Gun Control: Your Opinion

[The Adrian Empire]

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?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

You are infuriating, there is a world of difference an entire world. One that you contradict when you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl. But you would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child. Hardly sounds like valuing life to me.
It's whose face goes splat, in one it is an innocent person with a wallet, in the other it is a paedophile raping a child, one hasn't done anything to warrant immediate reaction the other has.

[Omnicracy]

And if they ban knives?

Have they?

(Whoever the 'they' is).

Are they not doing so in Britain? Trying to make all knives remove the sharp stabby bits to ensure safety due to rising knife crime

Unless the girl shooting the guy in the neck, was in England (which seems unlikely, since she had a gun), then what has been done, or is being done, in England is irrelevant, isn't it?

Just providing an example of a place where they have begun to phase out knives. Not ban them but...

Sorry it was a subject jump

Actualy, it arguable fits. Pro-gun banners argue that a gun ban would never lead to something as stupid as a knife ban. The fact that England is acctualy moveing towards one is both vidication of an old chessnut and quite hillariouse.

[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?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

You are infuriating, there is a world of difference an entire world. One that you contradict when you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl. But you would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child. Hardly sounds like valuing life to me.
It's whose face goes splat, in one it is an innocent person with a wallet, in the other it is a paedophile raping a child, one hasn't done anything to warrant immediate reaction the other has.

Taking a life is taking a life. I'm really not sure a lot of people are understanding the gravity of that.

Worse - I fear they may have understood the gravity, and decided they just don't care.

I don't see a conflict in: "...you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl."

I didn't say I: "...would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child".

[Grave_n_idle]

Actualy, it arguable fits. Pro-gun banners argue that a gun ban would never lead to something as stupid as a knife ban.

Do they?

Or do their opponents just claim they say it?

The fact that England is acctualy moveing towards one is both vidication of an old chessnut and quite hillariouse.

Hilarious in that the nation is trying to move away from violent crime... that's funny?

[Omnicracy]

You asked. I answered.

You may have answered. I didn't ask.

I was being polite.

To be more accurate, you have quite deliberately misrepresented me, for your own ends, twice.

Oh, and you, the great and mighty Grave_n_idle have never done such a thing! Espetialy not in this very thread all the time!

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, and you, the great and mighty Grave_n_idle

Oh come now, you embarrass me.

Just call me Grave - save that 'great and mighty' stuff for when people are watching.

[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.

Which would sometimes happen. But in yours, she always gets raped. In his, she has a fighting chance.

Outgunned three-or-four to one is a fighting chance?

In the scenario I speculated, she might survive. That's the real difference.

Criminals are not uber-fighting machines, these rapists probably will head for the hills after she shoots one, if they don't yes, she has a fighting chance, more often then not the mere presence of pistol will send them running, because raping that girl =/= a big chance of dying.

But shooting or disarming her, less so?

There is a big risk in either shooting or disarming her that they will die as individuals, seeing one person die will in rational beings institute a flight or fight reaction, for most people the reaction is flight, for there is little to no risk in running.

In disarming her no quite frankly that is unlikely, you see one of you're friends shot, there is not the rationale in mind to take the gun. It would require moving towards her. Which isn't a thought that would pass through a scared mind.

As for shooting her, that would require a commitment to murdering an innocent young women, which most people don't have the stomach for.

[The Adrian Empire]

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?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

You are infuriating, there is a world of difference an entire world. One that you contradict when you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl. But you would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child. Hardly sounds like valuing life to me.
It's whose face goes splat, in one it is an innocent person with a wallet, in the other it is a paedophile raping a child, one hasn't done anything to warrant immediate reaction the other has.

Taking a life is taking a life. I'm really not sure a lot of people are understanding the gravity of that.

Worse - I fear they may have understood the gravity, and decided they just don't care.

I don't see a conflict in: "...you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl."

I didn't say I: "...would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child".

Then what would you do, I want to know, talk him out of raping her?

[Grave_n_idle]

There is a big risk in either shooting or disarming her that they will die as individuals, seeing one person die will in rational beings institute a flight or fight reaction, for most people the reaction is flight, for there is little to no risk in running.

In disarming her no quite frankly that is unlikely, you see one of you're friends shot, there is not the rationale in mind to take the gun. It would require moving towards her. Which isn't a thought that would pass through a scared mind.

Ah. For some reason, you seem to assume the gang of rapists is going to giving their possibly-armed potential victim some kind of heads up.

As for shooting her, that would require a commitment to murdering an innocent young women, which most people don't have the stomach for.

I would assume most people also don't have the stomach for rape?

[Omnicracy]

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.

1) I have said time and time again that the rights are what matter. How did you not get that I would fight for rights over a document intended to govern a nation? Government exists to protect rights. One should never support a government or system over liberty.

2) I have no idea what that even means, but I asume you misunderstod something at a basic level of my argument.

3) I care about the Constitution, but not because it is the Constitution. I care about it because it is a well-writen functional system of government that secures liberty. The fact that I would fight for liberty is an argument for people removeing my ability to fight for liberty in your mind? How the hell does that work?

1) I'm used to seeing people argue that the Second Amendment is important. Your 'it's irrelevant' position is new to me - I apologise if that's causing me gear-change problems.

2) As above - you don't care about the Constitutional argument, that's what I neded to know.

3) The fact that you would oppose the Constitution, and fight against the majority in your democracy if they didn't agree with you - THAT is the argument for removing your ability to fight. You're going to be considered too dangerous by a lot of people, sicne you're not feeling bound to the laws or to democracy.

1) Okay, I think I understand. No offence taken if I understand right.

2) But that sentance makes no sence...

3) Ah. I then understand. Alot of people would also keep there heads down and not fight for their belieffs, that does not mean that is how one should act. I can't realy argue that stupid people will make stupid decisions.

[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?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

You are infuriating, there is a world of difference an entire world. One that you contradict when you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl. But you would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child. Hardly sounds like valuing life to me.
It's whose face goes splat, in one it is an innocent person with a wallet, in the other it is a paedophile raping a child, one hasn't done anything to warrant immediate reaction the other has.

Taking a life is taking a life. I'm really not sure a lot of people are understanding the gravity of that.

Worse - I fear they may have understood the gravity, and decided they just don't care.

I don't see a conflict in: "...you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl."

I didn't say I: "...would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child".

Then what would you do, I want to know, talk him out of raping her?

No. I woud take whatever force was necessary (maybe more) to stop that crime taking place.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Omnicracy]

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?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

Not what I asked. You seem to keep making the argument that killing someone is killing someone is killing someone. So, are those two things the same or not? If not, does that mean you conceed the point?

[Omnicracy]

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?

Also, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was people acting due to morals will act differantly than people acting for personal gain. People are more likely to risk their lives for morals than personal gain, not so?

Are they?

I've not seen a lot of fighting for morals in recent history, but I've watched the success of Blackwater prove that people will fight for personal gain. Literally.

Um... terorists. That is absolutely all I have to say.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) Okay, I think I understand. No offence taken if I understand right.

2) But that sentance makes no sence...

3) Ah. I then understand. Alot of people would also keep there heads down and not fight for their belieffs, that does not mean that is how one should act. I can't realy argue that stupid people will make stupid decisions.

1) If I've got it right, it's not supposed to be an insult, just a realisation.

2) The constitutional argument - the right is important, because it is protected by the Second Amendment, etc.

3) A lot of people believe that democracy is important whether or not it agrees with them. A lot of people agree that you fix the democratic process democratically. To a lot of people, your declaration that you would wage war against the constitution and against democracy, would make them very nervous.

[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?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

Not what I asked. You seem to keep making the argument that killing someone is killing someone is killing someone. So, are those two things the same or not? If not, does that mean you conceed the point?

Yes, those two things are the same. The person is dead. The shot was fired. The blood is, at least metaphorically, 'on your hands'.

Killing someone IS killing someone.

[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?

Also, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was people acting due to morals will act differantly than people acting for personal gain. People are more likely to risk their lives for morals than personal gain, not so?

Are they?

I've not seen a lot of fighting for morals in recent history, but I've watched the success of Blackwater prove that people will fight for personal gain. Literally.

Um... terorists. That is absolutely all I have to say.

See... that is somewhat scary. The group you identify with... is terrorists.

[The Adrian Empire]

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?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

You are infuriating, there is a world of difference an entire world. One that you contradict when you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl. But you would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child. Hardly sounds like valuing life to me.
It's whose face goes splat, in one it is an innocent person with a wallet, in the other it is a paedophile raping a child, one hasn't done anything to warrant immediate reaction the other has.

Taking a life is taking a life. I'm really not sure a lot of people are understanding the gravity of that.

Worse - I fear they may have understood the gravity, and decided they just don't care.

I don't see a conflict in: "...you said that life was not worth a dollar amount, so you disagree with killing for money, but life is also precious so you are against a man raping a little girl."

I didn't say I: "...would stand aside and wait for the police to arrive in eight minutes while a monster rapes and kills a child".

Then what would you do, I want to know, talk him out of raping her?

No. I woud take whatever force was necessary (maybe more) to stop that crime taking place.

What does that have to do with anything?

And what would that include? Punching him, grabbing him, what if he was physically stronger then you and your life as well as hers is in danger would you shoot him?

[Omnicracy]

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?

Its why the right is given to the people. A right given to the people for any reason is still given to the people.

Underlined! It MUST be true!

Of course, the converse is - a right that is contingent, is still contingent, no matter what group.

You know what? Still pointless. I believe in the right of citizens to bear arms so that they may rebell against the governemnt if need be. Several Founding Fathers have said things to that affect. If they hadn't, I would still hold my beliefe. Arguably, the amendment can be interpreted either way, but I believe it should be interpreted as I do. We have both provided all the information that there is and our oppinions have not changed. To me, it seems further discussion on this point would be pointless.

[Omnicracy]

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?

1) a. No, not corrupt opressive government, opressive government. Befor you said it was compleatly legaly removed in the scenario I was speacking of corruption as well as opression. Thats why I kept clarifying that opression did not equal corruption, or do you choose to forget that? b. I don't know why I even bother to keep saying it, but... NOT BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, BUT BECAUSE IT IS OPPRESSIVE! THERE ARE MANY POLITICAL ISSUES I DISAGREE UPON THAT ARE NOT OPRESSIVE, AND SO WOULD NOT CAUSE ME TO REVOLT! Did you get it this time?

2) Yes! You attack the government because they now say its okay to kill babies! And, if people try to kill babies, stop them any way you can without hurting the babies or people not trying to kill babies! Or would you say, sence it is what the Democratic majority wants, it should be followed without question?

1) I didn't 'choose to forget' anything - your definition of 'oppression' seems to be... they do something you don't want them to do. And, apparently, it doesn't matter if that is the Constitutional and democratic thing to do - you're STILL going to hold the government as 'oppressive' for doing it.

2) Again - this is what I've been trying to isolate - you think it's okay to attack the government for obeying the Constitution AND the will of the people... if it is one of your hot button issues.

1) I just refuted the point you made. All I would do is say it again, so please just re-read the bolded, capitalised, italisized, underrlined point.

2) So your telling me you would follow the democratic majority without question then?

[Omnicracy]

I do not believe in the right because for criminal elements, I believe in it for the case of revolution.

Wait, what? You're now REJECTING the self-defence argument? I'm having trouble keeping up - you seem to either be leaping from platform to platform.. or you don't actually HAVE a platform.

I have made the argument for owning guns for purely civilian purposes because it is there and it is a good one. Also, if people feel that my crimes caused by my morrals are immoral to them, they should do everything in there power to stop me.

They should kill you.

Right?

Everyone should act based upon their own personal morral code.

By killing, if necessary.

Right?

1) Look below your statement to see how means nothing.

2) Yes, that is what I said. Well, they should try. I would view those actions as wrong and atempt to kill them.

3) Yes, that is my whole point. Its not like I was trying to hide this.

[Omnicracy]

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.

But democracy is not essential to an eternaly free socioty at the end of the day and, arguable (as I have been making that argument), guns are.

I... but...

you...

Um.

An example. A free dictatorship or free monarchy with a heavily armed populace would have a revolution and remain free if the dictator/monarch became opressive. A free democracy with a total gun ban could become an opressive dictatorship because the people could do nothing about it in the end.

[Omnicracy]

As you seem to asume every villan always has just the right scenario to make a gun in the hand of a victim useless.

WHo is going to instigate the crime?

Thus - who is going to pick the advantageous position, territory, etc?

If a thief thinks you're armed, he'll whack you in the back of the head - not charge at you, yelling and making faces.

True, if he thinks you are armed and is comited to the crime. However, if he is almost sure you are not armed, then more people* will be comited to crimes because they are easier.

*I know the ammount of criminals will not acctualy change, but the amout of crimes criminals comite will. I realy hope you understand that.

[The Adrian Empire]

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?

1) a. No, not corrupt opressive government, opressive government. Befor you said it was compleatly legaly removed in the scenario I was speacking of corruption as well as opression. Thats why I kept clarifying that opression did not equal corruption, or do you choose to forget that? b. I don't know why I even bother to keep saying it, but... NOT BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, BUT BECAUSE IT IS OPPRESSIVE! THERE ARE MANY POLITICAL ISSUES I DISAGREE UPON THAT ARE NOT OPRESSIVE, AND SO WOULD NOT CAUSE ME TO REVOLT! Did you get it this time?

2) Yes! You attack the government because they now say its okay to kill babies! And, if people try to kill babies, stop them any way you can without hurting the babies or people not trying to kill babies! Or would you say, sence it is what the Democratic majority wants, it should be followed without question?

1) I didn't 'choose to forget' anything - your definition of 'oppression' seems to be... they do something you don't want them to do. And, apparently, it doesn't matter if that is the Constitutional and democratic thing to do - you're STILL going to hold the government as 'oppressive' for doing it.

2) Again - this is what I've been trying to isolate - you think it's okay to attack the government for obeying the Constitution AND the will of the people... if it is one of your hot button issues.

1) I just refuted the point you made. All I would do is say it again, so please just re-read the bolded, capitalised, italisized, underrlined point.

2) So your telling me you would follow the democratic majority without question then?

Grave, what if the democratic government instituted a law requiring that every person's first born child be sacrificed on the alter of Shi'ira the Goddess of Harvest, would you sacrifice yours? If government soldiers came to take your child from you for those purposes would you let them?
If habeas corpus was suspended by democratic means, and you were jailed without charge, you wouldn't fight back, the democratic option may not be possible, if the movements of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were to be placed in a tyrannical oppressive state do you believe they could have won? No, because in hostile governments the people don't matter, rebelling is something far different then shooting people, I think that resorting to violence right away would be disastrous, especially in a still democratic government, but deliberate disobedience of the law like that of Rosa Parks and others, in ways such as openly stock-piling weapons and marching in the streets, eventually you stand to wins the hearts and minds. An armed rebellion will be necessary when the democratic options are run dry. And the government begins to respond with force

[Omnicracy]

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.

Wich would sometimes happen. But in yours, she always gets raped. In his, she has a fighting chance.

Outgunned three-or-four to one is a fighting chance?

In the scenario I speculated, she might survive. That's the real difference.

One person in your scenario had a gun, or, atleast, that is how it seemed. So, if that is not how it is, then you say, in this situation, whether or not she has a gun is irrrelevant?

[Omnicracy]

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.

Why do you keep doing things like cutting quotes off mid-sentance?

Because that first half of the sentence suggested that I am a person who supports a gun ban,

Why bother going any further? The premise is ALREADY wrong.

So that you say its wrong and cant get accused of takeing an argument out of context, wich is what you are doing.

note: just because you remove the context does not nessisarily mean your argument is invalid to what they said, just that your only giving a little snipit of what they said.