Jump to content

Pin-up and KaBar's Big Firearms Debate Thread


KaBar2

Recommended Posts

Okay. I support the Second Amendment and all forms of firearms ownership, and Pin-up does not, so I started this thread so we could discuss it without hi-jacking a thread on elections ("Erections"--maybe that's a thread on Chinese elections. Whatever.)

 

Basically, I believe that every person everywhere has the God-given right to defend themselves, that no person or Government or any entity has the right to prohibit them from defending themselves, and to that end, they also have the right to own and possess and use firearms, and all manner of weapons. (Someone once accused me of supporting the open wearing of swords, and I said, "Well, duh. Don't you?")

 

Texas, where I live, protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) in our State constitution, because of the right of states to raise and arm the militia. All able-bodied, male, Texas residents between 17 and 45 are automatically members of the militia (Federal too--Title 10, Section 311, United States Code) and are also part of the Texas State reserve military forces. This includes the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard (when under the command of the Governor of Texas,) the Texas State Guard (unpaid volunteer members of Texas' military police battalion,) the Department of Public Safety (state troopers,) the Texas Rangers (the "FBI" of the Department of Public Safety,) all county Sheriffs and their deputies, all constables of State and District Courts, all local police officers, and all public employees considered "Texas peace officers"--including all firefighters (both paid and volunteer), EMT-P paramedics and so forth.

 

They aren't kidding when they include all able-bodied males between 17-45. Any time there is an emergency, any police officer can turn to the nearest able-bodied civilian male and say "I deputize you--pick up that deer rifle and follow me." In fact, this very thing occurred during one of the most tragic mass killings in Texas--the Texas Tower Sniper incident. The sniper, a former Marine rifleman with a brain tumor the size of an orange, killed 13 people on the ground from a sniper position at the top of the clock tower of the University of Texas in Austin. TWO of the four men who went up the tower after the sniper were civilians who were combat veterans of WWII and Korea, and both the veterans were civilians armed with their own shotguns.

 

During the Fort Davis stand-off between the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and a violent, extremist, "Republic of Texas" splinter group, the news media called up the leader of the militia group I trained with, and asked him "Do you and your group support the RoT people in Fort Davis?" and he replied "Ask the DPS troopers if they need any help, we'll be glad to help them enforce the law."

 

Admittedly, these instances are rare, but the NRA estimates that civilians use personal firearms to defend themselves about 250,000 times a year, but most of these instances are not recorded or publicized. On a personal note, my wife has used her handgun three times since 1989 to defend herself from young men who were apparently attempting to either rob her or abduct her. She did not have to shoot them, all she had to do was pull her revolver and they ran like the cowards they are. They were more than willing to try to harm a defenseless woman, but they did not want to risk getting wounded or killed. They are very lucky it was not me, because I would have waited until they got too close for me to miss before I pulled my pistol.

 

I have never had to defend myself against any attackers, but I am over six feet tall and weigh over 200 pounds, and male. Women are most often the victims of strong-arm robbers and rapists. In my opinion, ALL women should be armed, 24-7, because we live in a dangerous world of sorry little monsters who prey upon the weak and unprepared.

 

Perhaps in other countries the gunshot death rate is lower. But I bet the rate of robbery, murder, forcible rape and so forth is lower as well. In Australia, when they banned private ownership of firearms, the robbery rate and the "kick burglary" rate went up 44%, especially against women and elderly people.

 

Firearms, and especially handguns, empower women and those in society who are more vulnerable, if those persons choose to arm themselves and become proficient in the use of a pistol. Criminals will always be armed, regardless of the law, because they do not obey laws. Anti-gun laws only disarm HONEST PEOPLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

kabar, what are you trying to prove? we've had these discussions a thousand times on here. people have different perspectives, no amount of message board arguing will ever change that, and all it generally does is annoy the piss out of everyone. it's nothing but preaching, and not only is it a waste of fucking time, but it also makes you look like a self righteous, hollier than thou asshole. no one really cares for attitudes like that too much.

i could give you concrete rebuttles to every single argument you've made, because they aren't based on facts, they're based on oppinion. the things that are based on facts (crime rates, statistics, etc) can be worded to reflect any side that you want to stand on.

 

there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to this 'question'. people's reasons for wanting guns banned are just as relivent, rational and intelligent as your reasons for wanting them, end of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, Seeking, I can't help but disagree. It's not the end of discussion AT ALL. Actually, I created this thread so that Pin-up and I could discuss firearms, and if you feel annoyed about it, I sincerely hope you feel better soon. If it bothers you that much, then I guess the best thing to do would be to avoid reading this thread, and then you won't feel as annoyed. Sometimes, if I'm really annoyed and irritated, I listen to soothing music, like "Guns 'N' Roses." Or sometimes I go out and gun my car up and down the street a few times. Or I promise myself that I never gun read that annoying person's threads again. You get the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest amorphic

Screw guns and screw people who own them. I'd rather get victimized then become part of a greater problem that will cause more people pain and suffering in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Faithfull

THE PROBLEM WITH YOU KABAR IS THAT YOU ARE A RED NECK AND WE ARE (MOSTLY) CITY KIDS. SO FUCK YOU.

 

Hey, you're a fucktard. Come say that shit to someone in Texas anytime, and I garauntee you'll be sleeping with the fishes... like we don't have cities in Texas... fucktard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring it then bitch, I can meet you somewhere in Dallas, and I will personally run your face across the asphalt.... and not feel bad about it.... Or we could always do the old fashioned hang your dumbass from a tree branch on a rope by your neck?

 

I'm not gonna reply after this, so if you feel that you want the last word (and you actually have something good to say) go for it. Jackass hee haw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amorphic

 

Spoken like a man who has yet to discover just how evil the world really is. I disagree with you. Very much. Oddly enough, I do not feel a similar animosity towards people who oppose the ownership of firearms that you seem to feel for those of us that do own them. This, despite the fact that many anti-gun people are not content to simply go their own way in the world, but instead are actively trying to disarm me and millions of other law-abiding gun owners.

 

I have found that an armed society is a polite society. I have also found that many times the people that are most adamant about their intention to disarm the rest of the world are people who hold very unpopular opinions, or who covertly seek to seize power over others. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was translated almost word-for-word from a German law written by the Nazis to disarm the German Jews. The National Firearms Act has it's antecedents in the anti-freedmen "Black Codes" of the 1870's. EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDAL MASSACRE in the last 150 years was preceded by a series of laws that disarmed the civilian population.

 

But, you have read all these arguments before, and know that they are true, but just don't care. Therefore, I can only conclude that either you feel that any sort of massacre is acceptable as long as it results in a docile, disarmed population, or perhaps you have your own reasons for wanting to be pretty certain that those that are too weak or elderly to prevail in an unarmed fight will not be armed.

 

Frankly, I think that EVERY GAY PERSON, EVERY WOMAN, EVERY MINORITY PERSON OF EVERY RACE AND NATIONALITY AND CULTURE AND LANGUAGE AND RELIGION should be armed with a pistol. In fact, I believe that every adult, period, ought to be armed with a pistol. And I also think that if this were the case, there would be a hell of a lot less robbery, rape, gay-bashing, hate crime, etc., etc., etc. going on.

 

I'm not advocating that any particular segment of society be denied firearms (except convicted felons--something already prohibited.) I think that every honest, law-abiding person should be armed, and any person convicted of a violent crime should be returned to prison if he (and it's almost always a he) is discovered to be in possession of a firearm.

 

Actually, since it seems unreasonable to ask the Government to repeal the over 20,000 gun laws that are already on the books, I would be happy if they would simply stop writing more laws, and ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Just doing that alone would put thousands of criminals back behind bars.

 

It looks like that hated Assault Weapons Ban is about to expire. THANK GOD. Not that it stopped anybody from owning any assault rifles, and definately not any criminals, but it was a sort of spoil-the-party law that the Democrats wrote, and CHICKENSHIT COWARDS in the Republican Party supported.

 

President Bush (41) signed it, and it cost him the presidency, the sorry sonofabitch. I was so glad that he was defeated. He deserved it.

 

Bill Clinton sold more assault rifles to the conservative right wing than any President in history. Prior to Bill Clinton's administration, I had owned one assault rifle, and sold it. During his administration, I bought several, and lots of ammunition. A friend of mine and I were counting the rifles that we knew of among members of the Texas militia, and we counted enough assault rifles to arm a COMPANY of men, all purchased during the Clinton years. That's well over two hundred rifles. Many, many of those guys owned four rifles or more (at $500 to $1,000 apiece), with which they intend to arm their friends and relatives in a crisis.

 

Clinton's gun-grabbing laws sold millions of rifles to concerned Americans. And if it looks like Kerry might win, no doubt, there will be a big upsurge in assault rifle sales again. And ammunition, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<span style='color:silver'>"I believe that every person everywhere has the God-given right to defend themselves"</span>

 

  • I don't prone passivity in front of aggression just because i don't support the right for any citizen to carry guns, firearms, swords or crossbows of any sort. That's something which should be made clear in this post.

 

<span style='color:silver'>"Texas, where I live [skiiiiiiiiiiiip it] and so forth."</span>

 

  • In this paragraph you say that people are in part allowed to carry guns because some member of authority can 'deputize' them. These don't necessarily have to inter relate.
     
    In fact, if i were a policeman, the last person i'd chose to follow me on any kind of operation would be the kind of guy who would happen to carry a gun at the present moment because he feels it could be needed in any day life. Just like you say that you shouldn't give political power to those who ask for it ? Call me crazy, i believe in that although there's obviously some kind of moot point in the whole thing. It's basically (i think) a question of judgement, and in a nutshell, i would not give the right to kill to someone who has, through the purchase of a gun projected himself in the actual possibility of killing. Is that clear ? Eh, whatever, just a sidenote.
     
    Therefore, deputize all you want, and if the law in France were as such (maybe it is ? i never looked it up), if some cop were to hand me a gun to try and take down some nut, maybe i would. But then it is not so much a question of protecting oneself, as it is a question of fulfilling your duty as a citizen at that moment. To that extent, i would never allow my citizens to carry guns on the offchance they may have to use them in a citizen duty. To me, this argument does not stand, therefore, in the whole idea of guns linked to self (AS OPPOSED TO COMMUNITARY) defence.
     
    Why ? Because that would only work if everyone who bought a gun would use it in such a way. Which is obviously not the case. Guns in the USA satisfy merely an individual since of comfort which defeats the entire purpose. Doesn't that scare you ? The idea that, when someone buys a gun, the basic motivation is "If I AM ever in danger, i will not die but the other one will.", and how subjective is that to be allowed to be incorporated into the greater scheme of a juridiction ? Sure, you may be in some kind of right, ethically, to be the one to outlive this situation, if you are the one who was aggressed, but the actual action of pulling the trigger and taking the other's life does not align. Defending oneself from aggression by anticipating in fatal aggression basically destroys the entire sense of value (what you could see as a form moral of superiority which justifies your using a gun) upon which your ethics are built. Whatever is WRONG is WRONG. I'd be glad to develop this if you disaggree, especially since i will have had a good night's sleep by then.;)

 

Admittedly, these instances are rare, [...] I would have waited until they got too close for me to miss before I pulled my pistol.

 

  • I'm glad your wife made it. However, the only reason why that is because it so happened her aggressors did not carry guns, which they could very well have. In which case, the problem of guns would have appeared most clearly : someone would have killed someone else. Be it those morons or be it your wife, i don't believe in the right of one man to take another's life, based on the whole idea that "you don't want to be the one to go".
     
    Why do you not die ? Because you didn't pull the trigger out first. But you still pulled the trigger. Killing can not link up to the way law should provide justice.
     
    CHAIN OF THOUGH WHICH SCARES ME :
    "Someone was about to do something wrong, so I turned him into meat. What does he know ? Nothing, he's meat now. I knew what he was doing was wrong, but he didn't seem to care. So i killed him.
    He was going to do something wrong, so I did it before because I KNEW what he was going to do was wrong. This makes me morally superior"
     
    To me, it doesn't. This is what the authorization to carry guns is built upon, and i can't believe we can allow human beings to live on such principles.
     
    Coming back to your point with your wife, it IS lucky she had a gun at the moment. But the only reason why i can say this is because she was the 'victim' and because she did not have to use it. Killing provides no judgement, nor does it act as punishment, as punishment, I believe, comes with awareness and, at some point, hindsight.
     
    Basically :
     
    If you can guarantee to me that ONLY defenseless and morally flawless people are allowed to carry guns, granted they NEVER have to use them, then i'll sign straight away. But that's basically the situation in which your wife was in.

 

 

I'd be quite happy to continue discussing this with you. There are several aspects i did not look at in this post, i merely concentrated on this whole illusion of morality which accompanies the carrying of guns for self defence. A lot of other aspects encourage me to go against the Second Amendment.

 

Making too huge posts would not benefit the discussion though, i believe, and therefore, i'll pursue with anything else i have to say (which i do) once you get back at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you think gaybashing and general aggression of the weaker would be reduced if everyone carried guns ? why, sure, but would that be because people started understanding why they shouldn't be ? nah, they just wouldn't want to die.

 

in other words, would it be ok for me to be a pedophile if i didn't have the ability to molest ?

 

would you say that the climate in which the cold war developed was a healthy one ? it's really the same. people didn't get nuked because everyone had nuclear power, so no one used it. but both superpowers had the capacity of flattening their opponent straight off the map, and everyone was dead terrified. every fucking day of their lives, on this very fine balance. this is basically the climate in which you'd support human beings to be living in ? if every one carried guns, no one would use them ? but everone would have the power to take out anyone else ?

 

doesn't sound too healthy to me.

 

 

 

 

it's nighttime here, and as i said, i'll get back at my other thoughts tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KaBar2

I have also found that many times the people that are most adamant about their intention to disarm the rest of the world are people who hold very unpopular opinions, or who covertly seek to seize power over others. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was translated almost word-for-word from a German law written by the Nazis to disarm the German Jews. The National Firearms Act has it's antecedents in the anti-freedmen "Black Codes" of the 1870's. EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDAL MASSACRE in the last 150 years was preceded by a series of laws that disarmed the civilian population.

 

bingo!!!

 

I had to laugh at Michael Moore for making most gun owners look like paranoid racists. In Bowling for Columbine. He really does a disservice to many citizens who are “normal” and who are in the NRA or who own firearms. I do not own a fire arm but I am thinking about getting one. I honestly do not trust “my” government or most “law enforcement” agencies; I should be able to protect myself from anyone whom I feel is a threat to my life or the lives of my loved ones.

 

In all honesty guns don’t kill people, people kill people. A paranoid, psycho, or even racist person will always be that way….guns or no guns, and I and everyone else should be able to defend themselves from just such nut jobs!

 

The more and more I read, the more and more I see how are government is slowly stripping away the nation’s tax paying citizens rights. Now it’s all in the name of “Homeland Security” and most people are for it cause of 9-11. Shit, I live in NY and worked on the floor of the NYSE, oddly enough I quit my job a few days right before 9-11. I don’t feel any safer, homeland security or not. I know owning a gun will not help against terrorists blowing up buildings and shit, but I should still be able to own a gun, look at internet porn, and drive where ever I wish etc…..without worrying about a big brother or a KGB type government being all up on my shit.

 

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” Ben Franklin

 

"The fundamental force behind the Second Amendment is to empower the people and give them the greatest measure of authority over the tyranny of runaway government." - U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, 2002

 

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama, Tibet

 

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." - Jesus, Luke 22:36

 

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

 

Not trying to get all preachy, but those quotes are just as relevant now as they were when they were stated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pin-up

 

A very well-written reply. I assume, from the context of your post, that you live in France. Is this correct? France does permit gun ownership, but with quite a few more restrictions than most places in the U.S.

 

I do not agree that defending oneself from attack is morally equal to the attack itself. And I also do not wholly agree that a pre-emptive attack, or one nearly so, is less than moral. Individuals have the right to go about their business completely unmolested. In my wife's case, she was attacked (but not injured) once while driving her car on surface streets (she stopped at a light,at night, and two carloads of young men attempted to "box her in," probably to carjack the car, or perhaps to abduct her) and once in the parking lot of a store. In both those cases, she pulled her pistol from her purse, and the assailants ran as fast as they could. She could have shot them, or at least at them, but did not.

 

The third time, she was driving on the freeway at night, and a carload of young men attempted to prevent her from exiting from I-45 onto the U.S. 59 freeway. They had harrassed her for several miles, swerving towards her car, honking their horn, attempting to get in front of her to slow down and stop her on the freeway, but she was able to avoid all this. When they attempted to prevent her from exiting the freeway, she extended her hand, pointing the pistol out the window directly at the driver of the car. He slammed on his brakes to avoid getting shot, and was nearly rear-ended by a large truck. She was able to safely exit onto U.S. 59. Once on U.S. 59, she floored the accelerator and putting as much distance between herself and them as possible, "ran for home."

 

I cannot see how your argument holds water in these cases. In all three instances, it was at night (this makes a difference under Texas law), she was outnumbered by younger, stronger, and aggressive male strangers. No jury in Texas would convict her of any crime if she had opened fire on her attackers, in all three instances. She felt that her life was in danger, and indeed, it probably was. The ONLY thing that saved her from harm was putting her attackers in the position of being wounded or killed. And cowards that they are, they ran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to join the debate if thats allright. If you (Pinup and Kabar2) want to discuss without this, please let me know so I can erase it.

 

I think that in order to discuss the issue of gun ownership we must make a distinction between the moral, rational choice of owning a gun an the choice of actually using a gun. The choice to own a gun is generally a decision made in a time of safety and rationality, the choice to use a gun is not. The choice to actually use the gun is made out of desperation. Out of a reflex of self-preservation, there is no morality, no rational thought behind it. In the actual moment of pulling the trigger the human mind must be at its lowest, most primative state, its a reflex a split second decision between kill or be killed. And I am under the impression that you (pinup) are not of the belief that one human can make that choice for another. This is obviously going to create a stalemate in the discussion, because that is the funddamental point of disagreement.

 

On the other hand the right, and in some cases the responsibility to bear arms is another issue entirely. It is loaded with morality, a sense of duty, security, etc. As a gun owner myself the best I can do to add to the debate is to give you a few of the reasons that went into my decision to become one. First, using the arguement by purchasing a gun you show a propensity for violence and so anyone who would seek out ownership of a gun is not equipped mentally to own them. This rhetoric is a complete use of circular logic. Besides that, everyone has the propensity to be violent, there is no person who is completely peaceful all the time, under some extreme circumstance you would react violently as well as I would. To this end there are some circumstances where I feel it is necessary to own a gun should they arise. For instance, if I had to defend my loved ones or my family against an armed assailant, I would shoot to kill, no questions asked. That is a moral decision, I feel that there are some things in life worth dying, or killing for.

Secondly, my decision to own a firearm was aided by the constant effort to disarm the populace of this country. They say "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," pure rhetoric, but in my opinion an armed society is one of the greatest safeguards to a truely democratic society. Should one person, be he president or general or minister control all of the armed population of a country, the temptation and the opportunity for dictatorship is ever present. When the day comes where the government tells me that it is no longer legal for me to posess andd carry a firearm, I will buy as many as I can get my hands on. An unarmed society is a docile society. On a related issue, the reason that the United States has avoided mainland attack by an army for so many years is that the proportion of the society that is armed makes this unfantomable (sp?) if this country were attacked there would be millions of people willing to fight, what army in the world would risk that?

 

I will think of more later, but this is basically my reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” Ben Franklin

 

Essential liberty : the one of living a life without others impeding upon my right to remain alive.

 

As far as i'm concerned, openly selling guns prevents this right.

 

On the other hand, allowing everyone to carry a gun, just to put everyon in a situation where, because of this climate, nobody will use them is a "temporary security", that is, until someone finally pulls the trigger.

 

Living like this is neither free nor safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sneak
Originally posted by KaBar2

Texas, where I live, protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) in our State constitution, because of the right of states to raise and arm the militia. All able-bodied, male, Texas residents between 17 and 45 are automatically members of the militia (Federal too--Title 10, Section 311, United States Code) and are also part of the Texas State reserve military forces. This includes the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard (when under the command of the Governor of Texas,) the Texas State Guard (unpaid volunteer members of Texas' military police battalion,) the Department of Public Safety (state troopers,) the Texas Rangers (the "FBI" of the Department of Public Safety,) all county Sheriffs and their deputies, all constables of State and District Courts, all local police officers, and all public employees considered "Texas peace officers"--including all firefighters (both paid and volunteer), EMT-P paramedics and so forth.

 

 

so this would include tease?

well, i think that says a lot!

 

haha, anyway my serious input amounts to:

 

*if everyone carries guns, then more murders / injuries / assults and etc will happen. there will always be people who are bigger than others and will want to assert their might. a smaller, more intimidated person could be scared to pull the gun on someone demanding someone. Or how easy would it be for someone just to "blast someone with a bullet becuase they are A) pissed off B) drunk or C) both. and this guy just looked at his pint the wrong way in the pub or something.

 

different societies have different norms and values, and also are different culturally. i have a feeling that where i live is a lot different to you. im sure the society i see as a young, graffiti writer in South London is a lot different to how it could be in the middle of Texas. With recent changes in the uk, i now have to be a lot more wary of how i carry myself at certain times - in fear of getting a gun pulled on me, getting stabbed or bottled etc. rises in gun crime culture means that its now the "bad ting" for london "youts" to arm them selves to make them seem bad and gangster. essentially i believe it comes from America and A) the gangsta lifestyle which is presented. now this isnt a fault of anyone. it just happened. or B) how America has a huge gun culture and it just has come across the pond*

 

anyway im muttering now. basically i agree with pinup if he disagrees with the right to bear arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Milton

I'm going to join the debate if thats allright. If you (Pinup and Kabar2) want to discuss without this, please let me know so I can erase it.

 

I think that in order to discuss the issue of gun ownership we must make a distinction between the moral, rational choice of owning a gun an the choice of actually using a gun. The choice to own a gun is generally a decision made in a time of safety and rationality, the choice to use a gun is not. The choice to actually use the gun is made out of desperation. Out of a reflex of self-preservation, there is no morality, no rational thought behind it. In the actual moment of pulling the trigger the human mind must be at its lowest, most primative state, its a reflex a split second decision between kill or be killed. And I am under the impression that you (pinup) are not of the belief that one human can make that choice for another. This is obviously going to create a stalemate in the discussion, because that is the funddamental point of disagreement.

 

On the other hand the right, and in some cases the responsibility to bear arms is another issue entirely. It is loaded with morality, a sense of duty, security, etc. As a gun owner myself the best I can do to add to the debate is to give you a few of the reasons that went into my decision to become one. First, using the arguement by purchasing a gun you show a propensity for violence and so anyone who would seek out ownership of a gun is not equipped mentally to own them. This rhetoric is a complete use of circular logic. Besides that, everyone has the propensity to be violent, there is no person who is completely peaceful all the time, under some extreme circumstance you would react violently as well as I would. To this end there are some circumstances where I feel it is necessary to own a gun should they arise. For instance, if I had to defend my loved ones or my family against an armed assailant, I would shoot to kill, no questions asked. That is a moral decision, I feel that there are some things in life worth dying, or killing for.

Secondly, my decision to own a firearm was aided by the constant effort to disarm the populace of this country. They say "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," pure rhetoric, but in my opinion an armed society is one of the greatest safeguards to a truely democratic society. Should one person, be he president or general or minister control all of the armed population of a country, the temptation and the opportunity for dictatorship is ever present. When the day comes where the government tells me that it is no longer legal for me to posess andd carry a firearm, I will buy as many as I can get my hands on. An unarmed society is a docile society. On a related issue, the reason that the United States has avoided mainland attack by an army for so many years is that the proportion of the society that is armed makes this unfantomable (sp?) if this country were attacked there would be millions of people willing to fight, what army in the world would risk that?

 

I will think of more later, but this is basically my reasoning.

 

ditto.....good points milt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Goooch...

Sneak, I just wanted to address a few of your points quickly. Someone already alluded to the cold war, and I think this is a good metaphor for the issue of gun ownership. At the end of World War II the Russian army could have easily defeated us in combat, however, we had "the Bomb" and so, they didn't attack. We were Kabars wife, we needed something to put us on a level playing field. Granted, the culture of the Cold War was tense, with the potential of destruction at any minute, but eventually we realized that we could live WITH the bombs without them being the same threat. Certainly if there were a society which was armed completely there would be a period where things were tense, where anyone was affraid to look at anyone wrong. But afterwards, after the tension was over and people realized the best way to deal with eachother was cordially, and respectfully, crime would go down drastically. Just because the threat is there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dowmagik

 

I'm sorry if you think I sound like a psycho. Obviously, that was not my intent (LOL.) Probably, if you think that my examples sound wacky or paranoid, it is because you are not familiar with the facts.

 

Try looking into the website "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership." Their articles are very well researched and footnoted. I'm not Jewish, but I think Aaron Zelman is a very well-spoken, intelligent and dedicated guy. And his arguments are irrefutable.

 

(Edit: To answer your question, when the assault rifle ban expires, one will be able to once again purchase SEMI-AUTOMATIC military-style rifles, which only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, which have a removeable flash suppressor, and a detachable box magazine of over ten rounds, and a bayonet lug, and a fixed pistol grip that protrudes, etc. They are Class II firearms.

 

FULLY-AUTOMATIC rifles are classed as machine guns. They can fire more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger. Machine guns are controlled in the U.S. by the National Firearms Act of 1933. They ARE NOT ILLEGAL, only controlled by a rather confiscatory Federal tax. They are classed as Type III firearms.)

 

One of the worse things about the modern political climate is the profound differences between the experiences of the "urban liberal intelligensia" in cities like New York, Boston and San Francisco, and the experiences of people in most of the rest of the country. People who are educated in Ivy League colleges tend to think of themselves as "knowing what's best" for the rest of us benighted souls. They think that concern about genocide is ludicrous. "It can't happen here." Except that it CAN happen here, and already HAS happened here several times, the most recent instance I can think of being the massacre of the Branch Davidians in 1993. And numerous other examples abound in history, from the Haymarket Massacre, to (edit) Wounded Knee, to the Republic Steel strike, to the massacre of strikers' families by mining company gun thugs and the Colorado Militia's machine guns at Goldfield, CO., the attacks upon the Bonus Army, Coxey's Army, the massacre of black people in Tulsa, Oklahoma, you name it. There have been scores of massacres, big and small, and ALWAYS OF UNARMED OR VERY NEARLY UNARMED, DEFENSELESS PEOPLE.

 

The liberal Establishment propagates it's ideas, people who wish that the world was a better place adopt the ideas, and try to put them into practice, and somehow or another the ideas often involve curtailing the rights of someone else. Like the right to defend one's own life and the lives of others. Like the right to keep and bear arms.

 

I do not trust the Government, and I do not trust any of the leaders of any of the political parties, Demopublican or Republicrat. In BOTH CASES, their idea of a perfect world is one in which the people are subject to all their goddamned rules and are HELPLESS TO RESIST. Each of us must decide for himself or herself what we will do. The laws are not always just, most of the time, not even close. But, despite that, I feel a strong urge to obey the law as much as is possible.

 

People have the right of self defense. And we also have a right, a God-given right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, to overturn a Government that becomes a tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milton, as i said before, how can this possibly a healthy climate for relations ?

 

Not killing because you, yourself, can die.

 

Surely, you should be discouraged because of recognizing the immorality of your own actions, not because the immorality is turning against you.

 

As i said before :

"in other words, would it be ok for me to be a pedophile if i didn't have the ability to molest ?"

 

i think the priorities are in essence not the one that authorizing gun ownership stresses upon.

 

i disagree with other things. but i'm going to bed now. get back at kabar tomorrow, as you seem to have conveniently swerved around my point ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pinup

Essential liberty : the one of living a life without others impeding upon my right to remain alive.

 

As far as i'm concerned, openly selling guns prevents this right.

 

On the other hand, allowing everyone to carry a gun, just to put everyon in a situation where, because of this climate, nobody will use them is a "temporary security", that is, until someone finally pulls the trigger.

 

Living like this is neither free nor safe.

 

Well, what about knives? What about a car? A car can be used as a weapon.

 

Firearms are obviously not on the same level as the aforementioned but you get the point.

 

First guns will be taken away, then what?

 

Like I said earlier, people kill people, either through use of a gun, knife, bare hands, or even a well orchestrated and systematic genocide.

 

Like a motor vehicle, a gun is a responsibility. The potential owners of either should be trained and evaluated to some extent in order to determine if they are capable of responsible ownership. I do not think that if every citizen is strapped with a gun we will magically have some utopian society, but I do feel that many people will be more cautious of the things that they do. Also, I DO NOT think it is a good idea for people to walk around with handguns on a normal basis. Look at incidents of road rage; imagine if those same people had a hand gun in their glove or on their person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: dowmagik

 

Originally posted by KaBar2

 

People have the right of self defense. And we also have a right, a God-given right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, to overturn a Government that becomes a tyranny.

I couldnt agree with you more. I do, however, disagree that we should give all gays, indians, blacks and mexicans a gun.

 

Especially indians, because lord knows they like to drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...