Guns

[Vagabond]

Telling a man he is intellectually juvenile and naive regarding the nature or rights, the law and freedom is the truth - it is not an insult.

The truth can be insulting - its a matter of presentation and you are well aware of that or you would not have presented your post in such a superior tone. Its interesting to note that while preaching the nature of personal freedom, you are ramming your opinion of it down someone's throat while belittling their opinion and awareness.

Freedom is an illusion in modern society. You really do have only the freedoms granted to you by authority via system of rules. This authority originates from violence and the ability to remove or diminish personal freedom either by incarceration or physical harm. True freedom would only exist in chaos which is the opposite of the structured way in which we organise ourselves. We have, in our modern world, devised the concept of human rights but its still a legal right granted by courts that can, through due process, stand up for the rights of individuals that have been mis-treated by governments and/or their appointed authorities.

In may ways, it is guns that have shaped our idea of freedom by giving easy access to the ability to harm someone or end their life quickly and relatively without effort. Simply owning a gun doesn't make you truly free, however; the powers that be have more and bigger guns and innumerable people that will fire them at the given word.

Oh and this may be an OT forum but its still part of GTPlanet and therefore subject to its rules. 👍

 

[Beeker1972]

Gun control is about human rights it is the right of self protection, or self preservation of ones self. Do we have that right as a human being? My opinion we do. If someone thinks that collective man gives individual man rights that view is flawed in my opinion, because then collective man can take away those rights from individual man. If someone thinks like I do, as humans we are born, given by a deity such as God when we come into this plain of existence human rights, and one of them being the right of self protection, or self preservation. In my view we have not steered away from the core subject of this thread which is Guns, but masked as a Gun Control thread by some gun hater. I see it like it is, and any way if GT Planet is privately owned like I think it is, freedom of speech doesn't apply here, because it's falls under private property, but that is another subject on another thread.

 

[LeMansAid]

@RC45, feel free to PM me with whatever you felt it necessary to put across (ie. words removed by mod). But I warn, while I'm quite capable of self-interrogation, I'm not so sure that you are capable of inspiring it.


I think saying that owning a gun is an inalienable right is a statement under false pretenses. Surely the right is to protect oneself, with the method subject to legalities.

 

[Azuremen]

Freedom is an illusion in modern society. You really do have only the freedoms granted to you by authority via system of rules. This authority originates from violence and the ability to remove or diminish personal freedom either by incarceration or physical harm. True freedom would only exist in chaos which is the opposite of the structured way in which we organise ourselves. We have, in our modern world, devised the concept of human rights but its still a legal right granted by courts that can, through due process, stand up for the rights of individuals that have been mis-treated by governments and/or their appointed authorities.

Some of us, however, have different expectations as to what "freedom" is appropriate. A general trend I've noticed across the ponds is a greater amount of complacency in what your governments control, their intrusion into your lives, and, in my opinion, an attitude that the government needs to hold everyone's hands as their citizens are incapable of making intelligent decisions.

In may ways, it is guns that have shaped our idea of freedom by giving easy access to the ability to harm someone or end their life quickly and relatively without effort. Simply owning a gun doesn't make you truly free, however; the powers that be have more and bigger guns and innumerable people that will fire them at the given word.

So are you arguing we should not bother at all, because the government has "more" power in this regard?

Are we to just assume the government is capable of being in all places, at all times, when we need protection from those that would infringe on our freedoms? Our right to life?

I am genuinely curious to hear you expand on this..

 

[Beeker1972]

Dude this thread over 10 years old ...

 

[LeMansAid]

Dude this thread over 10 years old ...

I could make yet another joke here, that you may or may not get.

Some of us, however, have different expectations as to what "freedom" is appropriate. A general trend I've noticed across the ponds is a greater amount of complacency in what your governments control, their intrusion into your lives, and, in my opinion, an attitude that the government needs to hold everyone's hands as their citizens are incapable of making intelligent decisions.

So the power that we have (or should have) against the government is in a gun? Good luck with that.

Democratic governments and it's citizens are usually in somewhat of a cold war situation. Our governments are watching us, and we (or some of us) are watching them. Until one or the other makes a sudden move, it all stays pretty much the same.

It's interesting that in the Proceeds Of Crime thread you just posted:

Because, you know, prohibition has worked so effectively in countries

This would be suggesting that forced control doesn't work right? If arming yourselves against the government was actually an effective measure, wouldn't it basically be equal to the use of prohibition, and what logically follows? ie. Increased force on one side means increased covertness on the other. The more effective you are, the more ineffective your effectiveness becomes.

 

[Beeker1972]

I just noticed this thread was over 90 pages so I went back to page 1 ...

I could make yet another joke here, that you may or may not get.

I like this guy's way of thinking oh wait that's me! I love talking to myself !!!

hmm I'm not going to say anything ... my opinions usually gets me kick out for months at a time. Gun control is an idea that is pure evil in nature. Just have to look human history to see how much death it has caused.

 

[Azuremen]

So the power that we have (or should have) against the government is in a gun? Good luck with that.

Because one man stopping another has never been effective, right? Just because an issue may boil down to a citizen versus the government, it does not mean all of the government acts as a whole against every person. Nor does it mean a person can not act to defend themselves against rogue agents or criminals.

The ideal power to have against a government is that of dismantling it when it fails. Seeing how this isn't a realistic option, the power to resist force with force certainly beats being entirely hapless when push comes to shove.

Democratic governments and it's citizens are usually in somewhat of a cold war situation. Our governments are watching us, and we (or some of us) are watching them. Until one or the other makes a sudden move, it all stays pretty much the same.

You seem to be ignoring the slow and steady power creep found in most governments.

It's interesting that in the Proceeds Of Crime thread you just posted:

This would be suggesting that forced control doesn't work right? If arming yourselves against the government was actually an effective measure, wouldn't it basically be equal to the use of prohibition, and what logically follows? ie. Increased force on one side means increased covertness on the other. The more effective you are, the more ineffective your effectiveness becomes.

I honestly fail to see the logic in this statement, and it almost feels like an apples to oranges comparison, but only the oranges are plastic display pieces and the apples and dried fruit.

Dude this thread over 10 years old ...

Congrats on being able to read and contributing nothing to the thread?

 

[Imari]

Gun control is about human rights it is the right of self protection, or self preservation of ones self. Do we have that right as a human being? My opinion we do. If someone thinks that collective man gives individual man rights that view is flawed in my opinion, because then collective man can take away those rights from individual man. If someone thinks like I do, as humans we are born, given by a deity such as God when we come into this plain of existence human rights, and one of them being the right of self protection, or self preservation. In my view we have not steered away from the core subject of this thread which is Guns, but masked as a Gun Control thread by some gun hater. I see it like it is, and any way if GT Planet is privately owned like I think it is, freedom of speech doesn't apply here, because it's falls under private property, but that is another subject on another thread.

You always have the right to at least attempt to defend yourself in any situation. It's not like anyone can stop you from trying.

I don't see how it's a given that you would be allowed free access to any weapon of your choice though. You'd like to be allowed the best weapon possible to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it.

 

[Beeker1972]

I don't see how it's a given that you would be allowed free access to any weapon of your choice though. You'd like to be allowed the best weapon possible to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it.

No you wouldn't have free access to the best home defense weapon you would have to purchase it in order use for home defense. I would go to your local law enforcement department find out what they use, and buy the civilian version of sidearm, because if it's good enough for them it good enough for you. Unless you live in Switzerland, or Israel, and being part of the civilian militia.

Congrats on being able to read and contributing nothing to the thread?

Hey be nice can't we all just get along, respect each others opinions, and viewpoints ... wait what the heck am I saying go jump off a cliff you heretic!

 

[BobK]

Some of us, however, have different expectations as to what "freedom" is appropriate. A general trend I've noticed across the ponds is a greater amount of complacency in what your governments control, their intrusion into your lives, and, in my opinion, an attitude that the government needs to hold everyone's hands as their citizens are incapable of making intelligent decisions.

Unfortunately this trend is continuing on both sides of the pond, I'm afraid, not just one side.

 

[Swagger897]

SWAT doesn't use AK variants unless they want plausible deniable-ability ... I know U.S. special forces uses them, but not U.S. law enforcement.

The SWAT that I know, can use WHATEVER THEY WANT. The have multiple Saigas, RPD's, and other Chinese and old Soviet guns they use, because the 7.62Xxxx is a cheap round including surplus..

It's funny how someone like you, can comment on first hand experiences that never happen

 

[Zenith]

You always have the right to at least attempt to defend yourself in any situation. It's not like anyone can stop you from trying.

I don't see how it's a given that you would be allowed free access to any weapon of your choice though. You'd like to be allowed the best weapon possible to defend yourself, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it.

Absolutely correct. You most certainly destroyed the argument that everyone is entitled to any weapon they desire.

Now where did anybody actually make that argument?

 

[Vagabond]

am genuinely curious to hear you expanded on this..

I will get round to answering this, just haven't had time yet.

 

[Azuremen]

I will get round to answering this, just haven't had time yet.

I can relate to that. And ack, you caught my typo

 

[Imari]

Absolutely correct. You most certainly destroyed the argument that everyone is entitled to any weapon they desire.

Now where did anybody actually make that argument?

I'm on a phone so I'm not going to find and quote them, but there are people in the thread who have argued explicitly for access to any weapon. And it's a logical step when Beeker uses his "God-given right to self-preservation" to defend open gun laws that he probably believes that one also has a right to whatever tools are necessary for that self-preservation.

I was more pointing out that having a God-given right to self-preservation entitles you to three fifths of bugger all in terms of weapons, so that particular right has no bearing at all

No you wouldn't have free access to the best home defense weapon you would have to purchase it in order use for home defense. I would go to your local law enforcement department find out what they use, and buy the civilian version of sidearm, because if it's good enough for them it good enough for you. Unless you live in Switzerland, or Israel, and being part of the civilian militia.

You misread. "Free" as in speech, not "free" as in beer. Ironic that you would choose the wrong meaning, considering that the vast majority of the thread, and even your own post which I quoted originally, was and is broadly about freedoms.

 

[Zenith]

I'm on a phone so I'm not going to find and quote them, but there are people in the thread who have argued explicitly for access to any weapon. And it's a logical step when Beeker uses his "God-given right to self-preservation" to defend open gun laws that he probably believes that one also has a right to whatever tools are necessary for that self-preservation.

I was more pointing out that having a God-given right to self-preservation entitles you to three fifths of bugger all in terms of weapons, so that particular right has no bearing at all

Access and free access are different things and I don't see anyone here demanding the government give them free guns. I could be wrong though.

The second part that people demand rights to buying any potentially deadly they wish is another issue which has been discussed by the likes of Danoff and FoolKiller if I recall correctly. The crux of the issue is understanding that having the ability to harm people is not a crime in itself, harming them is.

 

[Imari]

Access and free access are different things and I don't see anyone here demanding the government give them free guns. I could be wrong though.

Did you even bother reading the rest of the post you quoted? I already addressed Beeker's misreading of free, and apparently you've made EXACTLY the same mistake.

 

[Beeker1972]

Someone has their panties in a wad over Free and free. I do remember some of us going to the extreme on the subject of self defense/self preservation/self-protection rights. Owning a Daisy-cutter, or a MOAB would be cool, but then you have to buy a C-130, an airfield with a hanger, large amounts of land, and learn how to fly. That right there is lots of money, and time that I don't have. The C-130 would have to be a AC-130 Gunship those are just so cool ...

As for owning nukes same issues with owning the above, but after using it there's glass, radiation, and the property values goes down to toilet, unless we're talking about tactical nukes then theatrically carbon based lifeforms can occupy with in 48 hours after target drop.

Did you even bother reading the rest of the post you quoted? I already addressed Beeker's misreading of free, and apparently you've made EXACTLY the same mistake.

No we don't we just like driving you crazy with mindless drivel for entertainment reasons ...

 

[Azuremen]

Did you even bother reading the rest of the post you quoted? I already addressed Beeker's misreading of free, and apparently you've made EXACTLY the same mistake.

He actually addressed the issue you brought up, based on I (and he) apparently understood your concern.

 

[LeMansAid]

Because one man stopping another has never been effective, right? Just because an issue may boil down to a citizen versus the government, it does not mean all of the government acts as a whole against every person. Nor does it mean a person can not act to defend themselves against rogue agents or criminals.

The ideal power to have against a government is that of dismantling it when it fails. Seeing how this isn't a realistic option, the power to resist force with force certainly beats being entirely hapless when push comes to shove.

One man versus another.... that hardly equates to much to do with "the government", as is the catch cry. Until such actions become widespread, the government will be unmoved. When it becomes widespread and significant enough for them, they will move, and chances are that the move will not be in the interests of the general population.

People can't have it both ways, making grand statements about the enabling of government resistance, with only minor anomalies as examples of how and why guns are pivotal, and when it doesn't even really count as government. Individual vs individual is not population vs government, or even individual vs government. Laws are still boss, and will in essence determine if a government employee acted for the government or not. If not, it's not resistance to government, it's self-defense. See how fast a "rogue" employee is left on his own when an incident comes to light.

It's as if you think that the government is not a moving target. Despite your not understanding it, I stand by my analogy with prohibition. The opposite side IS a moving target, and will do what it has to to self-sustain.

Now, a conversation about self-defense? Sure, but this government resistance stuff is all principle and no reality.

 

[Zenith]

Now, a conversation about self-defense? Sure, but this government resistance stuff is all principal and no reality.

I hear this a lot in this thread.

The US government with all of its tanks, stealth fighters, and drones has failed to stamp out a resistance of untrained goat farmers with rusted soviet weaponry for over a decade now. It has continued to fail as support for the war has been steadily waning.

How do you think the same fighting force will fair against a resistance of Americans who have had access to much higher grade equipment and training? Do you expect the US government to have better support than it has for the wars in the middle east?

Despite what the "armed resistance is futile crowd" would like to believe, warfare is no longer about who brought more tanks and firepower to the field. Your view of warfare is about a century behind.

 

[MadFlavour]

Gun's don't kill people, it's the person standing behind the trigger.

 

[Badasp5.0]

I hear this a lot in this thread.

The US government with all of its tanks, stealth fighters, and drones has failed to stamp out a resistance of untrained goat farmers with rusted soviet weaponry for over a decade now. It has continued to fail as support for the war has been steadily waning.

How do you think the same fighting force will fair against a resistance of Americans who have had access to much higher grade equipment and training? Do you expect the US government to have better support than it has for the wars in the middle east?

Despite what the "armed resistance is futile crowd" would like to believe, warfare is no longer about who brought more tanks and firepower to the field. Your view of warfare is about a century behind.

Yep counting rifles and equipment is not anyway to determine if counter-insurgency operations would be successful. Or even regular warfare numbers mean very little. Heck the French had more tanks than the Germans in WWII but that did them no good. But I bet the folks talking about high tech weapons have little to no real life COIN experience. People act like the US military is a monolithic block. It is made of up a cross section of Americans which I bet a good number would not support nor partake in operations vs there countryman.

 

[LeMansAid]

I hear this a lot in this thread.

The US government with all of its tanks, stealth fighters, and drones has failed to stamp out a resistance of untrained goat farmers with rusted soviet weaponry for over a decade now. It has continued to fail as support for the war has been steadily waning.

How do you think the same fighting force will fair against a resistance of Americans who have had access to much higher grade equipment and training? Do you expect the US government to have better support than it has for the wars in the middle east?

Despite what the "armed resistance is futile crowd" would like to believe, warfare is no longer about who brought more tanks and firepower to the field. Your view of warfare is about a century behind.

The difference between hearing and listening (or more accurately, reading and comprehending), I see a lot of that in this thread. As is common place, point missed completely.

Increased force on one side means increased covertness on the other. The more effective you are, the more ineffective your effectiveness becomes.

If you think it's a simple matter of force vs force, you would be the one with the archaic view of things.

Gun's don't kill people, it's the person standing behind the trigger.

But hey, at least someone's contributing something fresh and new to the discussion.

Edit due to rather odd "like":

 

[Zenith]

The difference between hearing and listening (or more accurately, reading and comprehending), I see a lot of that in this thread. As is common place, point missed completely.

If you think it's a simple matter of force vs force, you would be the one with the archaic view of things.

Nice job dodging those questions! 👍

You have done nothing to qualify your claim that government resistance with guns is "all principle and no reality."

 

[LeMansAid]

You're full of canned responses. Practice makes perfect I suppose.

I pointed you to where the question was answered in a post prior to you asking the question. I believe that on a large scale, armoury will not be effective for either side. Now, you can explain how government resources (no, not weapons) wont allow it to stay at least one step ahead of the game, or give another canned response. I'm not betting man, but....

I'm much more likely to pay attention to someone having an opinion based on the practical: "If someone breaks in to my house, how will I protect myself and my family?", that extends to principal, and not the other way around. And in truth, I'd much rather discuss these topics with the people that disagree with me, but have more interesting and thought provoking slants to present than simple well-rehearsed shut down tactics.

 

[Keef]

I think saying that owning a gun is an inalienable right is a statement under false pretenses. Surely the right is to protect oneself, with the method subject to legalities.

I'm being picky by choosing this statement to argue against. What I was going to argue was what Zenith suggested you said when he posted:

Nice job dodging those questions! 👍

You have done nothing to qualify your claim that government resistance with guns is "all principle and no reality."

But since he didn't bother linking to where you said that, or actually quoting it, and I can't find the phrase "all principle and no reality" within the last five pages of this thread, I said screw it.

So anyways, the right. Owning a fun is not an inalienable right. Defending your life is, by virtue of the inalienable right to life, implying you have a right to live your life, which logically must concede a right to defend it. The way I see it, any law limiting the method by which you can defend your life is fundamentally limiting your ability to defend your life. That's a problem.

I see the rights of life, liberty and property as very basic, something a 3 year old who just learned to speak could understand. You keep your life, you keep your freedom, you keep your stuff. Any law limiting the methods by which you keep your life, freedom or stuff is limiting your ability to do so and therefore is infringing upon your rights.

Obviously this explanation assumes you've not infringed the rights of anybody else.

 

[Zenith]

I'm being picky by choosing this statement to argue against. What I was going to argue was what Zenith suggested you said when he posted:


But since he didn't bother linking to where you said that, or actually quoting it, and I can't find the phrase "all principle and no reality" within the last five pages of this thread, I said screw it.

I quoted this four posts above my post which you quoted. If you used control F you would have missed it because he used "principal" instead of "principle."

You're full of canned responses. Practice makes perfect I suppose.

Cool story, bro.

I pointed you to where the question was answered in a post prior to you asking the question. I believe that on a large scale, armoury will not be effective for either side. Now, you can explain how government resources (no, not weapons) wont allow it to stay at least one step ahead of the game, or give another canned response. I'm not betting man, but....

I argue that the government's resources (including weapons) would not allow it to stay one step ahead because it hasn't. The government has demonstrated that it is one step behind in combating a group of individuals who refuse to follow its rules. It demonstrated this when attempting to exercise its will over individuals in Iraq and Afghanistan, it demonstrated this in Foolkiller's post where a state government threatened people with a federal crime equal to that of child pornography if they did not comply and people still didn't. The government won't stay one step ahead because it hasn't.

If you need me to explain to you how weaponry is effective for making somebody else follow your instructions, then I would like some of whatever you're smoking.

I'm much more likely to pay attention to someone having an opinion based on the practical: "If someone breaks in to my house, how will I protect myself and my family?", that extends to principal, and not the other way around. And in truth, I'd much rather discuss these topics with the people that disagree with me, but have more interesting and thought provoking slants to present than simple well-rehearsed shut down tactics

I'm going to use tactics such as saying "Nice job dodging those questions!" when you do things like dodging questions. You still have not answered them. Call them whatever tactic you want, but your point still goes unqualified.

Is it possible that we can own guns for self defense and defense against a tyrannical or otherwise failed government?

 

[LeMansAid]

Owning a fun is not an inalienable right.

And thus your possibly Freudian slip summarises what I think the real motivation is for many gun owners.
Though damn...

because he used "principal" instead of "principle."

I made a worse boo-boo. I hate that.

But since he didn't bother linking to where you said that, or actually quoting it, and I can't find the phrase "all principle and no reality" within the last five pages of this thread, I said screw it.

It was more to do with government resistance than right to life. Basically that in reality a government would not merely apply force in response to a civilian backlash, but even moreso that the effectiveness of a civilian revolt would only in reality encourage a more devious governmental approach. In my opinion.

Defending your life is, by virtue of the inalienable right to life, implying you have a right to live your life, which logically must concede a right to defend it. The way I see it, any law limiting the method by which you can defend your life is fundamentally limiting your ability to defend your life. That's a problem.

This is where we can start to have a sensible conversation, and I appreciate the absence of the shouting from the roof tops style approach. We agree at the very least that the inalienable right is not directly linked to guns.

The right to defend one's life is a simple equation, but I think that the possible methods involved are complex, and have many reflections and refractions. I'm not a closed book though, and it's entirely possible that in x amount of time I'll have much the same view as you. I do think that a lot of the disconnect comes from being born into environments with completely different start points.

Out of interest though: I have the right to not have you grab my arse, but I don't think that rigging it with a device that will stop your heart if you do should be legal. Do you? I can see it now: "The Zapper doesn't kill people, arses kill people". But I suppose that comes down to a question of reasonable force rather than The Zapper itself. If the only use for The Zapper is for death by groping, should it be legal? And does that change if someone finds a caveat in the form of an alternative use (even if it's a flagrantly far fetched one)?

Huh, sensible conversation indeed.

If you need me to explain to you how weaponry is effective for making somebody else follow your instructions, then I would like some of whatever you're smoking.

Point still missed in favour of spouting generic rants. You'll probably continue to think that you've heard it all before if you only allow for two types of people, and read accordingly.