RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


MadRabbit -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:08:06 PM)

Sorry guys. I consider them all to be weak arguments in light of the potential damage some of these weapons would cause if used in public and given access to by everyone.

Human beings are panicky and irrational human beings in the midst of a crisis and the chaos that could result in such a situation surpasses the need to own weapons that serve no other purpose then to kill a lot of people really fast, because we might need to "protect ourselves against the government".

I would rather face that possibility then the possibility of rampant powerful weapons in our society.

The Constitution was writted in the context of a time when militia had muskets and government had muskets. They had no knowledge whatsoever of the weapons we have now nor is there any reason to think that they would have assumed we would have things powerful enough to destroy a building or city block.

Everybody owning guns isn't that big of a deal when all the guns fire one bullet and take 5 minutes to reload.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:10:49 PM)

quote:

Sorry guys. I consider them all to be weak arguments in light of the potential damage some of these weapons would cause if used in public and given access to by everyone.

Can it be any greater than the damage these weapons inflict when wielded by "government"?

Isn't this yet another argument for reducing government power (and firepower) relative to "the people"?




celticlord2112 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:12:02 PM)

quote:

The Constitution was writted in the context of a time when militia had muskets and government had muskets. They had no knowledge whatsoever of the weapons we have now nor is there any reason to think that they would have assumed we would have things powerful enough to destroy a building or city block.

Perhaps that is the relevant context--that there was and could be proximate parity between the forces of government and the forces of free men.




MadRabbit -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:16:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Sorry guys. I consider them all to be weak arguments in light of the potential damage some of these weapons would cause if used in public and given access to by everyone.

Can it be any greater than the damage these weapons inflict when wielded by "government"?

Isn't this yet another argument for reducing government power (and firepower) relative to "the people"?



If we switch the context to a debate about reducing the power and size of the federal government and turning it over more towards the state and people, then my arguments would be different.

But we're talking about giving weapons to the people to compensate for the government's size which is different.

"The government" as it is now is a bunch of people who live, work and our a part of this country. Given the many contigencies we have in place in our democracy regarding the balance of power, I don't find the idea of the government turning on it's own people to be something very plausible.

"V for Vendetta" was just a movie.




MadRabbit -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:17:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

The Constitution was writted in the context of a time when militia had muskets and government had muskets. They had no knowledge whatsoever of the weapons we have now nor is there any reason to think that they would have assumed we would have things powerful enough to destroy a building or city block.

Perhaps that is the relevant context--that there was and could be proximate parity between the forces of government and the forces of free men.


As I stated before, that's something I am more in line with. I think we need more power on a state level and less on a federal level.




Outlaw85 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:40:30 PM)

let me just make this abundantly clear, because this isn't even something you debate.  It's plain, and simple and matter-of-fact, in the same way that 2+2=4.  that's just the way it is.  

1.  The only thing that gives the bill of rights any weight, any merit at all, is the leverage of an armed population to enforce these rights.  It's part of our system of checks and balances.

2.  If said rights are anulled, then we as citizens are completely liberated of any moral responsibility or loyalty to the government.  It's a binding contract you see.  Not only that, but we then also morally entitled to the right to then overthrow said government by brute force if nessisary, which is a right clearly stated and represented in our declaration of independance.  Consider it the equivilent of Case Law.  And in the spirit of "case law" I cite the 13 colonies vs Great Britian "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  In short, if my rights are anulled, it is perfectlly morally acceptable for me to shoot all armed representatives of said oppressing government on site, with guns that I will still have possession of, and it wouldn't be just me, there would be millions of people like me, in numbers far greater than the total number of police and armed forces.  To put it very bluntly, it's impossible for the goverment to deprive us of specific rights because we will outright kill them for it.  They are deadlocked.

3.   People suffer under the delusion that if guns were banned, that people who do not respect the law will magically no longer have them.   That sort of convoluted logic is completely ludacris I'm afraid.   The only thing that outlawing guns will accomplish (outside of outright insurrection) is exponentinally adding to the flame of organized crime by feeding the already profitable illegal gun trade, and now that all obtained guns are illegal, the government will not even have a record of what honest moral citizens own weapons and will be able to track nothing.    People also don't realize that ak-47s and other weapons can be easily produced in basic machine shops.  That's what they do in pakistan.  Similar to how people made moonshine during prohibition. 

  So considering this, those law abiding pacifists who wouldn't rebel, would be stuck between armed criminals and armed government.  Then when factoring in the social unrest of basic rights being deprived of moral and rebellious and armed citizens, the government will be forced to take more and more controlling measures in order to try to smother the flame of hatred and revolution that would engulf the nation, and the unarmed law abiding citizen will be at the complete mercy of the government, and the criminals, and the rebels, completely helpless.  

4.  And then finally, the final point.  We live in a society that holds certian principles dearer than life.    And that is why we're more violent.  If a canadian is being raped, they wouldn't dream of killing their attacker.  they value life too much.  Americans however have made it quite clear that not only our lives but our property is more valuable than those who would wish to violate it.    Not only that, but consider this.  People also suffer under the delusion that the police can help you.  they can't.  most crimes go unsolved.  the simple fact is, a man can walk into your home, trash everything, take what they want, and leave and the police will do little more than take a report.  they lack the money, and the manhours in most cases to even do the most basic of investigation such as taking fingerprints.  The police, at very best, exist to hunt down the criminal AFTER the fact, in MOST cases.   Therefore, you have to take SOME responsibilty for yourself if you don't want those bad things to happen to you, and be prepared to defend yourself. 

That's one of the biggest problems we have in society, is our laziness, and lack of willingness to take responsibility.  We used to look out for ourselves and our neighbors, we no longer do, and thus gangs run rampant,.  We don't want to deal with it, we want to live in the comfort of our own delusion that we're safe, and give more and more responsibility to the government, which they take, depriving you of more and more of your freedom as a result, and it's not even intentional, they just wind up having to pass more and more restrictive laws.

There is something else very wrong with our society and I'm not sure what it is.  But it's very unsettling.   50 years ago 8 year old boys being charged with double homicide was unheard of.   It's a fact that gun violence is rising and there is something very wrong.  However, we were just as armed as a society 50 years ago, as we are now.   Therefore, if you use logic, you have to come to the conclusion that obviously it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people, and our society. 




Naga -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:55:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Sorry guys. I consider them all to be weak arguments in light of the potential damage some of these weapons would cause if used in public and given access to by everyone.


And I consider that a weak argument in the light of what damage could be caused to our rights if your argument is allowed to prevail.

quote:

Human beings are panicky and irrational human beings in the midst of a crisis and the chaos that could result in such a situation surpasses the need to own weapons that serve no other purpose then to kill a lot of people really fast, because we might need to "protect ourselves against the government".


Speak for yourself. People are only panicky and irrational when immature. When you hold them at a level of immaturity by forcing them to remain dependent and child like, you get what you ask for. When people are forced to take responsibility for their own welfare and safety, they grow up darn fast. And raising a society of adults is the most important thing because otherwise society is on its way down hill and will eventually disappear.

quote:

I would rather face that possibility then the possibility of rampant powerful weapons in our society.


They are already rampant. What are you talking about?

quote:

The Constitution was writted in the context of a time when militia had muskets and government had muskets. They had no knowledge whatsoever of the weapons we have now nor is there any reason to think that they would have assumed we would have things powerful enough to destroy a building or city block.


The Constitution did not establish the right, it protected previously existing rights. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say, "The right to keep and bear arms shall be established." They knew that there would be more powerful weapons over time and things they could not imagine. They already had weapons that could destroy buildings and blocks. But they also knew the government should be at the mercy of the people, not the people enslaved by the government. As such, they would be at least as well armed as the government and outnumber it.

quote:

Everybody owning guns isn't that big of a deal when all the guns fire one bullet and take 5 minutes to reload.


Nope, but when one side can fire multiple bullets in a row and reloaded in 5 seconds, then it makes a difference..... if it is the wrong side.




Outlaw85 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:56:39 PM)

quote:


I don't find the idea of the government turning on it's own people to be something very plausible.

"V for Vendetta" was just a movie.


communism in russia
nazism in germany
the spanish inquisition
franco facism
salem witch trials
persecution of japanese citizens during WWII
rapant land grabbing capitalism ala post civil war era
guantanamo bay
gay and lesbian persecution

I'm sure there are plenty of others I'm not recalling at this very moment, I'm afraid I'm quite the moon struck scatter brained individual

as you've stated, people panic easily,  Stupid choises are made when people panic.  Weapons will always be a factor, and in a culture as proud as ours, violence will be too.  The only thing that maintains certian rights is weight of firepower and our own mortality and integrity by those willing to die to make sure those rights are maintained.  




philosophy -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:58:53 PM)

FR

...if the argument is that US citizens ought to have access to the same level of weaponry available to the US government, do those who support that idea also support the idea of privately owned nuclear, bacterial and chemical weapons? In other words, should Joe Six-Pack have the right to own WMD's?




MadRabbit -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 3:59:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

...if the argument is that US citizens ought to have access to the same level of weaponry available to the US government, do those who support that idea also support the idea of privately owned nuclear, bacterial and chemical weapons? In other words, should Joe Six-Pack have the right to own WMD's?


Iraq apparently doesn't, but hey we're Americans.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:01:55 PM)

quote:

if the argument is that US citizens ought to have access to the same level of weaponry available to the US government, do those who support that idea also support the idea of privately owned nuclear, bacterial and chemical weapons? In other words, should Joe Six-Pack have the right to own WMD's?


I'd prefer nobody owned these hellish creations, but, failing that, I'd prefer everybody had them.

Turn the question around for a moment.  If we would not trust the common citizen with such fiendish weapons, why would we trust government with them?




philosophy -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:02:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

...if the argument is that US citizens ought to have access to the same level of weaponry available to the US government, do those who support that idea also support the idea of privately owned nuclear, bacterial and chemical weapons? In other words, should Joe Six-Pack have the right to own WMD's?


Iraq apparently doesn't, but hey we're Americans.


...lol......but it's a semi-serious question. i'm guessing most people don't want their neighbours to be able to legally stockpile nuclear weapons.....in which case it's clear that the principle has exceptions. So where are those exceptions? Where do we draw the line?




philosophy -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:07:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

if the argument is that US citizens ought to have access to the same level of weaponry available to the US government, do those who support that idea also support the idea of privately owned nuclear, bacterial and chemical weapons? In other words, should Joe Six-Pack have the right to own WMD's?


I'd prefer nobody owned these hellish creations, but, failing that, I'd prefer everybody had them.

Turn the question around for a moment.  If we would not trust the common citizen with such fiendish weapons, why would we trust government with them?



...well i'm not surprised on two counts. Firstly i'm not surprised to see your arguing the Heinleinian viewpoint, (what was that short story again?).......secondly i'm not surprised to see your distrust of government.
Comes down to a pragmatic decision in my view. Out of individuals or governments, which group has the most checks and balances on their behaviour? Essentially we're dealing with two groups of individuals. Governments are beauocracies, and therefore there are built in checks and balances. Individuals aren't organised the same way, therefore there are fewer checks and balances. Given that, in the case of WMD's, even one use is too much, how do we prevent someone climbing a clocktower with a nuke? There isn't an equivilant for that with governments, that behaviour is strictly the province of individuals.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:11:28 PM)

quote:

Out of individuals or governments, which group has the most checks and balances on their behaviour?

Individuals.  The checks and balances are called neighbors.

Governments have only their own internal inefficiencies and the capacity of the citizenry to oppose the government to keep their behavior in check.




Naga -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:23:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
In other words, should Joe Six-Pack have the right to own WMD's?


It is not a valid question. Could "Joe Six-Pack" afford to purchase, maintain, and store such weapons? The control is already built in by the cost and knowledge needed to do so.




Outlaw85 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:23:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Out of individuals or governments, which group has the most checks and balances on their behaviour?

Individuals.  The checks and balances are called neighbors.

Governments have only their own internal inefficiencies and the capacity of the citizenry to oppose the government to keep their behavior in check.



can I quote this?  You put it perfectly.  That's it, the entire argument I put forth up above in so many paragraphs you summed up brilliantly in three sentences. 




celticlord2112 -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:25:09 PM)

[:)][:)][:)][:)]
(Thanks!)

By all means.  Quote away!




Crush -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:29:35 PM)

Bad guys these days often come in pairs, if not in gangs, not as individuals.  A semi-automatic, or even an automatic weapon (which you can legally own in the US, if you get the permit) evens the playing field, if you ever find yourself on that field.

Stories occur every day of people who've protected themselves from "bad guys" by just having a handgun that they may use or not use.

Bad guys are predators.  Predators look for prey that is easy to take down. Being armed keeps you from being easy prey.

Additionally, in the United States, the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution recognizes (not grants) an individual's right to bear arms.  To protect oneself and if necessary, to remove a government gone bad.   Of course, all of those who voted for Obama should  think things will be all right once he is in office, so therefore he runs no risk of an armed insurrection.   And those that didn't know things aren't that bad yet. 

That leaves personal protection.  I have taught my children and my wife how to shoot.  One child has his Concealed Weapons License because he works at night when the bad guys come out.  My wife has two handguns and is able to shoot both, in spite of having Rheumatoid Arthritis and is a CWL holder.  Just my responsibility as a Dad to make sure that they will survive and thrive instead of becoming dependent on the State.  And I'll put a round through the diamond on the ace of diamonds at 10 yards repeatedly. 

I never want to ever have to shoot someone to protect me or those around me.  But if someone is going crazy and hurting or killing people around me, I'll act to stop them.  We've had enough Luby's restaurants, schools/universities under fire and people killed in courtrooms because people are disarmed.  Security systems don't work against a determined individual.  Only determined individuals work against determined individuals.


Remember:  When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.






MadRabbit -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:41:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

...if the argument is that US citizens ought to have access to the same level of weaponry available to the US government, do those who support that idea also support the idea of privately owned nuclear, bacterial and chemical weapons? In other words, should Joe Six-Pack have the right to own WMD's?


Iraq apparently doesn't, but hey we're Americans.


...lol......but it's a semi-serious question. i'm guessing most people don't want their neighbours to be able to legally stockpile nuclear weapons.....in which case it's clear that the principle has exceptions. So where are those exceptions? Where do we draw the line?


I draw the line at handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. As long as we still consider those to be "fire-arms" then the right to bear arms is maintained in this country.

I'm perfectly happy with upholding that right and think it's a good idea to provide these basic weapons of defense. I don't agree that it should be the right to bear ALL arms.

That's just my opinion. People are entitled to theirs. I welcome them to it and have said so a couple of times (though I think it got overlooked in the zealous desire to debate with me).




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Gun Sales Up Since Obama Election Victory (11/12/2008 4:42:20 PM)

~FR~

To the OP, people that believe that since Obama is President there will be restrictions on gun puchases are buying them now. It is not that irrational actually. Those that believe the 2nd Amendment is going to be radically changed are not thinking rationally.

The 2nd Amendment was created for two reasons, and the intent is very easy to see because there are several documents that those same framers (Thomas Jefferson for one) that expand on these thoughts. 1) Protection of the country because at the time there was no seperate military. Private Citizens comprised militias with their personal weapons. 2) To prevent the government from using a free standing army to impose tyranny.

Well number 1 is not really needed that much, or is it? Hmmmm. In the event of a huge disaster in my area, the police or authorities are going to be hard pressed to defend me, my family and my property. Owning the best weaponry possible may allow me to defend those things myself. Someone asked why I should be able to purchase an assault rifle, well plainly put, so I can defend myself with the best anti-personel weapons available.

Someone said that number 2 is unrealistic because the army has tanks, planes, etc. Well the most effective warfare against a much larger force is one of insurgency. In the event that the military were used to enforce tyranny upon the American people we should have the best weaponry possible to defend our rights.

Are their nuts out there?There sure is, I see them every day using the most common weapon used to cause death and injury, an automobile.




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875