The riddle of the gun; looking at both sides of the gun debate

fdd2blk said:

i think a lot of people argue, just for the sake of arguing.

Click to expand...

I agree. Sometimes I find myself refusing to agree with somebody on here just because I have disagreed with them in the past. Petty and immature, sure, but it helps to keep my "enemies" defined.

Rob Roy said:

The concept that people have the natural right to defend themselves is timeless. Passing laws for something or against it does not necessarily mean the laws will be abided by. Passing a law to remove all guns will be as effective as making pot illegal.

Click to expand...

Yes, everyone has the right to defend themselves. However, the right to defend yourself could mean any number of countless things to any number of countless people. There needs to be some form of responsibility assumed by people who wish to own guns.

So, somewhere in between completely unfettered access to any type of firearm, and complete restriction to all firearms, there's probably a solution that works better than the one in place now.

The thing is, no one is willing to change their perspective in the slightest.

Beefbisquit said:

Yes, everyone has the right to defend themselves. However, the right to defend yourself could mean any number of countless things to any number of countless people. There needs to be some form of responsibility assumed by people who wish to own guns.

So, somewhere in between completely unfettered access to any type of firearm, and complete restriction to all firearms, there's probably a solution that works better than the one in place now.

The thing is, no one is willing to change their perspective in the slightest.

Click to expand...

Those countless things all boil down to one thing however: the right to use force to say No to an aggressor.
Until the Star Trek-style stunner is invented, the best tool for the job is being hated by the guns, ewww! contingent precisely because it is such a good tool for the job. cn

I hear that in london even the cops don't carry guns....... how do you think our government would feel about putting something like that into effect when they institute the new wave of gun control?

if people don't have guns i don't imagine cops will need them either.... right?

DonPepe said:

I hear that in london even the cops don't carry guns....... how do you think our government would feel about putting something like that into effect when they institute the new wave of gun control?

if people don't have guns i don't imagine cops will need them either.... right?

Click to expand...

That has been something I've proposed on several of the current wave of gun threads. So far no takers from the less-guns side of the table. Specifically, my proposal is that the cops should have equal and not greater access to guns than the population they serve. In CA, that means no more ARs for LAPD and CHP among others. In New York City, ~giggle~. cn

cannabineer said:

Those countless things all boil down to one thing however: the right to use force to say No to an aggressor.
Until the Star Trek-style stunner is invented, the best tool for the job is being hated by the guns, ewww! contingent precisely because it is such a good tool for the job. cn

Click to expand...

The fact that it's a good tool for the job isn't the concern. The fact that unstable, underage, untrained, or other unqualified people have incredibly easy access to them, is.

Kervork said:

I think the US government would be pretty much powerless against an armed insurrection by 50 million people.

A governments power is not blowing people up, it is extorting taxes out of them. Syria will fall, not because the rebels are well armed but because the conflict has bankrupted the government.

A sea of weapons means the government forces are not safe anywhere, hence the costs of security go through the roof while tax revenues go through the floor.

Click to expand...

This is a rather simplistic view of a country where government can and does influence the average citizen in ways we cannot comprehend even if we wish to.

It is not at all hard in our PR capable society to turn one segment of the population on another. We see that in many movies where ordinary folk are asked to turn on their tvs and watch "deserving" criminals attempt to escape. "look our your doors, look out your windows and call us with what you see - there, or over there, is the hideous man who killed 12 police officers in cold blood, you saw it with your own eyes". Never mind the truth, that the running man was killing in self defense, that he is simply trying to win money for his ailing child and that the game is rigged from the start - rigged in order to keep the population in line by lauding them as law abiding citizens and all others as the enemy.


Not hard at all to show shorts of bearded beer drinking militia staging mock defensive maneuvers while telling honest citizens that they are flaunting the law.

You seem to believe that these millions are well trained, well organized, communicate well with some unnamed central command and have all the time in the world to gain whatever objective they wish.

And what might that ultimate objective be? What is their goal? it is easy to say "to overthrow the current government" but what does that actually mean, what will signal their success and what will they put in place of the newly overthrown government?

It is a wonderful, heartening, and noble idea but it has no real meaning any more, the time when we as citizens might have overthrown our government is long past. The power remains with a people only if they know full well that their guns will not alter things, when they are fully aware that they must use other means to accomplish their ends.

Beefbisquit said:

The US Military could annihilate 50 million people in the blink of an eye.

Click to expand...

But they wouldn't and needn't if they only have to marginalize them. A few dozen children caught up in some militia firefight - real or trumped up would be all it would take to turn those without guns - the silent majority - against those 50 million and have them group by group round up and contained.

racerboy71 said:

that is if you could get the us military to turn it's own weapon's on their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.. i like to think that they couldn't / wouldn't.. not our gvt per se, but the actual soldiers pulling the triggers rather..

Click to expand...

Kent State is evidence that you are incorrect.

Beefbisquit said:

The fact that it's a good tool for the job isn't the concern. The fact that unstable, underage, untrained, or other unqualified people have incredibly easy access to them, is.

Click to expand...

My access never ever was incredibly easy. I worry that injecting overstatements like that sours chances at productive debate. I also ask: how to control access without restricting guns? How do I know that you're not proposing a gun ban in sheep's clothing? Look at NYC gun laws and you must agree they're too restrictive. An excellent indicator of this is that the cops get guns but regular people don't. cn

desert dude said:

I can agree with you on this.

I am a 2A supporter, but I can accept that many citizens think it needs to be revoked. I am on board. Go ahead and amend the constitution to revoke 2A and I will grumpily abide, while invoking my 1A freedom to point out that it is foolish to do away with 2A.

At the constitutional convention that you convene, I would also like to rewrite the commerce clause to say that the federal government has the authority and power to regulate interstate commerce so as to prevent trade wars between individual states, but the federal government has absolutely no authority to oversee or regulate any commerce within an individual state regardless of how that intrastate commerce might affect interstate commerce. As a competing amendment to the 2A revocation amendment, I also want to put forth a revised second amendment that says: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The ability of a free people to resist tyranny, even by force of arms, is guaranteed without exception. The people shall have free access to military grade weapons equal in power and capability to the arms used by civilian police forces, and state military forces." I am sure there are other constitutional enhancements I can think of.

What I will not tolerate is for the federal, state, or local governments to pretend that 2A does not exist, or to pretend that it does not mean what it says.

Click to expand...

back when they penned it, people fought their governments with muskets, cannon balls, and bayonets.

it is not possible that it has retained ALL of its same meaning in an age of nuclear bombs, chemical warfare, and armored tanks.

UncleBuck said:

back when they penned it, people fought their governments with muskets, cannon balls, and bayonets.

it is not possible that it has retained ALL of its same meaning in an age of nuclear bombs, chemical warfare, and armored tanks.

Click to expand...

True. But that doesn't mean that the presumed intent ... to give the people a bargaining card vis-à-vis a gov't feeling a bit oatsy, is entirely invalid. The Germans had two of the three (and the idea of using nukes for counterinsurgency won't hold up under serious regard) and still felt the wisdom of rounding up people's guns. Jmo. cn

a gun go off by accident?...is anyone really taking this article seriously?..i didnt know guns pull their own triggers...smh

Even if the Second Amendment guaranteed everyone the right to possess whatever weapon he or she desired (it doesn’t)
...thats EXACTLY what the 2nd amend. is, whoever wrote this article is a fucking moron. and im glad they dont own a weapon

Criminals still have guns in London. However, low level criminals, a bigger threat in my mind than large scale criminals, have to make their own bullets. I say low level are a higher threat because upper echelon criminals do not want superfluous attention. So they won't go around robbing people at gun point. Whereas a low level criminal is going to rob a bank at gun point, not really thinking of any consequence, and will shoot. That's a whole debate in itself, but lets just say, for the sake of argument, that the previous argument is given and accepted.
Most people, or at least most that I know do not know how to make their own bullets. So when they attempt to the bullets usually are pretty useless, and probably won't kill a person. I highly doubt your average "gang banger" could make bullets for his ak. The only friends of mine that can make bullets happen to be rednecks who use their guns SOLELY for hunting/protection, and seldom resort to using their guns unless someone else already has a gun intending to use it against them. So I propose, why not make bullets illegal to distribute to civilians? In my sample set its a win win. I don't know though, it could e a terrible idea.

cannabineer said:

True. But that doesn't mean that the presumed intent ... to give the people a bargaining card vis-à-vis a gov't feeling a bit oatsy, is entirely invalid. The Germans had two of the three (and the idea of using nukes for counterinsurgency won't hold up under serious regard) and still felt the wisdom of rounding up people's guns. Jmo. cn

Click to expand...

i'm not making an argument for gun bans, i'm making an argument against desert dweller's silly revision.

cannabineer said:

My access never ever was incredibly easy. I worry that injecting overstatements like that sours chances at productive debate. I also ask: how to control access without restricting guns? How do I know that you're not proposing a gun ban in sheep's clothing? Look at NYC gun laws and you must agree they're too restrictive. An excellent indicator of this is that the cops get guns but regular people don't. cn

Click to expand...

In a lot of areas of the country you can go to a gun show and buy a gun without ID or a background check. Some places are more restrictive, but the spectrum is so wide there needs to be some consistency across the nation.

UncleBuck said:

i'm not making an argument for gun bans, i'm making an argument against desert dweller's silly revision.

Click to expand...

I otoh do not think DD's revision is silly at all. At least it highlights, and sets beyond legislative erosion, the real reason for the Second. The public-safety aspect is just a bonus imo.

At the very least limit civilian police to what the locality actually allows. In Boston and NYC, there is technically a gun permit process, but the chief of police won't sign. Fine; index police gun licenses to those granted citizen applicants with no dings on their criminal or mental-health record. If 8% of "clean" applicants get gun licenses, limit police carry to 8% of the force. That should clear a coupla sinuses in this debate.

But do not countenance arming the police beyond what the citizen is allowed to acquire, keep and operate. That is simply corrupt. My opinion. cn

mccumcumber said:

Criminals still have guns in London. However, low level criminals, a bigger threat in my mind than large scale criminals, have to make their own bullets. I say low level are a higher threat because upper echelon criminals do not want superfluous attention. So they won't go around robbing people at gun point. Whereas a low level criminal is going to rob a bank at gun point, not really thinking of any consequence, and will shoot. That's a whole debate in itself, but lets just say, for the sake of argument, that the previous argument is given and accepted.
Most people, or at least most that I know do not know how to make their own bullets. So when they attempt to the bullets usually are pretty useless, and probably won't kill a person. I highly doubt your average "gang banger" could make bullets for his ak. The only friends of mine that can make bullets happen to be rednecks who use their guns SOLELY for hunting/protection, and seldom resort to using their guns unless someone else already has a gun intending to use it against them. So I propose, why not make bullets illegal to distribute to civilians? In my sample set its a win win. I don't know though, it could e a terrible idea.

Click to expand...

in that case they should be illegal for the government also, you just don't get it, second amendment isn't for hunting and protection is so people can revolt and overthrow the government in the event of a tyrannical government.

UncleBuck said:

back when they penned it, people fought their governments with muskets, cannon balls, and bayonets.

it is not possible that it has retained ALL of its same meaning in an age of nuclear bombs, chemical warfare, and armored tanks.

Click to expand...

Do you know anyone with a nuclear bomb, chemical warhead, or an armored tank?

Beefbisquit said:

In a lot of areas of the country you can go to a gun show and buy a gun without ID or a background check. Some places are more restrictive, but the spectrum is so wide there needs to be some consistency across the nation.

Click to expand...

Only if you are buying the gun from a private non licensed person, just like if you went and bought a gun from a guy across town, Exactly the same.

You cannot buy a gun from a dealer or a new gun at a gun show without a background check and all the paperwork.

There is no gun show "loophole."