Here for those of you who want a 'civil' and 'rational debate' on gun control

Alright, so let's have at it shall we?

First off, I'd like to say I live in America and I have no problem with people having firearms.

The military and police carry firearms all the time and we trust them do we not? The people in the military and police are just like you and me. Some are flawed. Most trustworthy.

Why then would you not want your average citizen to not be armed to protect themselves, or execute their right to own a firearm for whatever reason?

And no, I don't agree that limitations are needed, whether they are reasonable or not.
The Second Amendment has many functions, the most important of which would be to take the country back, or to defend the country and constitution from foreign powers.
Part of the freedom we enjoy is the freedom of choice. And the Constitution wasn't built on 'wants' and 'needs', it was built on choice and freedom. The freedom to choose for yourself what is adequate for your situation is important, no matter the topic, and the right to own what you want is what is at stake if you disagree.

By dictating what 'guns' someone can own, you give the government the power to dictate anything else you can and cannot own. Which, it already has done so.

For some reason your post caused me to have an apiphany.
I think the most effective propaganda tool the government has for gun control, is to drive a wedge between the military/police and the citizens. I mean everyone is ok with them having weapons, but us normal citizens can't. I want to know who the gun grabbers think these same military/police people are when they are off duty? What makes them more priviledged than us? Why can they have them and we can't? I also think the first road to a Fascist/Socialist Dictatorship is to convince the population that its military/police and politicians are above the normal people, and vice versa. I mean if they can get the military and police to see us as animals, then they won't have a problem killing us like one. It's the same brainwashing technique the military uses on its troops against a foreign enemy, why not us once the government declared its citizens an enemy, with the NDAA.

Aaaaand here is my reply, which is of course not done by me but by a much much much more talented guy:



Okay, as it seems to be capped, here is the original link to it.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


I will tell you...European Cops could use a few Guns. Riots in Europe always get out of hand and such riots are few and far between in the states because our Cops would never allow it.

Split Infinity

reply to post by geldib


Are we subjects or citizens? Our founding father's certainly had the answer.

Also read my signature line.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Aaaaand here is my reply, which is of course not done by me but by a much much much more talented guy:

Okay, as it seems to be capped, here is the original link to it.

I'll address the points they brought up first, and then I will address your position.

1)It's not only the armed 'victim' that needs to be taken into consideration. People with CCW's do not always use their weapons. However, I would think it far more likely that you could diffuse a situation such as a robbery on the street simply by showing you are armed and willing to use force to protect yourself.

If you think that civilians being armed won't help make places safer, then I would take a look around Youtube for some clips of gas station, jewelry store, etc robberies caught on camera where the victim did indeed have a firearm close by.

2)This is not a very well done portrayal of criminals or the mental health factors involved.
I'm not going to go over this in detail, as many subsequent threads could be made on this topic.
However, this does not fit with these characters as they are super villians and have plans within plans.
These are not the equivalent of your every day mugger, as the first panel's original story of Bruce's parents being murdered, is actually far more likely a situation than someone dressed in a green suit with question marks on it asking you a riddle and if you don't answer right your shoes will explode or something.

On another subject, if Bruce's parents had not died, he would not have become Batman, and the Joker never would have been who he was. So even portraying this character after already establishing the life changing event of our hero never happened is some short sighted judgement of this issue coming through quite clearly.

3)Firstly, normal people don't 'hunt' bats. Leave that to the rednecks (no offense). Secondly, actually it does.
It does more than just imply we have that right.
It implies that an armed populace help keep not only the nation safe, but each other safe.

Jefferson said here, Link, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — 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… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.'

What he means by this is that one should try through any means possible to address any grievances one has with his government peaceably, that the right to rebel is your last resort when all else has failed.
Just as many people who have firearms do not purchase them to kill or even shoot people. They purchase them for protection, and pray they should never have to use them for that reason.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Why then would you not want your average citizen to not be armed to protect themselves, or execute their right to own a firearm for whatever reason?

I DO want my average citizen to be armed to protect themselves. And to own firearms for whatever reason, be it personal protection, hunting, sport or collection. But I don't want EVERY weapon to be available to EVERY person. I think there's a middle ground. There are reasonable limits on all of our rights and I support them in our complex society.

And no, I don't agree that limitations are needed, whether they are reasonable or not.

So, you're OK with your felon neighbor who hates you owning an XM8 tank and an arsenal of fully-automatic weapons?

The Second Amendment has many functions, the most important of which would be to take the country back, or to defend the country and constitution from foreign powers.

If we were going to "take the country back" don't you think we would have done it by now? I mean, do you think WE run the country (as it was meant to be)? If "we, the people" aren't running this country, then why haven't we "taken it back"? Think about the practicality instead of the romanticism of your statement.

Part of the freedom we enjoy is the freedom of choice. And the Constitution wasn't built on 'wants' and 'needs', it was built on choice and freedom. The freedom to choose for yourself what is adequate for your situation is important, no matter the topic, and the right to own what you want is what is at stake if you disagree.

Consider that the state of maximum individual freedom (without limits) is known as anarchy and the fact is that humans aren't evolved enough to operate in a complex social environment under the structure of anarchy. (I actually support the idea of anarchy, but KNOW that our society cannot be trusted to function under it.)

Thank you for starting this thread. S&F.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Uh . . . If my neighbor was a felon . . . He could not own such weaponry. Felons forfeit many rights that non-felons are able to still enjoy. However, I appreciate the hyperbole.

To answer you question with reality. Many of us already live next to neighbors who "hate our guts" and are armed. Say, the LEO that lives across the street from me. Probably, even moreso now that his wife talks to me when either of us are out. I don't feel unsafe at all . . . in spite of the fact that he is a horse's ass with obvious anger problems.

I understand your position . . . no guns on the planet. When you find Xanadu, let me know, and I'll move there with you.

reply to post by solomons path

Originally posted by solomons path
Uh . . . If my neighbor was a felon . . . He could not own such weaponry.

Yes, I know that. That's my point. There are reasonable limits on all our rights, as there should be, in a complex society. Are you OK with this limitation? After all, the second amendment says PEOPLE have the right. Felons are people, right?

I understand your position . . . no guns on the planet.

You understand no such thing. You have made a HUGE and extremely incorrect assumption. I support the second amendment and firearm ownership.

I certainly do not feel passionate enough about this to get into snarky fights, but I appreciate a respectufl discussion, whether we agree or not.

I tend to prefer some controls on gun ownership. I think having firearms IS a form of power (though I do not see it as one which can stand up to that of the government ). I see all forms of power as coming with an equal amount of responsibility... and not everyone is capable of carrying that responsibility.

I think a background check for a permit is appropriate. Where I am there are also certain obligations concerning safe storage at home, and proven knowledge and skill at using your guns. You have to renew your permit each year.

It sounds like a lot, we've got various sorts of firearms, so it can get complicated.... but I find it to be a reasonable system. I am sorry but just look at some of the ways people act on the web, and ask yourself if all people should be walking the streets with guns! I really think there are some that are incapable of handling that power and responsibility.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ManFromEurope

 

I will tell you...European Cops could use a few Guns. Riots in Europe always get out of hand

They do???

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH


The police force has insurance and deep pockets to pay for any mistakes. They have standards for accuracy and conduct.

The average citizen doesnt have the resources to pay for their potential mistakes.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


My apologies Heretic . . . I thought you said in another thread you didn't want any guns anywhere. My mistake and wasn't trying for the typical political jab.

To answer you first question . . . I consider myself classical-liberalism, in thought, which means democrats call me right wing and repubs call me left wing! So, chances are I don't even agree with whatever law that person broke to become a felon in the first place (unless it is a crime that took the rights of others, murder, assault, etc). And if they have served their debt/punishment and the state says that they can be a free member of society, then they should have all rights restored. Like you said they are still a person.

As far as neighbors go, I try to judge on how they act toward me and those around them, as opposed to events from their past or predictions on the future. In my case, I would be more apprehensive of the LEO who lives across from me and hates my guts than the armed "felon" next door who keeps to himself and chit-chats now and again.

reply to post by Bluesma


If you had ever been in Liverpool after a ref blew a call at a Soccer game and experienced such a riot you would understand. Greece is especially notorious for allowing Protests against their Government to get WAY out of hand.

The European rioters knowing that the Police do not carry guns tend to not fear Police action thus they get even more violent when confronted by Police.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I DO want my average citizen to be armed to protect themselves. And to own firearms for whatever reason, be it personal protection, hunting, sport or collection. But I don't want EVERY weapon to be available to EVERY person. I think there's a middle ground. There are reasonable limits on all of our rights and I support them in our complex society.

Do you apply the same thing to vehicles? Do you not want highschoolers to have Nissan 350Z's? They don't need that for their short commute to school. Or what about those big ol' diesel trucks jacked up on huge wheels?
The reasonable limits are already there.
It's illegal to deprive a person of life, their property, or freedom; No matter the tools used to do so.

Say you wanted to go get a candy bar at a store. You really want something with nuts in it, but all they have is plain chocolate bars because you don't need the extra calories the nuts give.
And what about the obese people? I don't see people advocating that they give up their freedom of choice of the foods they eat since they're so fat. Well...except for New York, but that's another topic for another time.

So, you're OK with your felon neighbor who hates you owning an XM8 tank and an arsenal of fully-automatic weapons?

Was it a violent felony? If it wasn't, I wouldn't be worried at all. If it was, I still would want to afford him the same choices I have. Reasons being the same as far as 'Assault Weapons' are concerned. What are assault weapons? Who classifies them as such? And what mental illnesses are we going to base restrictions on? Depression is a mental illness. Plenty of people have it too.

If we were going to "take the country back" don't you think we would have done it by now? I mean, do you think WE run the country (as it was meant to be)? If "we, the people" aren't running this country, then why haven't we "taken it back"? Think about the practicality instead of the romanticism of your statement.

We haven't 'taken the country back' because we still have the country. We're still trying the options we do have. As I said in that statement, it's the last resort to use force and arms, and we haven't reached such a radical state yet. Even so, if such a thing were to happen, I assure you that people like me would pursue an outcome where no one was hurt.

Consider that the state of maximum individual freedom (without limits) is known as anarchy and the fact is that humans aren't evolved enough to operate in a complex social environment under the structure of anarchy. (I actually support the idea of anarchy, but KNOW that our society cannot be trusted to function under it.)

I agree, and I also wish it was so that we could live as such.

But we do have limits, and I acknowledge that. Those limits are laws. They limit what you and I can legally do.
When you turn a right into a privilege though, that's when I have concerns.

Sure, there are those who are mentally ill who need to be watched carefully and criminals who will repeatedly commit crimes. The point is, you don't universally say 'all mentally ill people are untrustworthy' or 'all felons are violent and a risk to others' because that's just not true.

And even so, mental illness is not always permanent, and once you've committed a crime you pay your fine or what have you. That's your punishment, but you can't take away their rights after that because they've already paid for their crime. Sure, give it a year or two on violent offenders and if they still haven't been in any trouble, then give them their rights back. But to say those who are mentally ill or felons don't deserve the same rights you and I can afford isn't fair.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes. Felons are people.

But this is where we need to stop. The constitution isn't a menu. It's a binding law. The whole thing. No person shall be deprived of life LIBERTY(as in jail time or the liberty to own Guns) or property without due process.

That's the 5th amendment. So yes if you commit a felony and are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you right to life and liberty may be taken from you. Otherwise we wouldn't have prisons.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

 

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Why then would you not want your average citizen to not be armed to protect themselves, or execute their right to own a firearm for whatever reason?

I DO want my average citizen to be armed to protect themselves. And to own firearms for whatever reason, be it personal protection, hunting, sport or collection. But I don't want EVERY weapon to be available to EVERY person. I think there's a middle ground. There are reasonable limits on all of our rights and I support them in our complex society.

This argument is just the "lite" version of the harder progresive police state goals. You have heard yourself many times and can read as I am sure you have that the 2nd amendment is NOT about personal protection, hunting, sport or collection. All these issues are just low hanging fruit from the main fact. This "middle gound" as you call it is not constitutional and is just some go along to get along song and dance the anti-gun goons have dreamed up.

I was just thinking- for those who feel firearms should be allowed any and all without controls,
How then do you feel about drivers licenses?
Do you feel that there shouldn't be any tests, or age requirements, or permits? That anyone should have the right to drive whenever they want to?

reply to post by Bluesma

the part you are missing is "travel" is a right and no law that infringes that right is lawful.

yes, you can be regulated to use the roads commercially, but no law stops anyone from travelling unless you allow it.

classic examples are children driving their drunk parents.
it's happened for all the years alcohol has been available and more often than not, when caught, they are not prosecuted ... why ?
because no law can legally infringe on their right to travel.
legalities of the circumstances may be argued in court but the right is absolute.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Bluesma

 

the part you are missing is "travel" is a right and no law that infringes that right is lawful.

yes, you can be regulated to use the roads commercially, but no law stops anyone from travelling unless you allow it.

classic examples are children driving their drunk parents.
it's happened for all the years alcohol has been available and more often than not, when caught, they are not prosecuted ... why ?
because no law can legally infringe on their right to travel.
legalities of the circumstances may be argued in court but the right is absolute.

I guess I don't get what you mean to say.

"Travel" is not the same as "driving a car" if you do not have a license, or a car, you can still travel. You can go by foot, bicycle, horse, train, as a passenger on a bus, car, plane....these forms of travel are more limited in your power to harm others.

And if cops have been letting kids drive their parents home, that is illegal- it was their call to do an illegal act- though the child retains full freedom to walk (or use these other forms of travel) they do not have the legal right to drive a car.

I must not be understanding something you wrote, I think?