Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Non Aligned States]

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

Of course there isn't a universal leveler. But there's force multipliers. Things that increase your odds of successfully defending yourself or projecting offensive power (sometimes the two are interchangeable).

But if that is argument enough to do away with such things, why not do apply it to seat belts, healthcare, and all other manner of preventive but imperfect things that can be used to improve the users chance of survival?

Certainly there will be those who would be irresponsible with them, but it's not like laws would stop those sufficiently irresponsible and possessed of finances or connections from acquiring them.

[The Adrian Empire]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Then they have the ability to remove those watchers, as the public will stand behind them, however if they do so and the public is not behind them then they invite a popular rebellion. The point is that without the watchers in the first place, if the watchmen are corrupt there is no defence against them.

And that confirms what I said before. If both groups have essentially absolute power over each other, and that power is held in equal measure, both are entirely incapacitated.

You cannot have both a safe system and a system which works at the same time.

The military should never be used against it's own citizens, if it ever becomes absolutely necessary, then most people won't be supporting the watchers and the military well have the popular support needed to crush the watchers, if most people are supporting the watchers then the military should step aside or it will in turn be stopped by the popular uprising of the watchers. In either case democracy should be the first resort

[The Adrian Empire]

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

Of course there isn't a universal leveler. But there's force multipliers. Things that increase your odds of successfully defending yourself or projecting offensive power (sometimes the two are interchangeable).

But if that is argument enough to do away with such things, why not do apply it to seat belts, healthcare, and all other manner of preventive but imperfect things that can be used to improve the users chance of survival?

Certainly there will be those who would be irresponsible with them, but it's not like laws would stop those sufficiently irresponsible and possessed of finances or connections from acquiring them.

Exactly. This. Thank you

[Omnicracy]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

[New Kereptica]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

[Omnicracy]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

When it is the only liberty may be preserved, it is the only way to run a society. Or, at least, the only way to run a socioty I would aprove of.

[The Parthians]

What is your opinion on gun control?

You can have mine when you get all the stupid, illogical, and violent people out of the gene pool.

Until then, I'd like to hang on to my guns. All of them.

[New Kereptica]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

When it is the only liberty may be preserved, it is the only way to run a society. Or, at least, the only way to run a socioty I would aprove of.

So you would rather have constant warfare than have any of your self-granted liberties eroded? How selfish.

[Omnicracy]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

When it is the only liberty may be preserved, it is the only way to run a society. Or, at least, the only way to run a socioty I would aprove of.

So you would rather have constant warfare than have any of your self-granted liberties eroded? How selfish.

First, there would not be constant warfare. Granted, there would probably be occasional warfare, but it would be far from constant. Second, I would never support a government that restricts peoples liberties*.

*My liberty ends where your liberty begins.

[New Kereptica]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

When it is the only liberty may be preserved, it is the only way to run a society. Or, at least, the only way to run a socioty I would aprove of.

So you would rather have constant warfare than have any of your self-granted liberties eroded? How selfish.

First, there would not be constant warfare. Granted, there would probably be occasional warfare, but it would be far from constant. Second, I would never support a government that restricts peoples liberties*.

*My liberty ends where your liberty begins.

And why wouldn't you?

[Grave_n_idle]

The guess was because you didn't respond to it. So I assume you agree that match heads can be used as a propellant?

I'm trying to work out how to answer that without being patronising.

Are you saying that magic can't possibly be considered a religion by a portion of the people that practice it?

No. Not even vaguely.

Or that restricting items or supplies used by practitioners of magic isn't against the first amendment?

What I'm saying is that adding taxes (or other financial controls) to something that is an optional ingredient of some religious endeavour or other, is not going to be a convincing claim for contravening the first amendment.

The cost of licensing and regulating the sale of sulfur and potassium nitrate will end up being passed down the line, to everyone that has a legitimate use for them. The government isn't going to license and regulate that stuff for free, and no sane business is going to absorb the cost.

Lots of things are regulated. Cough medicine, for example.

Apparently, people deal with it.

I brought up charcoal simply to be thorough. I know you didn't mention it.

I'm sure you can also see exactly why I didn't mention it, if you sit and think about it.

BTW, did you know that most chemical stump remover products have potassium nitrate as the main ingredient (about 98% concentration). Or that you can buy potassium nitrate at the pharmacy? Did you know that sulfur can be purchased as an acne treatment?

Yes. Did you know that pseudoephedrine can be purchased in nasal decongestant products like Sudafed?

I use that example, obviously, because of it's already established status as a precursor, and subsequent regulation.

[The Adrian Empire]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

When it is the only liberty may be preserved, it is the only way to run a society. Or, at least, the only way to run a socioty I would aprove of.

So you would rather have constant warfare than have any of your self-granted liberties eroded? How selfish.

The government's fear of civil war should be enough to prevent civil war, otherwise yes, I would rather have anarchy then dictatorship

In anarchy I need only fear those that call themselves my enemies, in a dictatorship I need fear those who call themselves my friend.

[New Kereptica]

The government's fear of civil war should be enough to prevent civil war, otherwise yes, I would rather have anarchy then dictatorship

In anarchy I need only fear those that call themselves my enemies, in a dictatorship I need fear those who call themselves my friend.

The people's fear of civil war should definitely be taken into account. It has, more than once, resulted in over-powerful governments.

And do you really want to play the pull-an-anecdotal-phrase-out-of-your-ass game? That last sentence doesn't even make sense.

[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.

Who wasn't alowed to have a gun?

Women? Men under 18. Men over 45. Government workers. Politicians. Customs. Post office workers. Some stage drivers. Some ferrymen. Export inspectors. Maritime personnel under contracts both private and commercial, pilots, the disabled, and other exemptions by state.

[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?

I answered that in the bottom part. The killing babies amendment was an example of a time that having an un-Constitutional revolution against democracy and peers is a universal good, wich you seemed to imply was an imposible eventuality.

So - you wouldn't fight a revolution under such circumstances, but you would illegally stockpile weapons?

This would have been a lot easier if you'd just said 'yes' or 'no' when I first asked the question.

[Grave_n_idle]

But it wasn't equivicable to electing someone and then not paying a new tax they make. It was more like not being able to vote for no legitamet reason, then not paying a new tax. Still not that close though.

What do you mean 'for no legitimate reason'? The colonists weren't in the electoral mechanism - that's a perfectly legitimate reason. Perhaps they should have made movements towards seeing that balance addressed, rather than turning to war? (Of course, they might have had to pay the sorts of taxes non-colonists were having to pay... maybe that's the source of the problem).

[Grave_n_idle]

That massive private army you don't like would acctualy be dozens of private armies (aka militias) organised seperatly threw (sorry) out the country. As to access to military hardware, you and I clearly disagree.

Also, bomb the supply convoy to stop it then shot the people to get supplies. Just one example. Do the Insurgents not use guns at all? If not, how are there fire fights in Iraq and Afganistant? If so, then would not millions with guns waging a massive guerilla war be benifitial?

The advantage of bombs in guerrilla tactics, is that you dont have to stand and fight - always an advantage in asymmetrical warfare. Gun use is not as effective, overall - especially in today's world - because it means being present on-site, which means you're always expecting to lose lives.

As for the private armies - another reason I don't much care for them, is that allowing organisations other than the elected government to build an actual military, opens up the potential for foreign interests to 'own' an army WITHIN America. Surely you can see how that isn't ideal?

1) Yes, bombs are better if you never have to be near your enemy and they can never find you. Niether of those two things will universaly be true. The more guns, the better.

2) The US would have to allow their citizens in, and if they are our citizens, then I can't see some great army of China forming here. Do you have more opposition?

You wouldn't have to build an especially 'great' army, if you're using modern military grade equipment.

Looking at current political climates... would you trust, for example, an Iranian or Saudi company to own and operate a large private military force on US soil?

1) You didn't adress it

2) Okay, significant army then. It would be greatly out numbered. As I said, there armies would be too small to be effective if treasoness. I alsready said the reasoning.

1) I suspect guns are a hinderance under most circumstances in asymmetrical warfare, since they clearly mark you as a target.

2) I don;t think you're really thinking it through. If - for example - Iranians has a noticable military-caliber presence on US soil, what do you think American foreign policy would be with regards to Iran? What do you think would happen if relationships degenerated to war? That is why you don't let other people build up military grade resistance on home soil.

[Omnicracy]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Civil war. The same thing that would happen if the watchmen watchers said the watchmen were corrupt. You do know the watchmen are the army and government and the watchmen watchers are the people, right?

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

When it is the only liberty may be preserved, it is the only way to run a society. Or, at least, the only way to run a socioty I would aprove of.

So you would rather have constant warfare than have any of your self-granted liberties eroded? How selfish.

First, there would not be constant warfare. Granted, there would probably be occasional warfare, but it would be far from constant. Second, I would never support a government that restricts peoples liberties*.

*My liberty ends where your liberty begins.

And why wouldn't you?

I'm not sure 100% what your asking, so I'll answer both.

1) There would not be constant because both watchers and watchmen would agree on occasion.

2) I would never support a government that restricts peoples liberties as I have defined them because that would be opression and immoral.

[Non Aligned States]

I do indeed. And is civil war any way to run a society?

It's a way to restructure society. It's an imperfect world, with imperfect solutions, but if you throw away all the other imperfect solutions and settle on one specific imperfect one as the only way, then all you've done is made yourself vulnerable.

[Grave_n_idle]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

For crime, yes. Criminals are less likly to attack armed people because they are armed. In a revolution, you shoot all the bad guys.

I like this world you imagine with clearly marked 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.

Do they have G or B marked on their uniforms, to facilitate easy recognition?

[Grave_n_idle]

1) It seemed like you were saying it was a bad thing. I, however, would still see a differance between concern and fear.

Phrase it however you feel comfortable with it. *shrugs*

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

I wouldn't like to try to push it as a defence in court, personally.

[The Adrian Empire]

The government's fear of civil war should be enough to prevent civil war, otherwise yes, I would rather have anarchy then dictatorship

In anarchy I need only fear those that call themselves my enemies, in a dictatorship I need fear those who call themselves my friend.

The people's fear of civil war should definitely be taken into account. It has, more than once, resulted in over-powerful governments.

And do you really want to play the pull-an-anecdotal-phrase-out-of-your-ass game? That last sentence doesn't even make sense.

Exactly why we shouldn't fear civil wars, we should be prepared for them. And I use anecdotal phrases constantly their usually my own phrases, and I don't plan to stop I have a secret desire to be quoted one day

[Grave_n_idle]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

No, but it is chemistry - so sell the components for greatly increased prices, same effect.

Except the same components to create bullets can likely be used to create any manner of things, making the components too expensive could destabilize markets and effect industries far more beneficial then the arms manufacturing industry, if one believe there is one.

Regulate sale. Private buyers would find it difficult to obtain, while legitimate permitted agencies would be able to obtain the product at an agreed price.

I think I already said that, though.

[Grave_n_idle]

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

No, but I'm not willing to say he's 'rarely completely wrong'

Its not like his arguments don't involve facts.

Only in the same way that feces contain last night's dinner.

[Grave_n_idle]

'Destruction of rights'? Well, if the right has been revoked... you can't destroy it... no?

We have the technology to spot weapons, even concealed. We don't employ such technology outside of very limited avenues for a number of reasons - not least of which is massive expense. There are also arguments that randomly scanning people invades their privacy or something.

But it exists. We could have a basically gun-free society.

Yes, you can also have a society with essentially zero crime, but you wouldn't want to live there.

Yeah. Who wants to not get killed.

I would rather die with an empty stomach and full head than live with a full stomach and empty head.

Nonsensical platitudes? Maybe you can eat those?