from outside, or the Sudan were the government is out to exterminate certain groups. But even there individuals stand no chance what so ever unless they're part of a rebel army, and even then your pistol wont protect you against the rockets from a Mil-Mi 24 D gunship helicopter.

Like I said, a fighting chance; a pistol is better than nothing. You seem to be argueing that since only a handful of U.S. citizens legally own handguns, then nobody should own them. I am argueing that EVERYBODY ( that hasn't been convicted of criminal violence ) should have the right to own a gun, IF they so choose. If you don't wish to own a gun, that is your choice. Peaceful and honest citizens should not have to give up any of their rights just because others choose not to exercise them.

None of your rebuttals address that owning a personal weapon is a fundamental right in a society based on the principles of Individual Liberty; and while, unfortunately, U.S. society still has a ways to go to achieve a truly Liberty-based society, I am going to oppose anything that would cause it to regress from that goal.

I agree with Subcultured that the best means of changing the government is through a peaceful, orderly process; but history shows that doesn't always happen.

There seems to be a lot of faith and dependence on the U.S. Central Government for our safety and protection, concluding that individual weapon ownership is obsolete because we have the Fed to protect us. What happens if that government collapses? It's a very real possibility. Reports are that our government is completely broke and borrows all it's money from China and other foreign entities. A report done by the Reagan Administration in the early '80s found that 100% of the Federal Income Tax went to pay the INTEREST on the Federal Debt. All domestic public debts are being paid for by having the Federal Reserve create money out of thin air ( either through printing up more money, or entering the money into a computer; stroke of a pen ). Bush has spent us into record deficits. The Democrat solution to that problem is to tax the citeznry more and more, as well as induce artificial pay increases.

This is not based on fear, but a rational account of the possibilities. Our credit system ( we don't deal in money any more, those dollar bills are nothing more than credit with the Federal Reserve Bank - like store credit only it can be spent anywhere and it's purchasing power goes up and down with however much of the "money" supply the Fed destroys or creates ) could easily collapse, it most likely won't, but that's not stopping me, nor several other investors, from moving some of my funds into precious metals - gold and silver, the real money.

A government collapse will most likely not happen within our lifetimes, but it very well might, and IF it does, those of us who are armed will be that much more capable of protecting ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.

J.

The nazis stripped the jews the right of keeping guns. Not their regular populace. It was part of the process to make them defensless. They had nothing to be afriad of from the every day german, because of how popular the nazi party was at the time.

The Jews didn't want to go out and get guns anyway PP... As the article says: they'd weathered pogroms before, why not the coming one as well? Little did they know... :(
Anyway, read the article, it's pretty much accurate, I've read about the history of the time from other sources and it's backed up. The initial idea was to nullify the Nazis terrorism, but then the Nazis got in power anyway and the law didn't really matter then because it was only groups like the Nazis and certain other extremists that it was aimed at. ;)

And the problem for the Jews was that they were regular Germans until the Nazis singled them out. Then all other ordinary German citizens were against them! That's the trouble with this lunatic idea of resisting your government with small-arms: governments have the people behind them (even places like North Korea) and that's who you'll be fighting against; everyone else!

If all people are against the government then you form a proper rebel army and you need much more than puny small-arms. All you guys are advocating with your one-man government resistance ideas if you think about it without the passion and romance really amounts to terrorism and criminality. That's something to think about.

Trust me, I don't want anyone to "rise up" to fight the US government. That would be bad. And no, you can't kick out a country's government without total support really. Even more so when its a government with a military like the US. But again if you have enough money you can get anything.

Like I said, a fighting chance; a pistol is better than nothing.

A pistol is equal to nothing if you're going up against the US military. How many troops in Iraq do you think were killed with pistols? It's kind of hard to do much damage against a soldier wearing body armor, a missile, an aircraft, a tank or an armored vehicle using a pistol. The real world doesn't work like the movies. Having a handgun doesn't give you a fighting chance against the military. Most guns don't give you much of a chance against the military, why do you think most resistance movements in modern society target civilians and not the government or military?

You seem to be argueing that since only a handful of U.S. citizens legally own handguns, then nobody should own them.

It's not the quantity that is the issue, it's the fact that owning small arms serves no purpose other than for one civilian to kill another civilian. There are plenty of handguns out there. In fact, the US is known for having one of the highest percentages of handgun ownership in the world. Strange enough, there are several countries with stricter gun control which are better are protecting people's civil liberties than the US, supposed home of the free.

I am argueing that EVERYBODY ( that hasn't been convicted of criminal violence ) should have the right to own a gun, IF they so choose.

I certainly hope you never get elected into any offices. Not everybody, even among those without a criminal record, should have that right. I personally know several people who I would never let buy a gun.

If you don't wish to own a gun, that is your choice. Peaceful and honest citizens should not have to give up any of their rights just because others choose not to exercise them.

And what about the rest of us? What about our right to peace of mind? I feel my rights as a human being are being violated any time I come in contact with a person with a gun. I cannot act or do as I please in their presence. That isn't freedom.

A government collapse will most likely not happen within our lifetimes, but it very well might, and IF it does, those of us who are armed will be that much more capable of protecting ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.

Because anarchy is the preferred solution in cases of economic decline. I mean it worked so well during the Great Depression. In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm. Guns didn't help store clerks during the Great Depression. If anything, the more guns you have, the more likely people with ill intentions are to get and use them.

I agree with Subcultured that the best means of changing the government is through a peaceful, orderly process; but history shows that doesn't always happen.

And recent history shows that revolution is often a long and bloody process and more often than not, the people lose. Most countries which are "liberated" these days require assistance from other countries with stronger militaries.

isukun
And recent history shows that revolution is often a long and bloody process and more often than not, the people lose. Most countries which are "liberated" these days require assistance from other countries with stronger militaries.

Well if your counting African "revolutions" you really shouldn't, they never had a real government to begin with.

Not many full on revolutions NOT in a 3rd world country happened many years ago. And ended fast then say the American Revolution.