Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Grave_n_idle]

I would like to note that the Russian dictatorship was the revolution for liberty. It took people too long to realize that it was still opressive and alot were to into the idea to ever go against it.

And, in the US, arguably the most likely probability of uprising is armed conservatives with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

You can't say it can't happen - it would hardly be the first time a religious 'conservative' group stormed to power.

So - even in the US - many of 'the people' would support revolution and oppression - and many of those people are the people arguing most strongly for the need for arms.

Arguable. However, I can think of two contraversial issues conservatives would have such a revolt over. Both of wich would most likely fail, as we are currently successfuly using the democratic prosess to work it all out, and most conservatives do believe in democracy, regardless of what the people calling Obama Hitler (is that right? Obama Hitler?) say. There is also a fair chance of a Neo Nazi revolt, wich would quickly be put down by everybody else in the country with a gun.

The overlap between Neo-Nazis and the militant rightwing is probably far greater than you seem to suggest. Which is one reason a lot of people fear a combination like racist slogans AND visible weapons at Townhall 'protests'.

And this isn't a peculiar view - this is a fairly common sentiment. There is a strong trend towards oppression where religion, 'conservatism' and the ability to apply physical force combine (watch "V For Vendetta" to see it in popular culture). Look at Iran over the last few decades, or the Taliban.

I do not believe the Neo Nazis are greater than 1% of the population, and I would say the rest of the people would do pretty much whatever they could to stop the Neo Nazis, not so? In fact, let us say half the white people are Neo Nazis, for the sake of argument. Most would not be combatants and the other 3/4 of the country would fight as hard as possible to stop them and would succeed.

I do not mean to say that the US is immune to such things, but we are more liberty-orented (sorry) than most nations, so our right is still more open to democracy. After all, there has been no great homosexual genocide attempts, correct?

Actual admitted Neo-Nazis? I dont know... maybe 1%. Racists with guns? I'd say a lot more than 1%. Would the masses resist a correctly packaged move? Based on history? Probably not. Would 3/4 of the population wage war on the much smaller group if the masses DID oppose? Again - based on history, probably not.

Have we had OVERT moves in that direction recently? Not on a huge scale. Have we had more subtle moves in that direction? Absolutely. Targetting Muslims and or Arabs for their 'association' with homeland security problems. Targetting Mexican immigrants as the cause of the economic woes of the nation. Targetting marriage equality as an attack on freedom. We've had some rather scary moves from our politicians in recent years.

[Grave_n_idle]

I can stay up a while to argue with Grave, I guess.

i'm famous?

Well, more infamous in my oppinion. We seem to have opposite views on almost everything, in case you haven't noticed.

Hadn't really noticed - I tend to go argument by argument, rather than looking too much at who posted what.

If I debate with you long enough, I may start identifying your arguments specifically, so don't take it as an insult. It's certainly not intended as one.

I did not take it as one. I remember you due to promonance and the fact that you were one of the first people who I argued with here.

I'm possibly the first person a lot of people argue with. I'm told I argue a lot.

As do I. How else is one to convince the opposition they are compleatly wrong and should think what one does?

People are very rarely completely wrong.


Well, except Glenn Beck.

[Omnicracy]

Note: My argument for guns is not fear-based, but human nature based.

So, you don't believe you need a gun for self-defence?

You're one of the rarer breed that would just argue that you need it for sport or hunting, for example?

1) No, one would have guns for self defence. That is from an understanding that bad people exist, not a fear of them,

2) Does the defence of ones rights count as self-defence?

[Grave_n_idle]

I like Penn and Teller's very powerful argument, when was the last time there was a shooting spree at an NRA convention, a gun club meeting, Vermont? The places where the majority of shooting sprees have existed are in "gun free zones", which have no effect other than as feel good legislation, where as in practice, schools that have armed faculty and students have stopped armed shooters before they could kill people, one such story is of the University of Utah http://gunowners.org/sk0302.htm (I know biased source but the story is credible unlike certain papers or facts) where students once the shooting began ran out to their cars to grab their legal guns and stopped the killer, made him drop his weapons and then wrestled him to the ground until the police arrived. What could have been another Virginia Tech became a success story

The reason why the majority of shooting sprees happen in 'gun free zones' is because shooting sprees are a crime that capitalises on maximum victims. Which means that - if guns were held by every student on a campus, the shooting would start in a toilet cubicle, or at a lunch table. Or in the creche. Or among sleeping people in droms. Or in a hospital. Even in a fully armed society, there are weak links, and that's where THAT kind of violence will always take place.

But in a fully armed society these cretins will have less victims, and will have more people willing to fight back, it might start at the lunch table or toilet, but when the maximum damage he can inflict is inside that bathroom before an armed civilian can stop him then we have done the right thing. In a hospital there may be an armed nurse or doctor, in a school an armed teacher, in a university an armed student, in dorm at night there will be some legal owner woken by the gun shots. No amount of gun control, gun bans or free guns to everyone will stop shootings what can be stopped is the shooter

Your point seems to validate mine, yes, there will always be shootings, guns controlled, guns banned, or gun free to everyone. My argument is that in such a fully armed society the shooters will not have as many victims.

^^The second statement is a bit redundant, to the first I warn, but I like the wording of both so I won't delete them

Do you not see how your argument is actually practically identical to those who would ban guns?

Both sides admit that there would still be violence - even gun violence. Both sides argue for limiting the number of deaths. Both sides argue that the 'shooting' is not something that can be stopped, only the shooter.

The only difference between the two positions is HOW the number of deaths might be addressed - by trying to take guns out of circulation, or by actually bringing more guns into circulation.

The irony is that NEITHER mechanism will ultimately work 100%, and the two ends of the spectrum expend all their energy fighting one another.

So you are in favour of a moderate approach? I am not absolutely opposed to that idea, there are certain things I disagree with that moderates like, for instance "gun free zones" and no concealed carry, but regulations to stop criminals from easily purchasing legal weaponry I am in favour of.
And of course guns can never be taken out of circulation, that is like closing pandora's box impossible, information can not, and should not be suppressed so the knowledge of their construction will never be eliminated, neither will the means, we cannot hope that criminal elements will one day give up the advantage they have over unarmed civilians, so there is only one option allow the civilians to arm themselves in order to keep the balance

Yes, I'm in favour of a moderate approach, but a more extensively regulatory one. I believe owning a gun should be a lot more troublesome than it is. It shouldn't be a casual choice.

Unless we institute conscription, of course, and start having a real 'militia' again.


The problem with your 'arm themselves to keep the balance' idea is that it only works when it works, and when it doesn't work, it's horrible. It'salike trying to balance a load by adding progressively more and more weight to either side. When that load falls, you're going to smash a hell of a lot more stuff. And, even if it doesn't get unbalanced, you're just adding to the problem till eventually it's going to collapse under it's own weight.

We actually live in a time where a gun-free society IS possible. But it would be technological, and it would be expensive. The Pandora's box argument is becoming irrelevant.

[Grave_n_idle]

I was saying the roll roll played in socioty as stated by the Founding Fathers, not the roll of the Right to Bear Arms. The argument was about the former, not the latter.

But that doesn't describe the role in society, except as part of the role of the militia - which DOES argue against sole, un-regulated ownership.

I was addressing your argument on the role, but also applying it across to the actual 'rights' argument.

Let me put it this way

The right to bear arms extends to all free men. The dutie of free men with arms is to form a militia to ensure socioty remains free, and rebelion atempted if nessisary to acomplish that goal.

Except that other historical data of the time suggests that. no - it did not ever extend to all free men. And, certainly not to all free persons.

[The Adrian Empire]

But when they went on to clarify that what they ment was armed civilians are a deterant and are capable of taking out an asailant, you continued to ignore that that was the point. I, however, have been engulfed in arguments befor. I can understand how one may become emotional and not fully grasp the words of the person befor them, seeing them as just the same old tired argument they've been fighting this whole time, when in reality they hold a key differance that invalidates the previouse argument or atleast calls for a slight revision of it.

It's not an emotional response - it's more the matter that the argument is speculative at best.

If you were the only apparent gun-holder in a crowd, you could argue you have the absolute utter hand (even more so than if the weapon was lethal, but non-ballistic - a knife, for example).

Okay - then one person in the crowd also produces a gun - who would you shoot first?


The problem is that the people-holding-guns-stops-shooting argument transparently doesn't work. You can have ONE guy with a gun and a hostage, and a dozen armed men will defer to that position. You can have one armed man ina crowd of people with guns, and the only way to get to him, is to shoot at each other.

That makes no sense, if he has a hostage then he isn't shooting people, if he is most people are willing to sacrifice the safety of the one hostage for the lives of the other hostages, in a crowd of people with guns they won't shoot through each other they aren't robots targeting one subject and shooting through everything in front of it, there people, likely even armed some will run others will not. Any rational person won't go straight to shooting, if he is shot at he will take his gun out and tell the other man to stop or he will shoot, shooting as a last result, because most people don't like killing other people. It's a last resort

It's supposed to be a last resort, certainly - but I'm sure you see that being armed - in real-world applications - does NOT equate to not being shot at, or being able to shift the balance favourably?

The guy holding the hostage has the trump card - he can shoot someone pointing a gun at him, but the other guy can't shoot back without endangering an innocent... or simply wasting a shot (since the hostage is a shield).

Well, actually certainly being armed tips the balance in ones favour or at least evenly in favour,
he is armed you are not = you are a disadvantage.
he is armed, you are armed = balanced odds.
he is armed, you are armed, your friend is armed = you have the advantage
you armed, your friend is armed, police are armed, he is armed = he is at a huge disadvantage

I never said being armed will mean no one will shoot at you that's illogical what being armed means is you can shoot back, if he takes a hostage you can't shoot back but you can stop him from shooting more people by mere presence as he would have to stop aiming at you to start aiming at them, and that would give you the advantage, this delays any further killing until the authorities arrive you may save several lives by doing this

Except that you and your friend still can't shoot him through his hostage (unless you're going to kill the hostage) - but he can totally shoot you. Why wouldn't he? The 'mexican standoff' scenario only works if everyone is covering everyone else and there are no obstacles - in this situation, there's a hostage.

Indeed, the ONLY time the hostage siitaution shifts out of a pro-hostage advantage, is when you've got sufficient numbers or tactical advatage that you cn hit the guy without killing the hostage... or when you're cleared to allow collateral damage.

Both of which basically rely on the arrival of law enforcement. At best - your guys in the crowd provided a delay. At worst, they got people killed.

People who would have died had you not tried to protect them, in a hostage situation a delay is an amazing benefit to law enforcement, what you describe as a situation is improbable, why take a hostage if you are out in the open? If he goes for a hostage that is usually enough to warrant firing on him, if he doesn't then you are still equal to favourable in odds. It is ridiculous to assume that passivity will lead to less damage in all but the most rarest of cases, in addition you're situation requires zero cover which unless this man took hostages in a field, makes no sense, second if you try to help and die, you may buy valuable time for the police and die a hero, if you don't fight back then he is liable to kill you anyway and your death would serve no purpose, and that man could still get away, in holding him off until authorities arrive you neutralize an otherwise deadly situation.

[Omnicracy]

I would like to note that the Russian dictatorship was the revolution for liberty. It took people too long to realize that it was still opressive and alot were to into the idea to ever go against it.

And, in the US, arguably the most likely probability of uprising is armed conservatives with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

You can't say it can't happen - it would hardly be the first time a religious 'conservative' group stormed to power.

So - even in the US - many of 'the people' would support revolution and oppression - and many of those people are the people arguing most strongly for the need for arms.

Arguable. However, I can think of two contraversial issues conservatives would have such a revolt over. Both of wich would most likely fail, as we are currently successfuly using the democratic prosess to work it all out, and most conservatives do believe in democracy, regardless of what the people calling Obama Hitler (is that right? Obama Hitler?) say. There is also a fair chance of a Neo Nazi revolt, wich would quickly be put down by everybody else in the country with a gun.

The overlap between Neo-Nazis and the militant rightwing is probably far greater than you seem to suggest. Which is one reason a lot of people fear a combination like racist slogans AND visible weapons at Townhall 'protests'.

And this isn't a peculiar view - this is a fairly common sentiment. There is a strong trend towards oppression where religion, 'conservatism' and the ability to apply physical force combine (watch "V For Vendetta" to see it in popular culture). Look at Iran over the last few decades, or the Taliban.

I do not believe the Neo Nazis are greater than 1% of the population, and I would say the rest of the people would do pretty much whatever they could to stop the Neo Nazis, not so? In fact, let us say half the white people are Neo Nazis, for the sake of argument. Most would not be combatants and the other 3/4 of the country would fight as hard as possible to stop them and would succeed.

I do not mean to say that the US is immune to such things, but we are more liberty-orented (sorry) than most nations, so our right is still more open to democracy. After all, there has been no great homosexual genocide attempts, correct?

Actual admitted Neo-Nazis? I dont know... maybe 1%. Racists with guns? I'd say a lot more than 1%. Would the masses resist a correctly packaged move? Based on history? Probably not. Would 3/4 of the population wage war on the much smaller group if the masses DID oppose? Again - based on history, probably not.

Have we had OVERT moves in that direction recently? Not on a huge scale. Have we had more subtle moves in that direction? Absolutely. Targetting Muslims and or Arabs for their 'association' with homeland security problems. Targetting Mexican immigrants as the cause of the economic woes of the nation. Targetting marriage equality as an attack on freedom. We've had some rather scary moves from our politicians in recent years.

Most Neo Nazis are currently armed. Your racists with guns are obviously armed. If they could win right now, why haven't they tried anything? Also, the 3/4 opposing does not have to fully wage war (ie everybody fights), just supportit. Also, that asumes 1/4 supporting the Neo Nazis, wich I am sure is much too high a number.

As you made the argument yourself, though not in these words, a potential step down a dark path is not the same as the destination.

[Grave_n_idle]

But if guns are limited to police and military personel, is that not regulation?

A ban can be described as the ultimate regulation, but it doesn't logically follow that control is, thus, a ban.

I did not say controle was universaly a ban, I said a ban was universaly controle. Think of how a square is a rhombus but that does not make every rhombus a square.

I thought you said something like... that a ban and control were not different.

I'm not going to wander back looking for the quotes right now, especially when it might just be how I'm reading it - I'll concede the point.

[Omnicracy]

I can stay up a while to argue with Grave, I guess.

i'm famous?

Well, more infamous in my oppinion. We seem to have opposite views on almost everything, in case you haven't noticed.

Hadn't really noticed - I tend to go argument by argument, rather than looking too much at who posted what.

If I debate with you long enough, I may start identifying your arguments specifically, so don't take it as an insult. It's certainly not intended as one.

I did not take it as one. I remember you due to promonance and the fact that you were one of the first people who I argued with here.

I'm possibly the first person a lot of people argue with. I'm told I argue a lot.

As do I. How else is one to convince the opposition they are compleatly wrong and should think what one does?

People are very rarely completely wrong.


Well, except Glenn Beck.

Hey, just because he is a political pupit doesn't mean he can't have the right idea on occasion!

[Omnicracy]

I was saying the roll roll played in socioty as stated by the Founding Fathers, not the roll of the Right to Bear Arms. The argument was about the former, not the latter.

But that doesn't describe the role in society, except as part of the role of the militia - which DOES argue against sole, un-regulated ownership.

I was addressing your argument on the role, but also applying it across to the actual 'rights' argument.

Let me put it this way

The right to bear arms extends to all free men. The dutie of free men with arms is to form a militia to ensure socioty remains free, and rebelion atempted if nessisary to acomplish that goal.

Except that other historical data of the time suggests that. no - it did not ever extend to all free men. And, certainly not to all free persons.

Well, one of the points of the constitution was that it be re-interpreted by the people as nessisary, so it should do that now, even if that was not the initial intent.

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually the UK was an example of a nation I thought was slowly slipping into tyranny, at this point I mostly see it in civil rights and freedom of speech areas, though the right wing elements of your parliament are troubling to say the least. Gun control has always preceded tyranny, rarely was it the intention of the gun controller to bring about tyranny but it still happens, because gun control increases the reliance of the people on the state. Which is always dangerous on the road to tyranny.
However is the UK a tyrannical government, hardly, neither is the Canadian, the point is one day they could be and now there would be no effective resistance to combat it.

The UK has got a little more rightwing, and a little more militant, and a little more theocratic in recent years - I agree. It troubles me.

I'm not sure it's on the slippery slide to "V For Vendetta", right yet.

So - gun control doesn't always LEAD to tyranny. And, even if the UK did slide into tyranny tomorrow, the decades upon decades of gun control WITHOUT incident suggest that there's no direct link between the control and the tyranny.

[Omnicracy]

Well, I caught up with it and should have slept 2:40 ago, so... gut nacht.

[Grave_n_idle]

On most issues? No, I would never revolt for such a reason. On certain key issues? Yes, of corse. If the majority of people say we should start killing babies, and a constitutional amendment is made saying each citizen must kill at least one baby a year, I would rebel. If my ability to effectively rebell has been legaly removed, I may rebel. Or, I may stockpile weapons illegaly for the eventuality that tyranny rears its ugly head.

But, we're not talking about killing babies.

We're talking about the Second Amendment - which protects your right to keep and bear arms, being suspended by democratic mechanism - which is entirely legal AND constitutional.

If the Second Amendment were overturned, and you decided to lead revolt - it would be a revolt AGAINST the Constitution, and against the democracy that altered it.

That's what I'm asking you about - would you fight an un-Constitutional revolution against democracy and your peers, if the Second Amendment was the casualty of democratic revocation?

[The Adrian Empire]

I like Penn and Teller's very powerful argument, when was the last time there was a shooting spree at an NRA convention, a gun club meeting, Vermont? The places where the majority of shooting sprees have existed are in "gun free zones", which have no effect other than as feel good legislation, where as in practice, schools that have armed faculty and students have stopped armed shooters before they could kill people, one such story is of the University of Utah http://gunowners.org/sk0302.htm (I know biased source but the story is credible unlike certain papers or facts) where students once the shooting began ran out to their cars to grab their legal guns and stopped the killer, made him drop his weapons and then wrestled him to the ground until the police arrived. What could have been another Virginia Tech became a success story

The reason why the majority of shooting sprees happen in 'gun free zones' is because shooting sprees are a crime that capitalises on maximum victims. Which means that - if guns were held by every student on a campus, the shooting would start in a toilet cubicle, or at a lunch table. Or in the creche. Or among sleeping people in droms. Or in a hospital. Even in a fully armed society, there are weak links, and that's where THAT kind of violence will always take place.

But in a fully armed society these cretins will have less victims, and will have more people willing to fight back, it might start at the lunch table or toilet, but when the maximum damage he can inflict is inside that bathroom before an armed civilian can stop him then we have done the right thing. In a hospital there may be an armed nurse or doctor, in a school an armed teacher, in a university an armed student, in dorm at night there will be some legal owner woken by the gun shots. No amount of gun control, gun bans or free guns to everyone will stop shootings what can be stopped is the shooter

Your point seems to validate mine, yes, there will always be shootings, guns controlled, guns banned, or gun free to everyone. My argument is that in such a fully armed society the shooters will not have as many victims.

^^The second statement is a bit redundant, to the first I warn, but I like the wording of both so I won't delete them

Do you not see how your argument is actually practically identical to those who would ban guns?

Both sides admit that there would still be violence - even gun violence. Both sides argue for limiting the number of deaths. Both sides argue that the 'shooting' is not something that can be stopped, only the shooter.

The only difference between the two positions is HOW the number of deaths might be addressed - by trying to take guns out of circulation, or by actually bringing more guns into circulation.

The irony is that NEITHER mechanism will ultimately work 100%, and the two ends of the spectrum expend all their energy fighting one another.

So you are in favour of a moderate approach? I am not absolutely opposed to that idea, there are certain things I disagree with that moderates like, for instance "gun free zones" and no concealed carry, but regulations to stop criminals from easily purchasing legal weaponry I am in favour of.
And of course guns can never be taken out of circulation, that is like closing pandora's box impossible, information can not, and should not be suppressed so the knowledge of their construction will never be eliminated, neither will the means, we cannot hope that criminal elements will one day give up the advantage they have over unarmed civilians, so there is only one option allow the civilians to arm themselves in order to keep the balance

Yes, I'm in favour of a moderate approach, but a more extensively regulatory one. I believe owning a gun should be a lot more troublesome than it is. It shouldn't be a casual choice.

Unless we institute conscription, of course, and start having a real 'militia' again.

The problem with your 'arm themselves to keep the balance' idea is that it only works when it works, and when it doesn't work, it's horrible. It'salike trying to balance a load by adding progressively more and more weight to either side. When that load falls, you're going to smash a hell of a lot more stuff. And, even if it doesn't get unbalanced, you're just adding to the problem till eventually it's going to collapse under it's own weight.

We actually live in a time where a gun-free society IS possible. But it would be technological, and it would be expensive. The Pandora's box argument is becoming irrelevant.

Please, pray tell how a gun free society is possible, there isn't a single example and aside from a "1984"esque destruction of rights there is no way to create that society. Because criminals will always find a way to get guns, smuggle them, steal them or build them, it is impossible with out the destruction of the laws of physics and near every human right to create this society

[Grave_n_idle]

So you're seriously saying that you think the American Revolution should never have happened? The concepts of liberty and universal rights of man is hardly something I think the world would be better off without, and of course I don't think the modern world needs the French Monarchy at all. Nor do I think the elimination of Canada is a good thing

Should have happened? Arguable. Did it NEED to happen? No. Do I think it was contrived? Yes. Do I think the justifications were good? No.

But it is worth bearing in mind what the background is, to a debate like this. Of course - the question might then become... does it matter any more?

[Grave_n_idle]

But what is to stop that under the current system or a total ban? Nothing. Therefor, the best argument is still more guns, for your weaker links are still stronger.

note: You did not show that they were not, you showed that sometimes nothing can be done.

Well, an actual effective total ban would obviously reduce the ability to obtain guns and silencers. But an effective ban is difficult to orchestrate.

There is a proportional increase problem with your math, though... there is a point where 'more guns' simply can't help. I'd say, that the absolute limit of that calculation is probably about one gun per hand.

[The Adrian Empire]

On most issues? No, I would never revolt for such a reason. On certain key issues? Yes, of corse. If the majority of people say we should start killing babies, and a constitutional amendment is made saying each citizen must kill at least one baby a year, I would rebel. If my ability to effectively rebell has been legaly removed, I may rebel. Or, I may stockpile weapons illegaly for the eventuality that tyranny rears its ugly head.

But, we're not talking about killing babies.

We're talking about the Second Amendment - which protects your right to keep and bear arms, being suspended by democratic mechanism - which is entirely legal AND constitutional.

If the Second Amendment were overturned, and you decided to lead revolt - it would be a revolt AGAINST the Constitution, and against the democracy that altered it.

That's what I'm asking you about - would you fight an un-Constitutional revolution against democracy and your peers, if the Second Amendment was the casualty of democratic revocation?

Not if it were possible to democratically resist it or democratically change it back, but I know if my government changed what I considered a fundamental right, I would fight it, if it is not possible democratically, then I will pack my bags and head for a society that doesn't intend to destroy my liberty, or create my own on some deserted island, if that is not possible yes, yes I would fight back, if the government democratically destroyed the right to free speech, wouldn't you fight said oppression? If they democratically destroyed the emancipation proclamation and re-enslaved all black people would't you fight back?

[Ossetia Federation]

This is the only thing NS has ever made me change my mind on. I know see hoe stupid I was, but I have modifed my postion. Gun rights, allow people to own hand guns. Law breakers will laways get either way, leaving the rest un-armed trying to take on an amred person.

[Grave_n_idle]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

[Grave_n_idle]

These are in my opinion two separate arguments, the rights of an American to have access to the tools to actively oppose his own government through a militia, and the usefulness of a gun as a means of protection in society, I don't mix the two, as I consider them two arguments, I wouldn't even say the Second Amendment gives the right to concealed carry, however it does mean every Joe six-pack should have access to a weapon with which to oppose a tyrannical government.

Not given what the militia laws of the time confirm - there are specific qualifiactions for being a militia-man.

The Second Amendment was never intended to let everyone be armed.

I beg to differ it was intended to make sure that every free man in America should have a right to a weapon, and to with that weapon form a militia with like-minded individuals against the government, the militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the security guarding the freedom not the state

No:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

This is what a militia would look like, at this point of history - note the several exceptions, and the compulsary responsibilities.

Each militia-man is required to attend formal training and exercise. Each militia-man is required to have a designated weapon that he will not sell or trade. Militia duty is compulsary, not at liberty - unless you're willing to face the punishments incurred. Also - ownership of a weapon is not optional - it is absolute.

If we're arguing for a Constitutional reading that involves militias, then we're arguing for compulsary military service, and a responsibility, rather than a naked right.

Hmmn, you're right, but that still means that every man in the militia has a weapon and has the right to keep it and bear it, the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry, i would never say that, but it does protect the right of the American people to have weapons. To keep them privately for use in the militia, similarly to Switzerland, I actually approve of that.

I actually approve of that model, too. And I think it actually gets closest to the spirit of the Second Amendment, rather than letter-of-the-law interpretations that favour an established 'best answer' that wouldn't be politically popular.

So - I think the nation ought to decide where it stands - does it want the Second Amendment, or does it want a naked freedom to carry.... because I don't think they're the same thing at all, and the current text is problematic, at best.

[Ossetia Federation]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who is going to protect somebody, when a armed person enters a house, and there are no guns? It dosen't take long to pull a trigger and the bullet to hit it's target. But if aperson has a gun, they may get the chance to defend themslef.

[Grave_n_idle]

I would like to note that a voice is meaningless when it cannot have direct say.

note: I speak of groups to government, not individuals to policy

Direct say? It's representational democracy - everyone has the ability to have 'direct say' to an extent, but without much weight - and the ability to be represented with greater weight, by action of representatives.

The fact that you helped elect someone when you voted, doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay tax, or that you have a legitimate claim against the government for not listening to you directly.

[South Norwega]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who is going to protect somebody, when a armed person enters a house, and there are no guns? It dosen't take long to pull a trigger and the bullet to hit it's target. But if aperson has a gun, they may get the chance to defend themslef.

They may also get shot by the person who breaks in for pulling a gun on them.

[The Adrian Empire]

But what is to stop that under the current system or a total ban? Nothing. Therefor, the best argument is still more guns, for your weaker links are still stronger.

note: You did not show that they were not, you showed that sometimes nothing can be done.

Well, an actual effective total ban would obviously reduce the ability to obtain guns and silencers. But an effective ban is difficult to orchestrate.

There is a proportional increase problem with your math, though... there is a point where 'more guns' simply can't help. I'd say, that the absolute limit of that calculation is probably about one gun per hand.

Except of course that a complete gun ban of even the police and military would just lead to a pre-gun powder like society of barbarism, where strength and brutality are king and might is right, men would rape women in the street, criminals would rob at sword point, hostage situations would be near impossible to resolve without bloodshed, school shootings would be replaced with stabbings and decapitations. That is unless you ban sharp edges, then people will go back to the neolithic and bash each others heads in with rocks and clubs, that is until you ban rocks and clubs, then they use their fists.

As I have said before the ultimate difference is that before the gun, strength was the decider of who lives and who dies, now with guns who lives and who dies lies in who is holding the gun.

[South Norwega]

But what is to stop that under the current system or a total ban? Nothing. Therefor, the best argument is still more guns, for your weaker links are still stronger.

note: You did not show that they were not, you showed that sometimes nothing can be done.

Well, an actual effective total ban would obviously reduce the ability to obtain guns and silencers. But an effective ban is difficult to orchestrate.

There is a proportional increase problem with your math, though... there is a point where 'more guns' simply can't help. I'd say, that the absolute limit of that calculation is probably about one gun per hand.

Except of course that this would just lead to a pre-gun powder like society of barbarism, where strength and brutality are king and might is right, men would rape women in the street, criminals would rob at sword point, hostage situations would be near impossible to resolve without bloodshed, school shootings would be replaced with stabbings and decapitations. That is unless you ban sharp edges, then people will go back to the neolithic and bash each others heads in with rocks and

Because banning guns = banning the Police, of course.