Gun Control: Your Opinion

[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.

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.

Okay, in the original meaning of the constitution (wich is what I was speaking of) "free men" = men over the age of 18 who are white (with some exception to the white part). Could you pleas say where you get these examples from, because I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers wouldn't let pilots own guns. Also, I know early polititians owned guns. So... sorce?

[Omnicracy]

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.

You still did not full read it. I may revolt or I may illegally stockpile weapons. I honestly cannot say wich at this time, but it is definitly one or the other.

[The Adrian Empire]

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.

Except that as we have seen no amount of regulation will stop people from circumventing those laws, you will still have licensed agencies selling products under the table, you will still have illegal agencies who find alternative methods to getting these products, smuggling, stealing or manufacturing them.

[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.

You try explaining to people why they need to spend $1,000 for enough charcoal to barbaque with.

Charcoal is the easiest of the products to obtain, and also the only one I specifically didn't mention in my pricing mechanism suggestion. That's for two reasons - one, it's universally available... it would be like trying to outlaw 'a stick' as a weapon - and two, because it's much easier to regulate the other two-thirds of the ingredients... and it's just charcoal without them.

[Omnicracy]

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).

How well do you know acctual early US history? You do know that we sent people to England to negotiat about taxation practices, right?

[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.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

Once the criminal is comited to fighting, true. Befor that? No. The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed.

In which case they are, for all intents and purposes, not criminals. I am not interested in passing judgment upon those who have committed crimes in the past; this situation regards those who are committing them in the present.

Fine. Replace my "Criminals" with "Persons who would be willing to comit crimes" and we solve everything.

Unless I'm much mistaken - in the discussion about what you would do if the Second Amendment was democratically revoked - you said you would be willing to commit crimes.

I'm just sayin'.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

But your approval is irrelevant. Or rather - it's about one-three-hundred-millionth of relevance.

[Omnicracy]

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.

1) Valid point, but one cannot use high-grade explosives in close quarters if one plans to live through it. Also, sniping.

2) It seems to me you are not the one thinking it through. How would Iran get a noticable military-caliber presence on US soil?

[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.

Okay, in the original meaning of the constitution (wich is what I was speaking of) "free men" = men over the age of 18 who are white (with some exception to the white part). Could you pleas say where you get these examples from, because I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers wouldn't let pilots own guns. Also, I know early polititians owned guns. So... sorce?

The Militia Act of 1792. It's at Constitution.org.

EDIT: Tell you what, here it is: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

[Omnicracy]

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?

In the mind of individuals, they do. That, or a C for civilian. Do you tell me one does not veiw people in a war as good, bad, or civilian?

[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.

You still did not full read it. I may revolt or I may illegally stockpile weapons. I honestly cannot say wich at this time, but it is definitly one or the other.

If you won't revolt - the argument that you need weapons to regulate corrupt government seems invalidated... doesn't it?

If you WILL revolt - then you're willing to go to war with your peers, against the Constitution - so your appeal to protecting Constitutional rights is suspect.


It's a no-win-scenario for you, I'm afraid.

[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.

Except that as we have seen no amount of regulation will stop people from circumventing those laws, you will still have licensed agencies selling products under the table, you will still have illegal agencies who find alternative methods to getting these products, smuggling, stealing or manufacturing them.

And people kill each other even though murder is a crime.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

[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).

How well do you know acctual early US history? You do know that we sent people to England to negotiat about taxation practices, right?

Pretty well. I'm aware of representations about taxation. I'm also aware that the refusal of the colonists to foot a mere third of the bill racked up in defending the colonies, was basically a political maneuveur to push conflict.

[Omnicracy]

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.

1) It is all how we define fear and concern after all, is it not?

2) Well, I was not refering to a court of law, but to the whole of humanity. Either way: If so, undeniably yes. If not, prehaps.

[Omnicracy]

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.

If one ate corn.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) Valid point, but one cannot use high-grade explosives in close quarters if one plans to live through it. Also, sniping.

2) It seems to me you are not the one thinking it through. How would Iran get a noticable military-caliber presence on US soil?

1) Have you been paying attention to modern asymmetrical war? The two main techniques are to place the high-grade explosives and then fuck off - letting it explode once you're safely away... and to act as the 'missile', and sacrifice yourself.

I suspect America is currently more geared towards the plant-it-and-be-gone mechanism.

2) I'm not thinking it through? You wanted to let private individuals have the right to own military grade weaponry... didn't you? Am I confusing you with someone else?

[Omnicracy]

'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?

The point is no one wants to get killed, but it is sometimes better to risk than the alternative.

[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?

In the mind of individuals, they do. That, or a C for civilian. Do you tell me one does not veiw people in a war as good, bad, or civilian?

I think you're living in the past.

If the US was civilly divided again, there's little chance it will be grey coats on one side and blue coats on the other.

Those days are gone.

[Omnicracy]

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.

You try explaining to people why they need to spend $1,000 for enough charcoal to barbaque with.

Charcoal is the easiest of the products to obtain, and also the only one I specifically didn't mention in my pricing mechanism suggestion. That's for two reasons - one, it's universally available... it would be like trying to outlaw 'a stick' as a weapon - and two, because it's much easier to regulate the other two-thirds of the ingredients... and it's just charcoal without them.

It was somewhat of a joke to prove a simple point; No one* will be happy with such regulation, as you will inadvertantly limit non-essetial civilian activities.

*I know it shouldn't say no one, but for the life of me I can't think of the right way to put it.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) It is all how we define fear and concern after all, is it not?

2) Well, I was not refering to a court of law, but to the whole of humanity. Either way: If so, undeniably yes. If not, prehaps.

1) I guess. I say 'fear', because 'fear responses', 'fear mechanisms' etc are pretty much standard phrasing. You say 'concern' because you don't want to call it 'fear'.

Maybe I'm wrong - that's how it looks.

2) 'the whole of humanity' is irrelevant. 'Self defence' rather suggests we're talking about an appeal to some kind of justification for what would normally be a criminal act... that sugegsts courts.

[Omnicracy]

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.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

Once the criminal is comited to fighting, true. Befor that? No. The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed.

In which case they are, for all intents and purposes, not criminals. I am not interested in passing judgment upon those who have committed crimes in the past; this situation regards those who are committing them in the present.

Fine. Replace my "Criminals" with "Persons who would be willing to comit crimes" and we solve everything.

Unless I'm much mistaken - in the discussion about what you would do if the Second Amendment was democratically revoked - you said you would be willing to commit crimes.

I'm just sayin'.

Point taken. However, crimes in support of morality are differant from crimes for personal gain.

[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.

If one ate corn.

We could discuss Beck if you really want. I think we should start with his acronyms-as-justification-of-accusation-of-conspiracy. That shit's priceless.

[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.

But your approval is irrelevant. Or rather - it's about one-three-hundred-millionth of relevance.

Untill I organize a massive armed rebelion against the opressive state. Then, I would say, its relevance is a tad higher.

[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?

The point is no one wants to get killed, but it is sometimes better to risk than the alternative.

Taking the food doesn't mean you have an empty head - just not an empty stomach.

It was a false dichotomy, if it was literal.

[The Adrian Empire]

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.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

Once the criminal is comited to fighting, true. Befor that? No. The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed.

In which case they are, for all intents and purposes, not criminals. I am not interested in passing judgment upon those who have committed crimes in the past; this situation regards those who are committing them in the present.

Fine. Replace my "Criminals" with "Persons who would be willing to comit crimes" and we solve everything.

Unless I'm much mistaken - in the discussion about what you would do if the Second Amendment was democratically revoked - you said you would be willing to commit crimes.

I'm just sayin'.

Yes, and should he approach a civilian with the intent to kill him or rob him that civilian has every right to defend himself, because Omnicracy is now a criminal, you seem to be blurring the lines between self-defence and vigilantism, if Omnicracy were to be stockpiling weapons then any person walking by doesn't have the right to kill him for breaking the law, he should call the police, but if omnicracy attacks that man walking by, then the man does, because his life is now in danger, likewise when a home invader breaks into your house, pulling a gun on him shouldn't be illegal, and if he poses a threat to your life then lethal force should be allowed.