Guns

[Swagger897]

Sure, you have the right to bear arms - but given the track record of violent crimes, massacres and spree shootings, I would say that right has been exercised about as poorly as it could have been,

What does a high caliber gun have anything to do with the recent violent crimes? Where are you getting this that big guns = big crime?

 

[BobK]

Why does anybody need a weapon like that?

To resist an oppressive government.

As much as I frown upon gun ownership, I can at least understand the argument that people want something close at hand to protect themselves, their families and/or their property. But to my mind, that can be achieved with a simple handgun or something like a rifle. Similarly, I can understand that hunting is a popular and legitimate pastime, even if it's not something that I would have any interest in. But as in the case of personal defence, I can only see a limited range of weapons being necessary.

But then there is the availability of some pretty serious heavy-duty weaponry - like that .50 rifle. What possible need does a civilian have for something like that?

See above.

 

[FoolKiller]

2) How do you explain the way those laws had the intended effect if the laws played no part in bringing about those effects? Do you think a wizard did it?

Let me turn that around on you.

How do you explain the lack of those laws here in Kentucky allows people to own these guns without a single one of them ever being used in a crime?










It's not the guns that creates the problem, nor is it the legitimate gun enthusiast/collector that you need to be worried about.

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, it should. It absolutely should. No civilian has any need of high-powered weapons. Therefore, they should not be available.

How do you justify housing that's more than a cave. A cave suffices. We don't need brick houses. Therefore, they should not be available.

Sure, you have the right to bear arms - but given the track record of violent crimes, massacres and spree shootings, I would say that right has been exercised about as poorly as it could have been

Some individuals don't understand rights. Some do. Those that do aren't guilty of anything and don't need anything taken away. The people who don't understand are the problem.

and I would like to believe that if you had knowledge of how that right would play out today when the Second Amendment was being considered, you would have had the good sense not to enact it.

I wouldn't call that good sense. It's putting your own preferences ahead of other people's. You can have a "free state, but..." Either rights are respected or they are not. If people, even the vast majority, get to determine what is right, then there is a problem. There is a problem because society has decided with no justification that some people are worth more than others.

Sure, I shouldn't generalise. But enough people have proven that they can't be trusted with those weapons that nobody should have access to them in the first place.

Not in the slightest. Some people have shown they can't be trusted with weapons. Plenty have shown that they could own an arsenal and nothing would come of it.


EDIT


I think a lot of the opposition to comes from public overblow fear. People will do everything possible to get rid of them because they can be weapons, so obviously they are more dangerous than non weapons. That's untrue.

Your response to mass shootings is to say they should never happen again. Ideally I agree. However, making guns illegal won't bring you to that goal. Also, because of that you will need to enact many more laws to cover other factors. Ban schools so kids aren't in a single spot where they can be easily targeted. Ban people from walking by children without armed guards, etc.

What about car crashes? Should they be prevented from ever occurring again? Would that mean banning cars outright, as you propose to do with guns?

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm not trying to create a fight. You said you were interested in the concept of natural human rights and, by extension, the right to tools to protect them. Are you looking for a discussion about it or just stating your desire to discuss and leaving it out there?

"Interested in libertarianism" was a peripheral point I chose to raise (a white flag if you will) after you completely mis-took my true point.

You sound like someone very opposed to gun ownership who pretends to be open to the idea and has no valid reason to oppose ownership (outside of criminal or mental faults).

Why are you so active in this thread?
Either you do or don't understand the idea of a right to bear arms. If you do then just say what your position is, if you don't then just admit to not understanding the concept. It's not hard.
With as much as you post in this thread claiming ignorance is almost impossible, so why pretend you are intrigued instead of just sticking to your guns (figuratively).

Your post is a perfect example of what I believe to be the product of the persecution complex in the area of gun rights. That in itself is fascinating enough to keep me posting here. I'm intrigued as to how people that are clearly very intelligent and informed can defend a position so poorly that they will willingly reject an approaching neutral based on some "for us or against us" bravado-coated creed. It puts the primal (read neanderthal), in primal rights.

Insulting? Well, you pretty much called me a liar, so I doubt my guilt will keep me awake tonight.

In potentially adopting a libertarian outlook, I find myself predominantly considering the factors of "what works" and "what's fair". It appears very much fair that a person should be able to own anything they want and do anything they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else. But considering it's a concept that may never be properly tested in reality, declaring that it works is a different proposal for me. Maybe it shouldn't be, and maybe that will register at some point, but I'm taking the slowly but surely approach.

So, I'm for real, but take the suspicious view if you choose. As already stated, it's very entertaining.

 

[Exorcet]

In potentially adopting a libertarian outlook, I find myself predominantly considering the factors of "what works" and "what's fair". It appears very much fair that a person should be able to own anything they want and do anything they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else. But considering it's a concept that may never be properly tested in reality, declaring that it works is a different proposal for me. Maybe it shouldn't be, and maybe that will register at some point, but I'm taking the slowly but surely approach.

That's probably a good way to describe the difference between how I approach this, and how you do.

I don't really consider how it will work. I stop at what's fair. When you go to what works it's easy to fall into the trap of not adhering to what's fair. Let's say locking away all the guns did stop gun crime, it still came at the cost taking guns away from people who have every right to own them. That alone invalidates the whole idea no matter the impact on crime.

 

[FoolKiller]

It happens to you with multiple others. Maybe it isn't the others. Perhaps it's your posting style. I am intrigued by this notion of being entertained by an us vs them mentality but claiming that it is all purely accidental due to misunderstanding.

You wanted to turn a point upside down. I pointed out that it is moot because it is the same in any scenario. Bad guy is going to die and knows it. Wants it.

Now, explain from there, because I apparently confused good guys and bad guys in this scenario.

 

[LeMansAid]

It happens to you with multiple others. Maybe it isn't the others. Perhaps it's your posting style. I am intrigued by this notion of being entertained by an us vs them mentality but claiming that it is all purely accidental due to misunderstanding.

My posting style may well be the stumbling block, which doesn't necessarily mean that I'm at fault.

Maybe you can re-phrase the second point and include a question, if you'd like a focussed response to it. Your use of the word purely is a bit of stretch already though, and "us vs them" is not equal to "for us or against us".

You wanted to turn a point upside down. I pointed out that it is moot because it is the same in any scenario. Bad guy is going to die and knows it. Wants it.

I don't really consider how it will work. I stop at what's fair.

Good Guy B dies because Good Guy A decided to shoot Bad Guy that happened to have explosives strapped to him. But for Good Guy A excercising his right to protect life Good Guy B would still have a chance at life. I can't help wondering if Good Guy A needs to be protected from himself. Trouble being, that Good Guy A would represent more, rather than less, of the civilian population, in regards to comprehending and evaluating the situation.

Is it enough of a concern in our current world? Probably not. But with vast human potentials, it's the kind of thing that makes me consider if absolute freedom "works" or is merely "fair", and whether or not it works universally and timelessly.

 

[FoolKiller]

Good Guy B dies because Good Guy A decided to shoot Bad Guy that happened to have explosives strapped to him. But for Good Guy A excercising his right to protect life Good Guy B would still have a chance at life. I can't help wondering if Good Guy A needs to be protected from himself. Trouble being, that Good Guy A would represent more, rather than less, of the civilian population, in regards to comprehending and evaluating the situation.

Is it enough of a concern in our current world? Probably not. But with vast human potentials, it's the kind of thing that makes me consider if absolute freedom "works" or is merely "fair", and whether or not it works universally and timelessly.

Is Bad Guy trying to kill Good Guy B anyway? Is that his intent? Does Good Guy A know he has bombs and doesn't care or does he react in self defense to some other non-bomb threat that Bad Guy has presented?

Ultimately, Bad Guy is clearly meaning to kill. Or he is just insane suicidal guy. Good Guy B would supposedly die as an unintended consequence if Bad Guy weren't trying to kill him, but since explosives are being used here, wouldn't he anyway?

Were other lives saved?


Your scenario is confusing and leaves large amounts of questions as to who dies and why vs. the alternative. What I do know is that if Good Guy A were a cop it would end the same way, thus making the point moot in comparison to a civilian with a gun.

 

[Exorcet]

Good Guy B dies because Good Guy A decided to shoot Bad Guy that happened to have explosives strapped to him. But for Good Guy A excercising his right to protect life Good Guy B would still have a chance at life. I can't help wondering if Good Guy A needs to be protected from himself. Trouble being, that Good Guy A would represent more, rather than less, of the civilian population, in regards to comprehending and evaluating the situation.

What if Good Guy A killed everyone because he tried to leave when Bad Guy's back was turned, tripping explosives at the exit?

I get it, there are some risks with guns floating around in public, but there is risk everywhere. You can't reduce it to zero, and you can't pick an amount of risk to serve as the divider between acceptable and not.

Also note that along with the risk can come benefit. How many of these bomb wearing hostage holders are going to have the explosives set off by gun fire? What if Bad Guy just dies and everyone goes home?

Is it enough of a concern in our current world? Probably not. But with vast human potentials, it's the kind of thing that makes me consider if absolute freedom "works" or is merely "fair", and whether or not it works universally and timelessly.

If it's fair it works. I think it should be left at that. Going for more than that means pushing one will above another. Risk will exist, but it will exist regardless.

 

[LeMansAid]

How many of these bomb wearing hostage holders are going to have the explosives set off by gun fire?

I think it could be a grand statement, and very symbolic. A terrorist act that involved "infidels" being at least the catalyst for the death of other "infidels" rings true as something that would be quite desirable to some in our world today. I could see it catching on, and being the "in thing" for martyrs.

What I do know is that if Good Guy A were a cop it would end the same way, thus making the point moot in comparison to a civilian with a gun.

I think you've found it. The moot-maker.

If we can't expect the average cop to act with significantly greater judgement than the average civilian, then you have indeed mooted the point. I think that we can expect much greater judgement from some, slightly greater judgement from most, but nothing that would separate the police populace from the civilian.

Note - not being sarcastic.

 

[Exorcet]

I think it could be a grand statement, and very symbolic. A terrorist act that involved "infidels" being at least the catalyst for the death of other "infidels" rings true as something that would be quite desirable to some in our world today. I could see it catching on, and being the "in thing" for martyrs.

Possible, though it's similar to the idea that a gun free zone becomes a choice target for an armed attacker.

 

[FoolKiller]

I wonder, has this scenario (bomb wearing madman failing to kill target, but killing another due to the target defending themselves) ever actually happened outside of Hollywood? I'm trying to figure out if a gun would set off any kind of homemade bomb. Without the bullet sparking on impact it just isn't happening, and most things that light that easy won't just explode anyway. Their potential energy isn't compressed enough.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

To resist an oppressive government.

And how many of those have you had? And do you genuinely believe that you are likely to experience one any time soon?

 

[Bram Turismo]

To resist an oppressive government.

This sounds like an excuse to have a weapon, rather than it is an explanation.

 

[a6m5]

And how many of those have you had? And do you genuinely believe that you are likely to experience one any time soon?

I'm no scholar, but I thought it was written in the Constitution to deter one in the first place? Besides, when writing a bill like this, does it matter how soon it may, or may not happen?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This sounds like an excuse to have a weapon, rather than it is an explanation.

And how do you know when a government is oppressive? And how can you know when to take up arms against it?

Take our government, for example. In the 2014 budget, they put forward some pretty serious austerity measures. The elderly, the sick, the unemployed and the youth were all hit hardest by it. Meanwhile, the government has refused to pursue corporate tax evaders or regulate the financial planning industry, even after a massive scandal in which the big banks misused - and lost - millions of dollars in peoples' life savings. One could easily argue that this is oppression; they protect the interests of the wealthy, at the expense of the vulnerable and infirm. Conversely, you could just as easily argue that the austerity measures are as necessary as they are crucial. So where is the line between a government pursuing unpopular policies and a genuinely oppressive government?

Similarly, what do you do if you ignore one oppressive government, but take action against another? Look at the embargo on Cuba - it has crippled Cuba's economic development for fifty years, without achieving its primary objective of ending communism. And let's not forget that while Castro and Guevara brought about a revolution, they drove Batista out of power - and Batista was corrupt, drove Cuba towards economic recession and got into power by leading his own coup against a democratically-elected government. The only real difference was that the Castros didn't want the Americans influencing them. Again, it's a matter of perspective, but you can argue that subsequent governments have oppressed Cuba (let's not forget the current sanctions against Russia target individuals, not the entire people), and yet no-one has raised arms against them.

 

[FoolKiller]

And how many of those have you had?

You mean since we founded our country by kicking one out?

And do you genuinely believe that you are likely to experience one any time soon?

The Constitution was written to protect us from our own government doing what the previous had done. As history has shown, one charismatic leader is all it takes to turn free people into the politically oppressed and witnesses to great atrocities.

Would you think it would only make sense after a government had turned oppressive? Little late then, don't you think?

This sounds like an excuse to have a weapon, rather than it is an explanation.

Except that was the reasoning when it was put into our Constitution. Read it.

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.

You'll also note it doesn't have an exception clause for certain weapons.

And how do you know when a government is oppressive? And how can you know when to take up arms against it?

That is the question, isn't it? It doesn't take much for people to be afraid or in need of something and become willing to give that freedom up willing in the name of security. By the time they realize it has gone bad they aren't allowed to speak up anymore.

But if I were to judge by our own history, I would say that it is when they start locking up the media commentators or trying to take away all weapons. Basically, when disagreeing becomes a legal crime. Honestly, if Diane Feinstein were to be in charge and force through her ideas of things, like regulating who is allowed free speech protection to make commentary on a blog, I would say that time has come.

 

[Omnis]

I would gladly trade our government today for King George's crown. 3% tax? That caused a revolution back then. Americans today are soft.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would gladly trade our government today for King George's crown. 3% tax? That caused a revolution back then. Americans today are soft.

It was far more than the taxes, and it wasn't a cut and dry tax. The taxes were only on the colonies, and some were designed to try to break those who would speak up. The taxes were the spark of protests, but how England reacted to that sparked the war (which is why I worry about the police issues today). It took blood to get all the colonies on board. Even then, it still took persuading.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It doesn't take much for people to be afraid or in need of something and become willing to give that freedom up willing in the name of security. By the time they realize it has gone bad they aren't allowed to speak up anymore.

But it's totally okay if the government oppresses somebody else in order to protect their own interests, right?

 

[FoolKiller]

But it's totally okay if the government oppresses somebody else in order to protect their own interests, right?

If you think I would say yes, you must think you are talking to someone else.

And is that a tangential anti-American rant I hear? Seriously, at a minimum accuse me of supporting something that happened in my lifetime. My parents were in preschool when those happened. It kind of shows your desire to make commentary on US foreign policy rather than guns at this point.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Quite the contrary. I just find it a contradiction when people say that the right to bear arms is necessary to fight off an oppressive government, but then do nothing when the government goes ahead and oppresses somebody. If the need for the Second Amendment is as fundamental as those arguing for it claim it is, then by the same logic, all tyrants are equal in their tyranny (or at the very least, reach a point where they are oppressive and the extent to which they oppress is academic as there is a minimum threshold of oppression).

Or is it acceptable to ignore the oppression of one person when that oppression benefits you? In that case, we're back where we started, with oppression being a subjective construct - one could argue that Obamacare is oppressive just as easily as they could argue that it is not.

Ultimately, I find the argument that the right to bear arms is needed to fight an oppressive government is empty and predicated on the knowledge that it will never be realised, but with the advantage of putting you in the moral right. It's just offering the argument as proof of itself.

 

[BobK]

And how many of those have you had?

@FoolKiller has already answered this one more than adequately.

And do you genuinely believe that you are likely to experience one any time soon?

I don't know about "soon" but I believe it's coming and that we're already partway there. Furthermore I am a parent. Even if I didn't see a problem coming in my own lifetime I'd still wish to ensure my children had the means necessary. @FoolKiller has also commented on this question as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

@FoolKiller has already answered this one more than adequately.

No, he hasn't. He hasn't managed to address the underlying issue - that the point where a government becomes "oppressive" is a wholly subjective point, since governments don't come out and announce "hey, we're oppressive now".

I don't know about "soon" but I believe it's coming and that we're already partway there.

Again, that's purely subjective. And how many times throughout history - especially modern history - has an armed uprising by the population brought about long-term sustainable change? Look at Egypt; the people overthrew Honsi Mubarak after thirty years of oppression, then did the same thing to Morsi a year later.

What makes you think a) that you can convince 300 million people that a government is unequivocally oppressive, b) that there is a legal precedent for an uprising, c) that any change in government through uprising will bring about long-term sustainability and stability, and d) that it's not going to happen again any time soon?

 

[BobK]

No, he hasn't. He hasn't managed to address the underlying issue - that the point where a government becomes "oppressive" is a wholly subjective point, since governments don't come out and announce "hey, we're oppressive now".

Then I respectfully suggest you reread @FoolKiller's post(s); he did mention the time we did in fact toss out an oppressive government.

Again, that's purely subjective. And how many times throughout history - especially modern history - has an armed uprising by the population brought about long-term sustainable change? Look at Egypt; the people overthrew Honsi Mubarak after thirty years of oppression, then did the same thing to Morsi a year later.

Irrelevant.

What makes you think a) that you can convince 300 million people that a government is unequivocally oppressive, b) that there is a legal precedent for an uprising, c) that any change in government through uprising will bring about long-term sustainability and stability, and d) that it's not going to happen again any time soon?

a) Irrelevant.
b) It's implicit in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
c) We've done it before.
d) Timing doesn't matter; preparedness does.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then I respectfully suggest you reread @FoolKiller's post(s); he did mention the time we did in fact toss out an oppressive government.

But you also ignored oppressive governments. Or have you forgotten McCarthyism? There have been plenty of examples of your government oppressing someone, be it their own people, as was the case with McCarthyism; or someone else, such as the Guatemala coup. At no point did anyone from the civilian population take up arms to fight an oppressive government. So how can you reasonably claim that the right to bear arms is necessary to fight off an oppressive government when people don't bear those arms for their intended purpose?

It's kind of hard to sell the validity of driving out an oppressive government based on your actions two hundred years ago when you ignore a far more recent act of oppression. Even moreso when you write off recent historical examples - like Egypt - as "irrelevant", even though they stand out as case studies of precisely the kind of challenges that any uprising will face.

a) Irrelevant.

How so? Surely you would need everyone to recognise that the government is oppressive. If you have a smaller segment of the population who think that and take up arms, then you get into a nasty situation.

b) It's implicit in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Again, it comes down to recognising when a government is oppressive. Because if someone acts against what they see as oppression, then they would need it to be recognised as legal action. If not, then they're just someone with a gun and voter dissatisfaction.

d) Timing doesn't matter; preparedness does.

You completely missed my point. If the people oust an oppressive government, then how do they convince everyone that the new government will be better than the old? How do you bring about long-term stability and prevent revolution from simply becoming a way to remove a government before term? That's exactly what happened in Egypt - everyone agreed that there was a need to remove Mubarak from power, but once it happened, the country became so divided over the best way forward that there was another revolution. How do you prevent that from happening?

 

[nobuffalo]

@prisonermonkeys

If rights are objective then I don't see why an oppressive government can't be. If rights are subjective then that's a different matter.

Edit: Unless you were talking about when to take action against an oppressive government being subjective itself, even then I'm not sure I'd call it subjective.

It seems you're saying I shouldn't be afforded certain rights because of the actions/non-actions of individuals before me. Because those rights were either not used when they should have been or used when they shouldn't.

 

[Exorcet]

But you also ignored oppressive governments. Or have you forgotten McCarthyism? There have been plenty of examples of your government oppressing someone, be it their own people, as was the case with McCarthyism; or someone else, such as the Guatemala coup. At no point did anyone from the civilian population take up arms to fight an oppressive government. So how can you reasonably claim that the right to bear arms is necessary to fight off an oppressive government when people don't bear those arms for their intended purpose?

That freedom to be armed is a valid method of keeping the government in check doesn't mean that it's the only solution to a problem. McCarthyism went away without any shots fired and that doesn't take anything away from the second amendment. That it wasn't needed in this case doesn't mean it would never be needed.

Again, it comes down to recognising when a government is oppressive. Because if someone acts against what they see as oppression, then they would need it to be recognised as legal action. If not, then they're just someone with a gun and voter dissatisfaction.

Oppression occurs when rights are taken away. When that line is crossed that doesn't imply that the immediate response is to go shooting up the nearest government office. You're right in that it's a big decision to be made by a group willing to use armed force against the government. Ultimately it's an individual decision, and while a minority group might be less successful their size has absolutely nothing to do with whether they're right or wrong. For that matter legality may not have much weight at all. An oppressive government would tend to make it illegal to overthrow them.

You completely missed my point. If the people oust an oppressive government, then how do they convince everyone that the new government will be better than the old? How do you bring about long-term stability and prevent revolution from simply becoming a way to remove a government before term? That's exactly what happened in Egypt - everyone agreed that there was a need to remove Mubarak from power, but once it happened, the country became so divided over the best way forward that there was another revolution. How do you prevent that from happening?

These are good questions to ask when staging a revolution, but why would these issues invalidate the second amendment?

 

[FoolKiller]

But you also ignored oppressive governments. Or have you forgotten McCarthyism?

FFS, are you serious? If you knew your history you wouldn't bring this up as an example. McCarthyism was destroyed with the 1st Amendment. I believe I made it clear that when disagreeing and fighting politically was outlawed then it was worthy of fighting.

There have been plenty of examples of your government oppressing someone, be it their own people, as was the case with McCarthyism; or someone else, such as the Guatemala coup. At no point did anyone from the civilian population take up arms to fight an oppressive government. So how can you reasonably claim that the right to bear arms is necessary to fight off an oppressive government when people don't bear those arms for their intended purpose?

1) If you are going to try to make use seem hypocritical use something we were alive to witness as adults, and supported.

2) Before trying to argue the point try reading what I actually said. No one who disagreed and politically fought the things you mentioned were immediately locked away or killed. Learn about Murrow vs. McCarthy and then tell me know one fought the oppressive government. If you can win the hearts and minds of the people a shot never needs to be fired.

It's kind of hard to sell the validity of driving out an oppressive government based on your actions two hundred years ago when you ignore a far more recent act of oppression.

We didn't ignore it. We weren't even sperm yet.

Even moreso when you write off recent historical examples - like Egypt - as "irrelevant", even though they stand out as case studies of precisely the kind of challenges that any uprising will face.

Because Egypt and the US aren't the exact same culture. Using Egypt as an example for how an uprising in the US would look is as nonsensical as us thinking that countries we "help liberate" will want a Democracy modeled after our own.

These are good questions to ask when staging a revolution, but why would these issues invalidate the second amendment?

Because he wants to make it sound like gun rights advocates in the US are just gun nutters looking for any excuse to get their hands on things he considers stupid, and being hypocritical in their reasoning.

See, he thinks that until you answer all these questions you should never even think it reasonable to own a gun. And if you didn't birth yourself, before your parents were even old enough to fight, and start a revolution you are being hypocritical.