"Gun Control" email
- Thread starter 87chevy
- 66 comments
- 3,284 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Under that interpretation, self-defense is never an option. The right to due process was never intended to usurp self-defense. What I'm talking about is not declaring yourself independent and then going on a killing spree. What I'm talking about is declaring yourself independent (due to human rights violations) and then defending yourself against those who would violate your rights.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
How so? Defending yourself doesn't have to result in the death of those your defending yourself against.
If you perceive your human rights to be violated - such as your state's decision to ban people from performing an otherwise legal activity on their own property - and go and shoot dead the person violating your rights - Arnie - is that acceptable?
I seriously don't get how in this day and age, a gun is a necessity to protect oneself from the tyranny of government. Frankly, it's an absurdity - how would an individual whose rights were being violated (or who believed that they were) benefit from a firearm? Where would it get them?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I believe you keep confusing a case of bad law with tyranny. One bad law decided upon by elected officials is not tyranny.
Now when said elected official claims dictatorship, enforces marshall law with anyone who disagrees, and kills anyone that speaks out, then yes it is completely just for the citizens to rise up, guns in hand, and knock down his door.
Bad policy does not equal tyranny, especially when it is bad policy that can be reversed after another election. But when the policy is being put into effect by someone who cannot be removed from office by any other means than force, and chooses to abuse their powers to crush any legal attempts to remove him from power, then guns will presumably be necessary. If you think that it can still be done without a gun then I say that we let him shoot first, and I would almost guarantee that his control of troops will result in a shot fired.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
See this is the thing - now, in 2008, who in the USA can claim an absolute dictatorship?
There are so many legal checks, not to mention elections, mandates, votes of no confidence and Blackbriar if they get too cocky, that it's impossible for any one man - even the President of the United States can get taken down by a slip of the tongue (satire) - to get the power to do it.
And that renders the necessity for an armed militia - and the Second Amendment - completely irrelevant. "We need guns in case the US becomes a dictatorship" is... daft. Even if you ignore the fact that the dictator has the largest and most sophisticated war machine ever seen on the planet at his fingertips and can kill you with a CIA laser satellite just by thinking about it (conspiracy satire).
Which all boils back down to... I don't understand why US citizens need guns to protect themselves from the tyranny of governments. Don't take this as "you don't need guns", just I don't comprehend the reason why you have the right to bear arms as written in the Second Amendment.
There are so many legal checks, not to mention elections, mandates, votes of no confidence and Blackbriar if they get too cocky, that it's impossible for any one man - even the President of the United States can get taken down by a slip of the tongue (satire) - to get the power to do it.
And that renders the necessity for an armed militia - and the Second Amendment - completely irrelevant. "We need guns in case the US becomes a dictatorship" is... daft. Even if you ignore the fact that the dictator has the largest and most sophisticated war machine ever seen on the planet at his fingertips and can kill you with a CIA laser satellite just by thinking about it (conspiracy satire).
Which all boils back down to... I don't understand why US citizens need guns to protect themselves from the tyranny of governments. Don't take this as "you don't need guns", just I don't comprehend the reason why you have the right to bear arms as written in the Second Amendment.
.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
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.
I don't see the words "from tyranny of governments" anywere in this amendment. I do see the words security of a free state though. It is the right to protect ourselves and our freedoms from any opposing force. Who knows what threats could be out there, I for one do not soley trust the federal government or armed forces to protect me, I'd rather have the ability to protect myself.
I don't see the words "from tyranny of governments" anywere in this amendment. I do see the words security of a free state though. It is the right to protect ourselves and our freedoms from any opposing force. Who knows what threats could be out there, I for one do not soley trust the federal government or armed forces to protect me, I'd rather have the ability to protect myself.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
So you need guns to protect yourself from... "threats"?
Like invading armies (never happened)? Terrorist hijackers (not allowed guns on planes any more)? It can't be your own citizens, since if you shoot to death them you deny them right to trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishments and due process.
What is it that US citizens need guns for so badly that it must be written in law? I seriously don't see it, especially with the need for justice written in the same rulebook.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
It may. If someone has a gun pointed at you, how else do you defend yourself. The moment someone else has a gun pointed at you, you have a margin of exactly the amount of time it takes him to pull the trigger before you might end up mortally wounded. In the face deadly force, similar force is likely required for defense.
Famine
Generally no, but it depends. It depends on the severity of the rights violation as to the severity of force you're entitled to use to prevent it.
If, tomorrow, the US were to pass a law requiring all white people to arbitrarily report to a holding facility indefinitely, I'd say any such person would be justified in using lethal force to prevent themselves from being forcibly taken (by police) to that facility. It's just a hypothetical, but hopefully it illustrates the point. I think that personal freedom can rightfully be defended with lethal force. Not necessarily against the politician that passes the law, but against the person that shows up at your door ready to take it from you.
Famine
If there are enough of you, and you have the means to use force to protect yourselves (guns, homemade bombs etc.), you can stop those trying to use force against you. Now, if someone in charge wanted to wipe out a large portion of the population, there is almost nothing I could do. The US military is too powerful for me to do anything about it. But if thousands upon thousands are willing to defend themselves with lethal force, they could stop an occupation. Not a slaughter, but an occupation.
It's our own citizens that I most expect to have to use my guns against. We violate each other's rights all the time. In many cases, with lethal force. I have the right to be able to defend myself from those people rather than rely on slow/undermanned police to protect me. Why do I have that right? Because I'm responsible for my own life.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Famine, can I ask why we need to ban or even put stricter controls on legal gun ownership?
I know you are playing devil's advocate here more than anything, but if you turn the tables the question of why legal ownership being regulated is necessary is just as easily refuted. Especially if England's Prime Minister is doing more than just posturing. If he actually does what he wants then England will be banning anything that can be used to kill a person, or may influence a killing. I think the statement that disturbs me most is:
Of course, how far things like this would go I don't know, but considering I always carry a pocket knife I hate to see what comes after knives. Baseball bats?
My point here is that you can ban everything you want, a criminal will find a way to commit crime, a fact that PM Gordon Brown is missing, or conveniently neglecting. Why not allow those who would not be criminals to have the ability to match a criminal attack with an equally effective defense?
You try to argue the right of due process, etc, but the fact is that the moment that criminal threatens my life he has negated his right to due process if he has made it seem that the only way to protect my rights is to violate his.
By saying that defense against a crime against my body violates his due process is in direct conflict with the 9th amendment.
I know you are playing devil's advocate here more than anything, but if you turn the tables the question of why legal ownership being regulated is necessary is just as easily refuted. Especially if England's Prime Minister is doing more than just posturing. If he actually does what he wants then England will be banning anything that can be used to kill a person, or may influence a killing. I think the statement that disturbs me most is:
That eliminates half my kitchen.
Of course, how far things like this would go I don't know, but considering I always carry a pocket knife I hate to see what comes after knives. Baseball bats?
My point here is that you can ban everything you want, a criminal will find a way to commit crime, a fact that PM Gordon Brown is missing, or conveniently neglecting. Why not allow those who would not be criminals to have the ability to match a criminal attack with an equally effective defense?
You try to argue the right of due process, etc, but the fact is that the moment that criminal threatens my life he has negated his right to due process if he has made it seem that the only way to protect my rights is to violate his.
By saying that defense against a crime against my body violates his due process is in direct conflict with the 9th amendment.
In other words, I cannot be denied my rights in order to protect his. If it could be argued that I should not defend myself in protection of the criminal's rights then I could not even try and subdue him without legal permission from the government. I would have to allow him to commit whatever crime he wished and then hope that it does not result in my death and that proper due process will find him and bring him to justice. Personally, I would rather shoot him in the knee cap before he has a chance to find my wife.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
You can, but I wouldn't be the person to ask:
Famine
From my point of view, you may as well have an Amendment stating the right to bear torque wrenches, to protect citizens from the tyranny of car mechanics charging $80 an hour.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I'm fully aware but as you can play antagonist by simply asking us to show where we would need it I can turn it back by saying how do we not?
I guess you could say my best defense is to antagonize my antagonist.
My best response to your questions is that in a case of immediate danger my personal defense is more effective than waiting for the government's response.
And while we can stand around and say that an American dictatorship or invasion of American soil is unlikely, I can easily say that many in history have thought the same, but none of them are here to tell us about it. And short of droid soldiers, no amount of technical gadgetry can avoid the necessity of ground troops, which a well-armed citizenry can fight back against.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Or shoot him...
To my mind, it's an unnecessary piece of legislation. It's like... passing a law that allows people to breathe. You all know it's perfectly legal and you can get on with the job without having to waste the time and effort of getting it written into law.
You don't have to legalise it unless it's already been criminalised.
But I'm not asking about the act of possessing guns. I'm asking about a law which says it's okay to possess guns.
Hopefully my breathing analogy gets the point across.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
I think it was simply a proactive step to prevent future legislation removing the right. To their credit, the founding fathers predicted the possibility of an attempt to disarm Americans by their government (though, not for the reasons they thought I'm sure). To ensure that that didn't happen, they made an explicit provision.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
If your worldview is such that human beings are generally not responsible for their actions - it makes perfect sense. If the people are not responsible, it must be the guns. Fewer guns then = fewer problems.
I guess, somehow, the notion that human beings are generally out of control is so comforting and so powerful that it leads people to not only disregard reason, but to actively campaign against it.
- 1,271
Famine, heres the thing. Theres the ideal situation, and then there is reality.
Who exactly is going to take my guns, and the millions of others out there, away from us?
NO one. Exactly. So we have to deal with it as it is. There will ALWAYS be guns in private hands in America. So we have to deal with it the best that we can. Wether you think anyone needs them or not is rather irrelevant. They are such a part of our history and culture that people are not just going to turn them in. So we have to continue to try to regulate their ownership and use as best we can.
PS. I cant believe you dont get this. Our country would NOT exist if individuals had not had firearms to free themselves of your nations empirical rule. So naturally they made sure that people would still be able to own firearms in the new independent nation. Wether it's needed or not now is irrelevant.
Who exactly is going to take my guns, and the millions of others out there, away from us?
NO one. Exactly. So we have to deal with it as it is. There will ALWAYS be guns in private hands in America. So we have to deal with it the best that we can. Wether you think anyone needs them or not is rather irrelevant. They are such a part of our history and culture that people are not just going to turn them in. So we have to continue to try to regulate their ownership and use as best we can.
PS. I cant believe you dont get this. Our country would NOT exist if individuals had not had firearms to free themselves of your nations empirical rule. So naturally they made sure that people would still be able to own firearms in the new independent nation. Wether it's needed or not now is irrelevant.
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Slick6
Premium
- 3,085
- United States
It seems to me you're comparing apples to oranges. The amendment as stated, was created during the birth of this country to provide the right for citizens to own firearms. It's purpose is to make sure that no matter what, any citizen that chooses to do so, may have a firearm for previously stated reasons. (political uprisings, self-defense, hunting, etc.) Fast forward 220 years later where we have far more devastating weapons. Why is the 2nd amendment still in effect? It's because they are still effective tools and essentially provides US citizens with the best protection (although lighters, screwdrivers, and torque wrenches are effective, they're still not comparable to guns) at their disposal besides law enforcement. Against what in these days? Probably not so much tyranny, but people still hunt, people still need something for home defense, and more and more, people shoot guns as a hobby.
Should we remove the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution? I don't believe so. If it were removed from the Constitution, wouldn't that give the government the right to seize whatever weapons (I'm not talking illegal weapons nor weapons used in crime), when they so choose? It's in effect, because everyone still agrees that it is essential for everyone to have this right and that the government has no right to infringe the rights of the people. I see no need to mess with something that is not broke.
On a lighter note, I love this Family Guy clip relating to the topic:
http://itsfunnyhoney.com/video/203/right_to_bear_arms
- 87,629
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
"The government" would only have the "right" to seize weapons if they passed a law outlawing those weapons.
I'm not arguing against owning guns - though I can't see the point myself - but against unnecessary legislation which says what you are allowed to do. Legislation should only set out what you aren't allowed to do.
I wasn't talking about lighters and screwdrivers as weapons, but as things it's perfectly legal to own without having to have a rule that says you can...
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Well, considering the country declared their independence by pointing out self-evident rights that were being violated they felt it necessary to make it a political nightmare to take it away.
Do any of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have a need for legislation? No, they would all seem self-evident. However, the founders had such little trust in government, including the one they themselves were forming, that they forsaw the need to create a bill amending the Constitution with specific rights which they knew would possibly be debated or violated by the government.
And the very fact that there is even a debate about gun control and whether gusn shoudl be illegal shows that they were correct in their distrust and wise to make it a pain to remove them.
Considering the debate does exist and that guns have been outlawed in other countries I think it was necessary. Despite much of the Constitutional law in place right now the US government has become bloated. Imagine what would have happened if those ten little statements hadn't been made law.
Slick6
Premium
- 3,085
- United States
I see in a sense what you are saying. The simplest way I think to explain it is: The founding fathers wanted to be sure that everyone had the right to own guns. Today, everyone does understand that they have the right, but we keep it for reasons which vary from person to person. To most it expresses a sense of freedom and makes people feel safe. It was a rule that wanted to let people know what they could own, because in these days, it was their most important possesion. It just seems to some today, an invaluable law that expresses what you can own, rather than can not. To others it provides a sense of security. I see no reason why it is useless. It's not harming anything by having it in effect.
BlackBeadyEyes
(Banned)
- 65
Similar threads
