Gun Control: Your Opinion

[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.

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.

People don't have to 'be happy' - just tolerate.

Using the example I used elsewhere... Sudafed. No one's happy they can't get the medicine they want for their snotty nose... but we put up with it.

[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'.

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

Not really - like you said "The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed"... which isn't necessarily true - indeed, you're own situation is an example of what you said wouldn't happen.

[Grave_n_idle]

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

What oppressive state?

As pointed out - this seems to boil down to your right to bear arms (since, I'm assuming you DIDN'T use the arms you CAN bear to combat the restrictions on OTHER rights over the last decade) - and that doesn't necessitate a corrupt government.

Or - are you saying you would fight to prevent the Second Amendment from being overturned?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Unless you're about to argue that a man who sees a woman being raped should NOT shoot the rapist (after all, he's not being attacked), then I think your argument is fatally flawed.

[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.

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.

Not entirely true, soldiers and rebels will still need a method of identifying each other in this case of war, I suspect it wouldn't be too long until there is at least some form identification to tell one from another, hand signals, arm bands, tattoos whatever it will be they will need this in order to not shoot the wrong people in this revolution.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not entirely true, soldiers and rebels will still need a method of identifying each other in this case of war, I suspect it wouldn't be too long until there is at least some form identification to tell one from another, hand signals, arm bands, tattoos whatever it will be they will need this in order to not shoot the wrong people in this revolution.

Tell me more about 'this revolution'.

You seem to make an awful lot of judgement calls based on knowledge I just can't see.

[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?

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

The second one (wich seems alot like the swiss system) never says people outside the militia are not allowed to own arms, it only says who is in the militia. I, personaly, would have voted against the second one, and mabey even the first.

[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?

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.

Not quite, if he revolts and he is alone in his opinion he is doomed to failure, no one will join his revolution those who do will have no safe harbours if the people are completely for gun control then eventually the rebellion will be quelled, but if he revolts and has the support of most of the people say even 50% then they will win, more people will join the rebels then the army, the government will be forced to either listen to the demands of the rebels or face worse sanctions by attacking large amounts of it's populations.

Now, it may be against a democratic decision, but if they don't fight back at all when their basicrights are being destroyed, then they don't deserve democracy

[The Adrian Empire]

Not entirely true, soldiers and rebels will still need a method of identifying each other in this case of war, I suspect it wouldn't be too long until there is at least some form identification to tell one from another, hand signals, arm bands, tattoos whatever it will be they will need this in order to not shoot the wrong people in this revolution.

Tell me more about 'this revolution'.

You seem to make an awful lot of judgment calls based on knowledge I just can't see.

this theoretical revolution you and omnicracy are describing

[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

The second one (wich seems alot like the swiss system) never says people outside the militia are not allowed to own arms, it only says who is in the militia. I, personaly, would have voted against the second one, and mabey even the first.

It says what the purpose of the arms is, which is to be able to service your militia obligation. Read through it again - the factors like the weapon that can't be taken from you to service debts etc are all contingent on your militia service. Those who are exempted from militia service, then, have no 'right' to keep and bear arms.

[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.

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.

If I do not revolt because the guns are removed, but instead stockpile them, it does not invalidate that weapons are needed to overthrow a corrupt government, it does absolutly noting to it in fact.

I would never appeal that Constitutional rights should be protected, but that rights should. If they are in the Constitution, leave them there. If they are not, try to democraticaly put them there. If one cannot, then one must rebell against the now-opressive Constitution.

That seems like a double-win scenario for me.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not entirely true, soldiers and rebels will still need a method of identifying each other in this case of war, I suspect it wouldn't be too long until there is at least some form identification to tell one from another, hand signals, arm bands, tattoos whatever it will be they will need this in order to not shoot the wrong people in this revolution.

Tell me more about 'this revolution'.

You seem to make an awful lot of judgment calls based on knowledge I just can't see.

this theoretical revolution you and omnicracy are describing

Which Omni doesn't quite seem to decide if he'll be willing to participate in or not... and we can't quite make out who the enemy would be.

[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?

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.

Is that how they teach it in whatever country your from? Here, it is the straw that broke the camals back.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not quite, if he revolts and he is alone in his opinion he is doomed to failure, no one will join his revolution those who do will have no safe harbours if the people are completely for gun control then eventually the rebellion will be quelled,

But he will fight to oppose an overturned amendment - in your opinion.

...but if he revolts and has the support of most of the people say even 50%

50% aren't going to back a violent revolution against an Amendment they just voted to remove, now, are they?

Now, it may be against a democratic decision, but if they don't fight back at all when their basicrights are being destroyed, then they don't deserve democracy

Then you're saying most Americans don't deserve democracy - the last 8 years are NOT the only time constitutional rights have been suspended.

[Grave_n_idle]

Is that how they teach it in whatever country your from? Here, it is the straw that broke the camals back.

I think it's rather telling that you think there are different versions of the story, and you choose to embrace the most partisan.

[Omnicracy]

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?

1) And thats why there is never a fire fight in Iraq or Afganistan. What is one to do if discoverd in a safe house?

I agree, as it stands, most fighting would be done the way you suspect.

2) No you are not. You also have not answered the question.

[Grave_n_idle]

If I do not revolt because the guns are removed, but instead stockpile them, it does not invalidate that weapons are needed to overthrow a corrupt government, it does absolutly noting to it in fact.

It does mean you'd willingly become a criminal, in breach of the Constitution, to suit your own desires, though.

So - what exactly does the Second Amendment mean to you, if you don't consider the Constitution important if it doesn't agree with you?

I would never appeal that Constitutional rights should be protected, but that rights should. If they are in the Constitution, leave them there. If they are not, try to democraticaly put them there. If one cannot, then one must rebell against the now-opressive Constitution.

66% of the populace can overturn the Second Amendment. Once it's gone - who exactly are you going to rebel against?

And how will you justify it?

That seems like a double-win scenario for me.

It seems like doublethink to me.

[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?

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.

Wait, are you saying that if there were a revolution, there wouldn't be sides? If not, then I believe one have greatly misunderstood what the other is saying.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) And thats why there is never a fire fight in Iraq or Afganistan. What is one to do if discoverd in a safe house?

I agree, as it stands, most fighting would be done the way you suspect.

2) No you are not. You also have not answered the question.

1) Firefights are to be avoided as much as possible in asymmetrical war. The numerical advantage is never going to favour the smaller faction - obviously.

2) if you're going to allow private individuals to own military grade weaponry, how are you going to STOP Iran having a presence?

[Omnicracy]

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.

1) And I bleive you are wrong, for that is how it looks to me.

2) You, my freind, clearly forget how this started then.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wait, are you saying that if there were a revolution, there wouldn't be sides? If not, then I believe one have greatly misunderstood what the other is saying.

You seem to be talking about a revolution where you're at war with... I don't exactly know who you think the enemy would be...?

People who support overturning the Second Amendment?

[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.

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.

I mearly wished to show that every argument holds its own truth, even Nazism. The problem is when one takes that truth and perverts it to lead to something it clearly does not.

[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.

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.

If to take the food you must do as they tell you, it is accurate.

[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.

People don't have to 'be happy' - just tolerate.

Using the example I used elsewhere... Sudafed. No one's happy they can't get the medicine they want for their snotty nose... but we put up with it.

And I would vote to change that law.

[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.

Not really - like you said "The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed"... which isn't necessarily true - indeed, you're own situation is an example of what you said wouldn't happen.

I was refering to crimes for personal gain, not crimes in support of morality. I thought my previous post made that clear?