NationStates

When I get on threads like these, I like to sit back, relax, and watch the drama unfold.

I mine as well share my opinion while I'm on here, though. Both sides have decent arguments for or against the ownership of guns. Allowing ordinary, law-abiding, everyday citizens access to guns would certainly reduce the crime rate simply because, unless one doesn't value his own life, he wouldn't go on a shooting spree knowing that everyone he will be targeting has a weapon similar to his own. However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.

Both sides also have arguments that make absolutely no sense. Some people argue that if we were to outlaw gun ownership, the criminals would still get guns illegally, anyway. While this is true, that's like saying that if we outlaw drugs, people will still use them or if we outlaw alcohol, people will still find a way to get their hands on it. This is why they are criminals. On the other side, those people who claim that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regards only the creation of a militia have clearly not read the exact wording of it. It says quite clearly that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thus, I believe compromise between the two sides, whatever that may be, is the only way forward.

Kernen wrote:

Leningrad Union wrote:Just don't call hunting a sport....ever.

But it is a sport. Perhaps not a competitive sport, but the term "sport" and hunting have been closely tied for hundreds of years.

A sport (originally) is a diversion (from exercising the care of ones daily affairs). In the case of hunting it is a diversion of sorts (sorts = you have a chance.) A sporting chance refers to one's success being based on ones prowess in hunting. A sport is the diversion, and the game is the target of that diversion. Game of venison, game of chance, game of cards, game of football, etc. I hope that helps.

Seveth wrote:When I get on threads like these, I like to sit back, relax, and watch the drama unfold.

I mine as well share my opinion while I'm on here, though. Both sides have decent arguments for or against the ownership of guns. Allowing ordinary, law-abiding, everyday citizens access to guns would certainly reduce the crime rate simply because, unless one doesn't value his own life, he wouldn't go on a shooting spree knowing that everyone he will be targeting has a weapon similar to his own. However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.

Both sides also have arguments that make absolutely no sense. Some people argue that if we were to outlaw gun ownership, the criminals would still get guns illegally, anyway. While this is true, that's like saying that if we outlaw drugs, people will still use them or if we outlaw alcohol, people will still find a way to get their hands on it. This is why they are criminals. On the other side, those people who claim that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regards only the creation of a militia have clearly not read the exact wording of it. It says quite clearly that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thus, I believe compromise between the two sides, whatever that may be, is the only way forward.

Historically, that bit about drugs and alcohol is true. Usually, banning something hasn't prevented people from obtaining said drugs/alcohol/guns.

You just drive it underground.

And the Courts have determined that the 2nd Amendment applied to citizens, not just state militias.

Seveth wrote:Both sides also have arguments that make absolutely no sense. Some people argue that if we were to outlaw gun ownership, the criminals would still get guns illegally, anyway. While this is true, that's like saying that if we outlaw drugs, people will still use them or if we outlaw alcohol, people will still find a way to get their hands on it. This is why they are criminals. On the other side, those people who claim that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regards only the creation of a militia have clearly not read the exact wording of it. It says quite clearly that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

Supreme court supports that as well, Says the constitution is for the individual person and not the state, and has no precedence for the creation of militias other then in times of unrest.

Anywho, For those that read my post I support onsite mental health checks and background checks, all of which can be done quickly and efficiently over the internet in minutes from any place with any amount of access to basic services. Almost all of the other stuff there trying to do is just circling the point that mental health is the issue and not the availability of guns themselves.

However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.

I've always been curious, how would they go about doing this?

Narland wrote:

Kernen wrote:
But it is a sport. Perhaps not a competitive sport, but the term "sport" and hunting have been closely tied for hundreds of years.

A sport was originally defined as a diversion (from exercising the care of ones daily affairs). In the case of hunting it is a diversion of sorts (sorts = you have a chance.) A sporting chance refers to one's success being based on ones prowess in hunting.

Which changes my argument how?

Personal Defense Force wrote:

Seveth wrote:Both sides also have arguments that make absolutely no sense. Some people argue that if we were to outlaw gun ownership, the criminals would still get guns illegally, anyway. While this is true, that's like saying that if we outlaw drugs, people will still use them or if we outlaw alcohol, people will still find a way to get their hands on it. This is why they are criminals. On the other side, those people who claim that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regards only the creation of a militia have clearly not read the exact wording of it. It says quite clearly that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

Supreme court supports that as well, Says the constitution is for the individual person and not the state, and has no precedence for the creation of militias other then in times of unrest.

Anywho, For those that read my post I support onsite mental health checks and background checks, all of which can be done quickly and efficiently over the internet in minutes from any place with any amount of access to basic services. Almost all of the other stuff there trying to do is just circling the point that mental health is the issue and not the availability of guns themselves.

However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.

I've always been curious, how would they go about doing this?

Ban hands.

Personal Defense Force wrote:

However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.

I've always been curious, how would they go about doing this?

What do you mean?

Seveth wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:

I've always been curious, how would they go about doing this?

What do you mean?

I certainly wouldn't give up my firearms, I doubt alot of others will do either, and I wouldn't let those below me on the chain o' command enforce such a thing either being that it goes against the things I'm sworn to protect.

The big problem with banning weapons in the US is you have nearly 3 million members of the United States Armed Forces sworn to protect the constitution of the US over the government of the US, under the orders that if the government infringes on the citizens constitutional rights to the point of oppression that they are to overthrow it and reastablish a new republic that follows the constitution.

It'd be the biggest case of irony when the very thing that they ban comes back to bite them in the ass.

Sorry, I just realized how poor this sounds on me. Theres just no effective way of removing firearms from a country that has had them for hundreds of years, where there are more firearms then people, and only 1/10 of all firearms are reported.

Volnotova wrote:Inb4 "From my cold dead hands"

Aaron Alexis followed that advice with one guard's handgun.

Leningrad Union wrote:It's not a sport when a deer hundreds of feet away is shot by a precision rifle. This is even more ridiculous than calling cheerleading a sport.

Spending three hours tracking that deer through heavily wooded terrain, lining up a nice shot and accounting for distance, wind and other effects before putting a bullet into it most definitely is a sport.
Your opinion doesn't change this fact.

Free Soviets wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:The problem we have here is all the bloody lefties in the big cities are preventing a majority of the state which are righties from exerting any power in the state government because lower population centers have almost no say whatsoever in the government here.

2012 CA assembly general election results:

democratic party
6,835,701 votes - 58.46%

republican party
4,765,952 votes - 40.76%

damn those leftists, oppressing the majority by getting literally two million more votes. how dare they!

Yet they occupy more than two thirds of the legislature. Interesting.

Saiwania wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:Actually living in california over here, and I'm assuming you do as well by your post. The problem we have here is all the bloody lefties in the big cities are preventing a majority of the state which are righties from exerting any power in the state government because lower population centers have almost no say whatsoever in the government here.

California is a lost cause, it is high time to leave the state like I did. It is being flooded with illegal immigrants and their children and it is only going to become more leftist going forward. If you are dissatisfied with the state's politics, high cost of living, and the fact that businesses are leaving, the question isn't whether you should leave- but when.

The reason California sucks is because people like you destroyed its government, made freedom uncool, and forced everyone who wasn't white to vote Democrat.

Personal Defense Force wrote:

Seveth wrote:
What do you mean?

I certainly wouldn't give up my firearms, I doubt alot of others will do either, and I wouldn't let those below me on the chain o' command enforce such a thing either being that it goes against the things I'm sworn to protect.

The big problem with banning weapons in the US is you have nearly 3 million members of the United States Armed Forces sworn to protect the constitution of the US over the government of the US, under the orders that if the government infringes on the citizens constitutional rights to the point of oppression that they are to overthrow it and reastablish a new republic that follows the constitution.

It'd be the biggest case of irony when the very thing that they ban comes back to bite them in the ass.

Sorry, I just realized how poor this sounds on me. Theres just no effective way of removing firearms from a country that has had them for hundreds of years, where there are more firearms then people, and only 1/10 of all firearms are reported.

I didn't say that removing all firearms was a viable option. All I said was that it would certainly reduce violence if we somehow managed to remove them all, which will never and should never happen.

Bluth darling, are you sure you live on the same planet as us?

Nazeroth wrote:

Mkuki wrote:That's liberalism? I'd better go change my ideological beliefs then.

*sigh* Liberalism has a definition, y'know.

weird, the definition and the reality don't' seem to match up

No, the definition and the realty do match up. People who emphasize liberty more are classical liberals(libertarians are liberals), and there are social liberals who emphasize equality more.

Seveth wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:
I certainly wouldn't give up my firearms, I doubt alot of others will do either, and I wouldn't let those below me on the chain o' command enforce such a thing either being that it goes against the things I'm sworn to protect.

The big problem with banning weapons in the US is you have nearly 3 million members of the United States Armed Forces sworn to protect the constitution of the US over the government of the US, under the orders that if the government infringes on the citizens constitutional rights to the point of oppression that they are to overthrow it and reastablish a new republic that follows the constitution.

It'd be the biggest case of irony when the very thing that they ban comes back to bite them in the ass.

Sorry, I just realized how poor this sounds on me. Theres just no effective way of removing firearms from a country that has had them for hundreds of years, where there are more firearms then people, and only 1/10 of all firearms are reported.

I didn't say that removing all firearms was a viable option. All I said was that it would certainly reduce violence if we somehow managed to remove them all, which will never and should never happen.

Alright that makes more sense then, my apologies. I was just curious how these people that want to remove guns in there entirety would go about doing so.

New Aerios wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:nope.

What you have just posted simply confirms that Hitler disarmed the people he wished to oppress (namely the Jews). The only difference is he didn't bother disarming everyone else.

So there we have it: Want to take away people's freedoms? Want to oppress them? Want to label them as subhuman scum and send them off to concentration camps? Disarm them!

nope. there already were few guns around. he armed people - his people.

here's the thing. arms are good for killing your enemies...whoever they happen to be. objectively, private guns haven't been useful for defending against tyranny. they have, however, been somewhat useful for imposing it. but mostly they just are good for increasing the homicide and suicide rates.

what you really want to defend against tyranny is a) a strong democratic tradition and b) a military that respects it and is able to kick the crap out of anyone who tries to fuck with it.

Personal Defense Force wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:nope.

I learned something new today, thank you for that actually I apologize for spouting wrong information, I'll keep that in mind for later accounts.

no problem. the hitler-gun control line is so pervasive that its natural to assume it isn't bullshit.

2012 CA assembly general election results:

democratic party
6,835,701 votes - 58.46%

republican party
4,765,952 votes - 40.76%

damn those leftists, oppressing the majority by getting literally two million more votes. how dare they!

Ah yes, because all democrats are lefties, I forgot about that.

relatively speaking, yes they are. especially compared to california republicans.

Free Soviets wrote:here's the thing. arms are good for killing your enemies...whoever they happen to be. objectively, private guns haven't been useful for defending against tyranny. they have, however, been somewhat useful for imposing it. but mostly they just are good for increasing the homicide and suicide rates.

what you really want to defend against tyranny is a) a strong democratic tradition and b) a military that respects it and is able to kick the crap out of anyone who tries to fuck with it.

There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.

Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.

what part of infringement don't people understand

if I said you could have the right to have a peanut butter and jelly sandwitch and that right could not be infringed then I went about saying you could only have certain jelly or peanut butter you would think im infringing on that right.



idk why but I like using that as an example


mmm...so good...

Sevvania wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:here's the thing. arms are good for killing your enemies...whoever they happen to be. objectively, private guns haven't been useful for defending against tyranny. they have, however, been somewhat useful for imposing it. but mostly they just are good for increasing the homicide and suicide rates.

what you really want to defend against tyranny is a) a strong democratic tradition and b) a military that respects it and is able to kick the crap out of anyone who tries to fuck with it.

There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.

Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.

See: every conflict since the Korean war.

The fact is, conventional armies are terrible against guerrillas and freedom fighters. Which is why I never understand the leftist claims of revolution against the US govt. being impossible.

Dictatorship Of Serdaristan wrote:

Sevvania wrote:There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.

Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.

See: every conflict since the Korean war.

The fact is, conventional armies are terrible against guerrillas and freedom fighters. Which is why I never understand the leftist claims of revolution against the US govt. being impossible.

Revolution is successful. Rebellion, or an insurgency, isn't successful.

Dictatorship Of Serdaristan wrote:

Sevvania wrote:There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.

Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.

See: every conflict since the Korean war.

The fact is, conventional armies are terrible against guerrillas and freedom fighters. Which is why I never understand the leftist claims of revolution against the US govt. being impossible.

every successful guerrilla campaign i know of has been either run by a regular military's command structure (state-backed or breakaway) or been supplied by one. mainly because if you don't have tanks and machine guns and rpgs, you lose. they may pick up a few civilian-type weapons and improvise bombs occasionally, but that won't get the job done.

also, i'm not sure we can reasonably call the chechen government (which was in command of the guerrilla campaign) of the '90s particularly free. hell, it's not clear that there were any 'good guys' in that fight at all.

Geilinor wrote:

Nazeroth wrote:
weird, the definition and the reality don't' seem to match up

No, the definition and the realty do match up. People who emphasize liberty more are classical liberals(libertarians are liberals), and there are social liberals who emphasize equality more.

And then there are progressive liberals, who emphasize that they know what's best for everyone, that anyone who disagrees with them does so either because they're stupid or malicious, and that compliance with their policies is often mandatory only because people don't know any better, and have to be coerced along until they see the light.

Sevvania wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:here's the thing. arms are good for killing your enemies...whoever they happen to be. objectively, private guns haven't been useful for defending against tyranny. they have, however, been somewhat useful for imposing it. but mostly they just are good for increasing the homicide and suicide rates.

what you really want to defend against tyranny is a) a strong democratic tradition and b) a military that respects it and is able to kick the crap out of anyone who tries to fuck with it.

There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.

Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.

It probably helped them that the Chechens were often Afghan War veterans who were well-versed in insurgency tactics and also Russian Army strategy.
And that their Russian opponents were often poorly-trained conscripts conscripted in peacetime with little combat experience.

Free Soviets wrote:

Dictatorship Of Serdaristan wrote:See: every conflict since the Korean war.

The fact is, conventional armies are terrible against guerrillas and freedom fighters. Which is why I never understand the leftist claims of revolution against the US govt. being impossible.

every successful guerrilla campaign i know of has been either run by a regular military's command structure (state-backed or breakaway) or been supplied by one. mainly because if you don't have tanks and machine guns and rpgs, you lose. they may pick up a few civilian-type weapons and improvise bombs occasionally, but that won't get the job done.

also, i'm not sure we can reasonably call the chechen government (which was in command of the guerrilla campaign) of the '90s particularly free. hell, it's not clear that there were any 'good guys' in that fight at all.

To quote an exercpt from a fellow by the name of Wolfburn: "Some would suggest that no violet revolt can succeed with air or armor support. A tank cannot do door to door searches. A jet cannot hold a street corner. If infantry were so irrelevant, don't you think we'd stop putting soldiers in harm's way?"

While many guerrilla wars do not actually seem to win, they do prove incredibly difficult to completely defeat. As for the tanks, machine guns, and RPG's, those are often provided by defecting military forces, as can be seen with Syria (when they aren't building the "tanks" outright).

@Imperializt Russia: Conscripts they may have been, but those conscripts had tanks, planes, and Russian military hardware, whereas the Chechens seem to have been equipped with little more than know-how.

---

Edit: Further research of historical examples of guerrilla warfare, so as to gain a better perspective as to its effectiveness, led me to the Irish War of Independence. An excerpt from the page:

"Shortly after the formation of the [Irish] Volunteers, the British Parliament banned the importation of weapons into Ireland. Then in April 1914 the Ulster Volunteers successfully imported 24,000 rifles in the Larne Gun Running event. Patrick Pearse famously replied that 'the Orangeman with a gun is not as laughable as the nationalist without one.'"