Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Non Aligned States]

1) Do you honestly think I said something even kinda in the same room as that?

Absolutely. You justified criminal acts in 'moral' interests.

You then differentiated between those acts, and the 'bad' ones.

This rather falls into a rather gray area , but criminal acts in 'moral' interests can sometimes be actually better ethically than staying on the straight and narrow.

Otherwise every political advocacy group, every rights movement, every abolitionist (anti-slavery), every independence and resistance movement, would not have been justified.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because, at the end of the day, it is they who make the laws. If a governemnt were to succumb to Nazi preasures in a similar way, I would still revolt. Also, although I currently do not drink and do not plan on it, I possibly would have had I been alive during prohibition. I would have at least tried to help with an underground bar if an oportunity presented itself.

The point wasn't about whether you drink or not - it was about the government introducing a Constitutional amendment that 'removed rights'. It's a parallel. If the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is revoked, the pressure will come from the voters. The government isn't going to just turn around and 'ban' guns - they can't.

Well, techniclay they could, but you missed my point. Just because it is democratic and caused by preasure from civilians does not make it good or would not mean I follow it. democracy =/= inherant good

No - but I think we are getting closer to what I actually wanted to know - your justification for owning guns ISN'T that the Constitution says you have that right - because you wouldn't respect an Amendment that changed it.

That's kind of what I wanted to know - whether the Constitution mattered - or whether it's just a means to an end - where that end is having guns.

Given that you don't care about the Constitution, OR about democracy... why do you think other people should let you have guns? You seem to be making the kind of arguments that would PROMPT people to overturn the Second Amendment. You're a loose cannon.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) No. I said a crime for morals was differant than a crime for personal gain.

Right. Being shot in the face for morals is okay. Being shot in the face for personal gain isn't.

Oh... no, actually. Turns out being shot in the face is just the same, either way. Apparently, crime is crime.

Who knew?

[Grave_n_idle]

It does not say, "the right of the aformentioned well regulated militia." It says, "The right of the people." How can I make that any clearer?

The whole second part of the amendment is prefaced by an obviously intrinsic contingency.

How can I make that any clearer?

[Uawc]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) The point of armed revolution is to resist tyrrany of the majority in the case we speak of now... Was that not clear?

No, not even vaguely. Indeed, you've fairly consistently talked about opposing 'corrupt' government - whereas, what you're nOW talking about is attacking a perfectly functional, representative, NON-corrupt government... IF it commits the unforgivable sin of bowing to popular demand on an issue you disagree about.

For the millionth time, just because enough people want to kill the babies to pass an amendment does not mean you should kill babies!!!

No? What should you do?

Attack the government?

[Verzia]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

thats my point too, people should be able to have guns, no question, but gun screening should be far more thorough.

[Uawc]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

thats my point too, people should be able to have guns, no question, but gun screening should be far more thorough.

Most gun crimes are committed with illegally-acquired firearms. Suffice to say...

[South Norwega]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

thats my point too, people should be able to have guns, no question, but gun screening should be far more thorough.

Most gun crimes are committed with illegally-acquired firearms. Suffice to say...

Source please?

And a large percentage of illegal firearms are stolen from legal owners.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) Do you honestly think I said something even kinda in the same room as that?

Absolutely. You justified criminal acts in 'moral' interests.

You then differentiated between those acts, and the 'bad' ones.

This rather falls into a rather gray area , but criminal acts in 'moral' interests can sometimes be actually better ethically than staying on the straight and narrow.

Otherwise every political advocacy group, every rights movement, every abolitionist (anti-slavery), every independence and resistance movement, would not have been justified.

And this is kinda where I was heading. If Omni makes such a deal about needing a gun to protect himself from criminal elements who will be armed - and Omni IS a criminal element who is armed - isn't his own argument extremely circular and self-serving?

It's like masturbating, then calling the cops and demanding protection from the guy who just molested you.

Of course - I can see why civil disobedience can be productive. Of course. I do find it difficult to apply the same kind of 'moral' crime banner to the idea of 'voting with the ammunition box'.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

[The Adrian Empire]

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.

1) a. Only to the point of protection of liberty. I have many political oppinions that do not fall into this catagory. b. The second amendment secures a right in the Constitution. The Constittution is still important as it is the document the country is run by. As I said in a, I only oppose it with arms if it violates rights.

2) (Note: Thats not how amendments work at all. To call it an over-simplification would be giving it too much credit.) I rebell against the opressive governemnt if I rebel. I justify it the same way I would justify rebeling against democraticly elected Nazis.

3) Interesting, as that is how most of your points seem to me. What exactly is doublethinky about my possition? You probably just misunderstood me.

1) 'Liberty' doesn't mean anything if you won't say what it DOES mean. What amendment would you go to war over? At what point will you scrap the Constitution?

2) Yes, it's a simplification. But read the text of article 5 http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5

Theoretically, all you need is 2/3 of legislatures to call the convention, or two-thirds of elected representatives in both houses to propose amendment. It's not actually literally 200 million Americans, per se. I'm aware of that.

Congress does not lead America, 350 Million Americans lead America, if two-thirds of legislators vote for the amendment but two-thirds of the population oppose the law then it is not a legal law, because the elected representatives are no longer representing the people, when the government no longer cares for the opinions of the people it is a tyranny, a tyranny may be rebelled against, the second amendment keeps a legal government from destroying the constitution, I would think that in a truly democratic nation any amendment of the constitution should require a national referendum.

However even that isn't quite right, the constitutional right to free speech shouldn't be repealed even by a majority of the people, there are some things no democratic nation should ever repeal

[Grave_n_idle]

However even that isn't quite right, the constitutional right to free speech shouldn't be repealed even by a majority of the people, there are some things no democratic nation should ever repeal

I'd tend to agree. Of course - I don't see 'free speech' and 'right to keep and bear arms' as in anything like the same league.

Maybe it's my experience of the UK. Free speech is essential to democracy, guns aren't.

[Them There]

Just compare all crime rate(per capita) in areas with strict gun laws as compared to those with limited or no gun laws. Real world data trumps political goals every time.

The problem is, that's ignoring too many other factors. You need to look at a much bigger picture.

What I've seen is that areas with strict gun laws can have a high or low crime rate, while the areas with limited gun laws can have a high or low crime rate.

I think a good correlation actually exists for mandatory military service versus crime rate. I suspect those who make these 'crime rate' arguments suddenly won't care about crime rates if they actually have to do something in exchange, though.

Fine, on the first one, divide and define the data for corresponding economic, political, and religous data. As well as population. On the second, I have never seen military service affecting crime rates in any positive manner. If anything, military service makes people more likely to engage in direct violence without materially changing the rates of nonviolent crime.

[The Adrian Empire]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

Your Situation is actually a perfect one against your argument:
If you were armed you could have pull the gun out before he did dissuading them from taking advantage of you, or you could pull it out when he did kill that MF and if necessary those other rapists, unlikely, yes. Has it happened actually yes, in that situation she shot the man on top of her and the other men ran away.
But without that gun you will almost always be raped in that situation (if there was only one of them you could potentially use martial arts, a stun gun or mace but it may just enrage him) whether there is a gun in his hand or a knife, or even two men holding you down. Unless you have a gun, then you have a chance however to survive unharmed.

Criminals like rapists and especially gang rapists will always find ways to acquire firearms, you can never take the gun from that rapist's hand, but you can put one into the hand of the victim

[Grave_n_idle]

Just compare all crime rate(per capita) in areas with strict gun laws as compared to those with limited or no gun laws. Real world data trumps political goals every time.

The problem is, that's ignoring too many other factors. You need to look at a much bigger picture.

What I've seen is that areas with strict gun laws can have a high or low crime rate, while the areas with limited gun laws can have a high or low crime rate.

I think a good correlation actually exists for mandatory military service versus crime rate. I suspect those who make these 'crime rate' arguments suddenly won't care about crime rates if they actually have to do something in exchange, though.

Fine, on the first one, divide and define the data for corresponding economic, political, and religous data. As well as population. On the second, I have never seen military service affecting crime rates in any positive manner. If anything, military service makes people more likely to engage in direct violence without materially changing the rates of nonviolent crime.

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/lrnylstk.htm

"In Switzerland, every male, starting at about age twenty and continuing for the next thirty-five years of his life, has to serve several weeks a year in the militia. The nation of Switzerland has always been defended by a militia composed of ordinary citizens, rather than by a professional, full-time standing army; and citizens are required to spend several weeks every year in militia training. As part of the militia training, Swiss men are given assault rifles. These rifles are not the kind we have in the United States (which are guns that look, but do not function, like machine guns because they only shoot one bullet at a time when you squeeze the trigger). Members of the Swiss militia receive genuine article SIG brand assault rifles; they are military machine guns--the same as an M-16 rifle that a U.S. soldier carries. Militia members are required to keep their guns at home, to keep the ammunition, to periodically practice shooting, and to certify their marksmanship skills.

In many other ways, the Swiss government strongly encourages its citizens to be armed. There is a very lenient licensing system for handguns. In most cantons, which are the equivalent of states, there are relatively few controls on long guns. In fact, you can obtain anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, bazookas, and low-grade artillery in Switzerland with much less trouble than it would take to obtain a building permit in New York City. The Swiss licensing system is wide open and aims to encourage the people of the nation to be as well-armed and as well-versed in as many kinds of arms as possible--it's not an optional thing. If you are a male, you have to be in the militia and you have to become a good shooter with your assault rifle. And yet, Switzerland has very little gun crime. The homicide rate is essentially the same as Japan's, and Switzerland has the same kind of safe streets that are characteristic of Japan."

[The Adrian Empire]

Just compare all crime rate(per capita) in areas with strict gun laws as compared to those with limited or no gun laws. Real world data trumps political goals every time.

The problem is, that's ignoring too many other factors. You need to look at a much bigger picture.

What I've seen is that areas with strict gun laws can have a high or low crime rate, while the areas with limited gun laws can have a high or low crime rate.

I think a good correlation actually exists for mandatory military service versus crime rate. I suspect those who make these 'crime rate' arguments suddenly won't care about crime rates if they actually have to do something in exchange, though.

Fine, on the first one, divide and define the data for corresponding economic, political, and religous data. As well as population. On the second, I have never seen military service affecting crime rates in any positive manner. If anything, military service makes people more likely to engage in direct violence without materially changing the rates of nonviolent crime.

Well, actually I think you might be wrong on that point, not that I want to divert the issue or take away from the fact that their gun ownership also leads to this, but examples of nations with conscription like Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Singapore and Sweden are all nations with very low crime rates, they also I'd like to point out have civilian gun ownership

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

Your Situation is actually a perfect one against your argument:
If you were armed you could have pull the gun out before he did dissuading them from taking advantage of you, or you could pull it out when he did kill that MF and if necessary those other rapists, unlikely, yes. Has it happened actually yes, in that situation she shot the man on top of her and the other men ran away.
But without that gun you will almost always be raped in that situation (if there was only one of them you could potentially use martial arts, a stun gun or mace but it may just enrage him) whether there is a gun in his hand or a knife, or even two men holding you down. Unless you have a gun, then you have a chance however to survive unharmed.

Criminals like rapists and especially gang rapists will always find ways to acquire firearms, you can never take the gun from that rapist's hand, but you can put one into the hand of the victim

I was simply pointing out that your example suggests an emotional argument for guns, by suggesting that guns autmatically translate into defeating the 'bad guys' when, in fact, there is an (at least) equal possibility for arguments to the exact opposite effect.

It's funny that you seem to assume every victim will be a carrying a gun (sothe victim in the rape scenario can fight off her attackers), but not every villain.

[The Adrian Empire]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

Your Situation is actually a perfect one against your argument:
If you were armed you could have pull the gun out before he did dissuading them from taking advantage of you, or you could pull it out when he did kill that MF and if necessary those other rapists, unlikely, yes. Has it happened actually yes, in that situation she shot the man on top of her and the other men ran away.
But without that gun you will almost always be raped in that situation (if there was only one of them you could potentially use martial arts, a stun gun or mace but it may just enrage him) whether there is a gun in his hand or a knife, or even two men holding you down. Unless you have a gun, then you have a chance however to survive unharmed.

Criminals like rapists and especially gang rapists will always find ways to acquire firearms, you can never take the gun from that rapist's hand, but you can put one into the hand of the victim

I was simply pointing out that your example suggests an emotional argument for guns, by suggesting that guns autmatically translate into defeating the 'bad guys' when, in fact, there is an (at least) equal possibility for arguments to the exact opposite effect.

It's funny that you seem to assume every victim will be a carrying a gun (sothe victim in the rape scenario can fight off her attackers), but not every villain.

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one, if I had another example where a person who didn't buy a gun but could have faced the same situation then the result would be the same as your example and therefore an unconvincing argument.

You aren't reading my posts if you think that I am saying guns are automatic bad guy killers, I am saying that the bad guys will always shoot the good guys and the innocent, what I am suggesting is that the good guys should have the ability to shoot back, some good people will still die, some bad people will still get away but some good guys who would have died will be saved, some bad guys who would have gotten away will be stopped.

With gun control there is no such power, the bad guys will still have guns, but the good guys will no longer have guns because they follow the rules, it is only dangerous to the good people.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

[Dark Side Messiahs]

Gun control means strong regulation and using both hands. You teach at a young but proper age that guns are not toys and the importance of that fact, you'll do more better than trying to protect them from every little thing that might happen to them in this world. American's have a right to bare arms and therefore keep firearms in their homes.

Now, what do normal people need with a crate of 20 AK-47's? Nothing, no one needs that many unless they are supplying an army. Is there a foreseeable reason that someone would need 1 or 2 AK-47's? Yes, to protect your family, home, property and even nation in dark times.

My point is you can regulate who gets weapons and who doesn't, the current system in place needs to be completely reworked and updated. The fact that I could go to a gun show right now with $200 and my ID and I can get a hand gun and permit to carry like that, without a background check; that's scary but it means that people like the ATF aren't doing their jobs! They know people sell gun conversion kits and even 'illegal' weapons at these shows and to whoever but don't do anything about it untill some psycho in Texas get a shitload of assault rifles and takes them on. One of these dealers sells a gun to a nut case, he kills someone and everyone screams 'Take away guns from people!' like little scared children.

Learn from the mistakes of the past and help fix the problem today. If you truly regulate any problem it ceases to exist. People want to own a gun should have to pass a criminal/personal/mental background check and pass a firearms class before even being given a permit to own a gun. Concealed weapons on the streets would be only for people(Police, security officers, federal agents)licensed to carry them in public but not to John and Suzy Q Public. This isn't the wild west, we don't need to walk into the office with a Glock hidden in you suit but if you want a gun in your home its fine.

I believe in the right to keep and bare arms and hate the fact that my right to have guns is even being considered to be taken away. That is something that better not happen cause they're gonna have to pry my gun from my cold dead hand.

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

So you would have it because guns can fall into the hands of bad people to just take away the right everyone has to defend themselves, their families and property and ultimately their right to bare arms. If federal regulators wouldn't make it so easy to get a gun at some two-bit conventions NRA members, psychos who shoot up schoolyards, and militia types then maybe this wouldn't be a topic at all.

[Grave_n_idle]

So you would have it because guns can fall into the hands of bad people to just take away the right everyone has to defend themselves,

No.

[The Adrian Empire]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

Because you gave only one gun to the criminals, if you had given more I would have used them, so those criminals could all have guns, but they still would have those guns if there was gun control, while the girl only has a gun in my example, so say they do have those guns, and she pulls out a gun, now what? Do the criminals shoot her? They're now murderers, not only that, their gun shots have alerted the neighbourhood, people will phone the police and armed neighbours will rush to help the women. A criminal won't take that chance, they'll run this has been demonstrated in thousands of cases of gun deterrence.

[Them There]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

And when you ARE the girl in that alley, you'll wish that you had the gun....

Ridiculous argument. An unarmed girl with no training in self defense is ALWAYS going to lose to larger and more brutal people of ANY gender. This makes no change in the argument that an armed person is FAR less likely to be a victim of the thugs and criminals that will exist until either we kill enough of them that they no longer have an effect on the gene pool or the species becomes extinct. An unarmed thug will be at the mercy of the most FRAIL person who is armed and willing to use the weapon. Since thugs don't follow the current laws, what makes you believe that they will suddenly follow gun laws? Removing firearms from legal ownership creates a blackmarket in firearms(removing all oversight, even for QUALITY), disarms all the "good" people, and arms all the "bad" people. Is this really a good thing? Do you really want to be a victim of armed criminals? If so, then please allow those of us who don't wish that to defend ourselves. It is far cheaper in every manner for you to simply take an ample supply of whatever valuatta you have and walk into the most crime-ridden area you can find. I can gauruntee that you'll become a victim without having to insist that all other "good" people become victims as well.

[The Adrian Empire]

So you would have it because guns can fall into the hands of bad people to just take away the right everyone has to defend themselves,

No.

So what are you saying? Do you agree that people have a right to their self-defence? Then surely you will agree that the gun is the greatest conduit of that self-defence, as almost all people can fire a gun, the elderly, petite women, small men, at least for now it is the closest thing to a universal leveler.