What gun control would you actually support?

[drgrant]

Like Economist said, it is just a matter of time before technology progresses to the point where a teenage kid can build a nuke (or something worse) in his basement.

He didn't say that, strictly speaking. He said "When and if". The "if" is a big operator.

I think chemical/bio weapons are more likely in terms of "basement WMDs". We've already seen it where that cult in Japan put the sarin gas into the subways, etc.

If it is that easy to make them in the future, then any attempts to regulate them will be futile, but should anyone even bother trying in that case?

There's a term for this that I can't think of, offhand, but if it became that trivial to make a nuclear weapon, then by nature of that being true, it will become difficult to prevent someone from doing it, as well. It's like british gun control. They have an island and basically a near 100% gun ban and they can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You would have to do the equivalent of "nazi waffen SS jew hunting raids" on every household to even have a chance at it. I'd rather be immolated by a teenager touching off a nuke than be subjected to that kind of thing in the interest of "our safety".

To put things bluntly, I'd rather live free on a day to day basis instead of under constant tyranny. There comes a point where you cannot possibly prevent every eventuality, and in the process of doing so, you will inevitably make things worse than they actually are.

In order to preseve our way of life and the existence of the human race, I would support some restrictions that would be considered unreasonable.

So what do you want to do to prevent this threat? Merely having a law by itself obviously would not deter someone, so that would mean you would have to be proactive about it . Would you resort to violating someone's rights on a regular basis just because of a perceived threat? You must like stuff like the Patriot act, then.

BTW this isn't really a thread derailment because the concepts are mostly the same- whether or not someone thinks it's right to violate someone else's rights based on what they might do.

-Mike

 

[bill o]

I never said anything about government mandated, there are ways to do this without state or federal or even local mandates. This can be accomplished with a 30 minute hands on at the time of purchasing one's first firearm. I prefer no government laws regarding firearms.

Fair enough. But how would the gun shop or private seller know it's the buyer's first firearm? How could the training be required, if not by law?

 

[davemata]

Fair enough. But how would the gun shop or private seller know it's the buyer's first firearm? How could the training be required, if not by law?

He didn't say required. However, in a galaxy far far away, in a time far before we were born... people had their shit together and would self regulate certain aspects of commerce. You can see it today when you buy a car and the salesman shows you where the windshield wiper control is.

It wouldn't have to be regulated, because the seller would show you as a courtesy, and a matter of service. The purchaser, as a conscientious person wouldask for it if it wasn't offered, or would find someone with the knowledge to show them the ropes.

No .gov needed or welcome.

 

[jaymce]

Zbrod from your earlier statement about trying to figure out what we are thinking. Don't, try to figure out what "I am", "we are", "they" think or are thinking. Concentrate on what you think and state it. It will be easier than trying to figure out what I am thinking, because after you state what you think, it is likely that I /we will tell you what I / We think. “We” being individuals creating a group and responding to this thread.

Do you believe that there are any laws, regulations, or restrictions regarding guns that would not infringe on the 2nd amendment and would be effective in reducing the amount of harm done by guns being used in criminal acts, presumably but not limited to making it more difficult for persons who would commit such crimes to obtain them? If so, what are they?

Maybe you are just new to the 2A idea. My take is that law abiding citizens have made reasonable accommodations to their 2A rights because it was asked of us or forced upon us by good intentions, in return we were promised certain results. Those results were never realized because they could not be. Now that we have been pushed to the edge on the 2A debate with more and more restrictions there is no more ground to give. We are on the edge and either have to push back or be pushed over. A growing number of us feel that there is no longer room for debate, the debate is over and gun control does not work and will not work. If you start to really research the subject you will see that gun control has never worked to reduce crime because guns are not crime.

I believe that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution that they deliberately left the term "Arms" vague as they knew of technology and knew they could not foresee what those future arms would be. Having just overthrown English Rule these men would have a clear idea of what would be needed to overthrow a government. The Founding Fathers understood that if it needed to be done again they would have to be assured that they would have access to the arms needed to do so. At the time they had access to state of the art arms which were purchased, built, or won during battle. Sure these were flintlock muskets and muzzle loaded cannon but 200 years later is would have been different and 200 years from now battles will be fought using arms that we cannot imagine. What all the arms over history have in common is that when wielded by just people have served to protect and save lives and when wielded by people willing to do harm have accomplished just that.

 

[jamesvt]

NONE. Just stricter punishment for those who commit serious crimes. There would be plenty of room in prisons for the serious criminals if we released all of the people on drug charges.

 

[Pugnax88]

For a 1911: Doesn't matter for you really, they'll probably all perform pretty similar since you will only carry with 1 loaded in the chamber...don't want to ability to "kill more than one person at a time."

I'm also educated, I've gone through my 4 years and got my degree. I don't believe gun control will work in any form, as whats already in place is too much control and obviously with not enough effect.

 

[CRSIII]

I tell you what, you all have WAY more patience than I do for this sh!t!

 

[zbrod]

A few people have asked what I think, so I will try to articulate it. But again keep in mind that I'm still formulating my ideas, that's why I'm here. Also try to put yourselves in my shoes. I exist almost exclusively in liberal circles, so usually I'm spending most of my effort arguing why we should be able to have guns at all; I haven't thought all that much about the larger issues like what constitutes "arms" and whether gun control can ever be effective, period.
Despite what you may think about me, I agree with the idea behind the 2A. Unlike my liberal friends, I don't have this illusion that we live in "modern times" and therefore the government will never turn sour on us, shit will never hit the fan, that the police will always be able to protect us from any threat. I like to remind them that WW2 was only 60 years ago, not in ancient times. I ask them if they think the Holocaust, Rwanda, Argentina, etc. would have happened if the Jews and co. were armed. Unlike them, I have that defiance inside me that says "you can come to my house at night and 'disappear' me, but I'm taking one of you mother****ers with me." I believe our government doesn't fear us and they should. I believe no single person should have more force than me so as to be able to not fear retribution for their actions.


Whether there should be any gun control at all is what I am working out now. Being in Mass has definitely been an eye opener. I went in with the feeling that gun control probably doesn't work, because of the many reasons people have stated here. I was also skeptical of gun registration and licensing, because as people have pointed out it can be used to identify gun owners and their weapons. But I still had/have reservations about people owning certain magnitudes of firepower. That defiance in me says that, should SHTF and the government comes for me, I only need enough firepower to take out one or a couple soldiers. I don't need enough to take on the whole US army, if they want me dead, so be it. But if they've really turned sour, the attrition from losing a soldier, both on numbers and on morale, from others like me is going to wear on them and ultimately defeat them. Because if the government has truly gone bad, there will be more. But one lone crazy a**h*** with a bunker and mini-gun, who has legitimately committed some crime, should not be able to kill 30 cops. But as many of you have pointed out, what is to stop him from getting it anyway? And if the government has a monopoly on the heavier firepower, could they potentially overcome even the majority of armed Americans rising up against them?


This is just what I came in with. I have been reading all of your posts carefully, and thinking about them, and trying rather unsuccessfully not to get distracted by the personal stuff. I will probably always be a liberal and am not ashamed on it, but I concede that when it comes to firearms they are wrong.

 

[davemata]

But one lone crazy a**h*** with a bunker and mini-gun, who has legitimately committed some crime, should not be able to kill 30 cops.

That's a matter of training, not policy.

If Janet Reno can figure it out, so can the cops facing a pillbox.

 

[appraiser]

I'm in favor of repealing every gun law ever made back to 1776, so you can tell where I stand on gun control

 

[n1zfg]

I just love hearing the "police will protect us" business. It is one of the bald faced lies used by libtards to make the sheeple feel secure. They are, nor ever have been under any legal obligation to provide us protection. They have won lawsuits against them regarding this exact fact.

 

[n1zfg]

I'm in favor of repealing every gun law ever made back to 1776, so you can tell where I stand on gun control

Repeal back to 1790

I see the 2A is the first gun law and 1789 was when it was ratified (and became law).

 

[Boghog1]

and remember the 2a isn't about guns it is about arms, in the next XX years when we have blasters and light sabers I want to be able to own one of them as well and maybe even one of those wookie crossbowthings

 

[Sibb]

I suppose I should speak to the college/hillbilly thing as I seemed to have struck a nerve. I'd like to point out that the reason I even brought up education is because people were stereotyping me as a college freshman philosophy major writing a paper for class. In fact, I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly someone asked me straight up if I was a college student. So I did not bring that up as some sort of proof that I know better. Having been to college, I'm well aware of how little it matters in terms of what you know.


A bigger man would have ignored the quips that I was just a (female) college brat, but I am not that bigger man, and I enjoy stereotyping as much (probably more so) than anyone. I also think many of you think your views are a little more mainstream and would be more well received by the general public than they actually are when you accuse me of not living in the "real world" (though I am aware, as many of you pointed out, that being mainstream doesn't mean it's right, Mr. Social Proof, and also that I could be similarly mistaken about the popularity of my beliefs). Hence the charges of living in the woods and banging your sisters. But I'm well aware you come from all walks of life, and are among us, possibly in the office right next to me (peeks out the door).

Jose: The entering post was (meant to be) a question, not an argument. I can attempt to rephrase it:

Do you believe that there are any laws, regulations, or restrictions regarding guns that would not infringe on the 2nd amendment and would be effective in reducing the amount of harm done by guns being used in criminal acts, presumably but not limited to making it more difficult for persons who would commit such crimes to obtain them? If so, what are they?

No laws, regulations, or restrictions regarding guns will do. If you want to reduce gun violence you need to get the courts to stop putting violent criminals back on the street over and over again. Show me 10 people who have committed a crime, and 9+ will have committed a violent crime in the past.

 

[economist]

This is just what I came in with. I have been reading all of your posts carefully, and thinking about them, and trying rather unsuccessfully not to get distracted by the personal stuff. I will probably always be a liberal and am not ashamed on it, but I concede that when it comes to firearms they are wrong.

I'm taking you at your word here, and assuming you aren't just looking to stir things up. In that spirit, I suggest that it's almost impossible to support modern liberal ideas and be against gun control at the same time. Maybe your definition of liberal is different than mine. But in recent history a "liberal" is someone who prefers a large welfare state, significant involvement of government in economic transactions, interpersonal activity, and private behavior. If you think, for example, it's OK to tell people what drugs they can buy, how much they can be paid (minimum wage), how much of their income they are allowed to keep and how much they must give to others, whether to buy health insurance and how much to have, etc., then how can you be against controlling guns? If you see most everything else as a collective and social problem, and find that individual rights are no impediment to government control, then what is special about guns? Maybe you can have your mind in both camps at the same time, but I couldn't do it.

 

[bill o]

But one lone crazy a**h*** with a bunker and mini-gun, who has legitimately committed some crime, should not be able to kill 30 cops.

Some people preoccupy themselves with the most laughable scenarios. James Alan Fox is great for this... "in a campus shootout, how would the police know who to shoot when they arrived on scene?" As if there's be fifty armed people running around in circles waving pistols everywhere.

 

[jude061]

zbrod,
Like you, I'm more of a lurker around here. I read the firearms -related stuff, and somewhat eschew the political discussions. My reasons are diferent than yours though (i have a distrust of the webz, you never know who is monitoring these) This one, however, I have been following quite a bit. I have to say, A. I'm not sure that you arent a troll, yet, or have an ulterior motive. B. You are among a population of people with a strong belief in the necessity of liberty and individual responsibility and accountability. C. outside of the media and hollywood, and some colleges, most people are not progressives or "liberals" (in the current usage).
Anything I could say that is worth saying to contribute to this thread has already been said by others. Consider rereading the responses of cekim, drgrant, economist, and others. they aren't new to this. Also, considider reading some of the seminal documents that influenced the framers of the USC and BOR. Since they aren't here to tell us what their intent was, their writings and the things that they read and studied provide the only valid insight into the intent of things like the 2A. Their ideology was unmuddied by bipartisan politics and self-interest, and is the purest source material available to understanding what the 2A and other amendments really mean. You'll find it enlightening to say the least. your beliefs are your beliefs, and noone is going to force you to change your mind, even if it were possible. however, on that same note, you and other progressives as well as political "conservatives" have no ground, either ideologically, politically, morally, or historically, to force restrictions, abridgements, and infringements on the natural rights of the people. the american revolution was started over the silencing of speech and activities critical of the government, violations of the rights of citizens of the colonies to be secure, unlawful trials and punishments, and especially the disarming of the population by an oppressive regime. Study your history, it has happened before, it's still happening, and it will continue to happen.
May I suggest some reading? If you're serious in your desire to understand some of the ideas both expounded and implied here, take a look at both the Federalst and the Anti-Federalist papers, the writings of Jefferson, Locke, Hobbes (especially "Leviathan"), Montiesquieu, Paine's "Common Sense," Franklin's "Autobiography," Mill's "On Liberty," Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, and other revolutionaries. Read it, digest it, then evaluate your beliefs against what the TRUE intent of the framers was WRT the 2A and the bill of rights. Look at some supreme court decisions too. Marbury v. Madison, Slaughterhouse, Miranda v Arizona, Dred Scott, etc. evaluate them in the context of the times. You will soon see the utter failure of "Big" government. You'll see the futility of the nanny state. good luck with your quest.

 

[zbrod]

Economist: believe it or not, I've always believed that gun rights line up with (my interpretation of) liberal ideals. That is why gun rights is, for the most part, the sole issue with which I do not line up with traditional liberals. I was actually kind of surprised and disturbed when I first learned how anti-gun most liberals were. I think I've mentioned before that I get angry at my fellow liberals for some of the arguments and tactics they use in this debate, it seems inconsistent to me with the way liberals behave with regard to all other issues. It is one of the things I am wrestling with; it can really shake you up when you see people you know are smart, good people spewing some of this bullshit.

I would be more than happy to describe to you why I think gun rights and liberalism are compatible, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea. I think it would just stir up the pot more, and it's not like I've done a dissertation on this, there will be additional things I need to work out while explaining it and if the past is any indication I will be pounced on for any little hole or inconsistency in my reasoning (which is fine if you are just pointing it out, but I don't need people telling me everything I say is false because I don't have everything 100% figured out).

 

[william_munny]

A few people have asked what I think, so I will try to articulate it. But again keep in mind that I'm still formulating my ideas, that's why I'm here. Also try to put yourselves in my shoes. I exist almost exclusively in liberal circles, so usually I'm spending most of my effort arguing why we should be able to have guns at all; I haven't thought all that much about the larger issues like what constitutes "arms" and whether gun control can ever be effective, period.
Despite what you may think about me, I agree with the idea behind the 2A. Unlike my liberal friends, I don't have this illusion that we live in "modern times" and therefore the government will never turn sour on us, shit will never hit the fan, that the police will always be able to protect us from any threat. I like to remind them that WW2 was only 60 years ago, not in ancient times. I ask them if they think the Holocaust, Rwanda, Argentina, etc. would have happened if the Jews and co. were armed. Unlike them, I have that defiance inside me that says "you can come to my house at night and 'disappear' me, but I'm taking one of you mother****ers with me." I believe our government doesn't fear us and they should. I believe no single person should have more force than me so as to be able to not fear retribution for their actions.


Whether there should be any gun control at all is what I am working out now. Being in Mass has definitely been an eye opener. I went in with the feeling that gun control probably doesn't work, because of the many reasons people have stated here. I was also skeptical of gun registration and licensing, because as people have pointed out it can be used to identify gun owners and their weapons.

Thank you for sharing your side. I notice that you're from NH originally. You actually have the perspective of a person who moved from a place with little gun control and a modicum amount of crime, to a place with tons of gun control and shitloads of crime. So tell me, where do you feel safer: NH or MA? This isn't for the sake of argument, it's just a question - you've pretty much already said how you feel about the basics of gun control, and I'm not challenging that.

But I still had/have reservations about people owning certain magnitudes of firepower. That defiance in me says that, should SHTF and the government comes for me, I only need enough firepower to take out one or a couple soldiers. I don't need enough to take on the whole US army, if they want me dead, so be it. But if they've really turned sour, the attrition from losing a soldier, both on numbers and on morale, from others like me is going to wear on them and ultimately defeat them. Because if the government has truly gone bad, there will be more. But one lone crazy a**h*** with a bunker and mini-gun, who has legitimately committed some crime, should not be able to kill 30 cops. But as many of you have pointed out, what is to stop him from getting it anyway? And if the government has a monopoly on the heavier firepower, could they potentially overcome even the majority of armed Americans rising up against them?


This is just what I came in with. I have been reading all of your posts carefully, and thinking about them, and trying rather unsuccessfully not to get distracted by the personal stuff. I will probably always be a liberal and am not ashamed on it, but I concede that when it comes to firearms they are wrong.

You're still thinking of heavy artillery as a means to defense. If the government is actively coming for you, you're most likely already ****ed. Having something really spectacular would certainly help, but it's a protest stance and certain death - a person would be much better off fleeing.

No, the purpose of having stuff beyond your basic small arms is not for the purpose of defense, but for an assault. Now, I don't want you to think that I'm advocating we overthrow our government. I'm certainly not willing to do that at this time, and I think many others here (as pissed off as they may be) agree with me. At the same time, it's the principle behind the 2A, which I think you still need to reflect on a bit. The 2A is not for self defense - that is only one aspect of it. The 2A is about "we the people" running this country. We don't serve the government, the government serves us. The 2A affords us the means to remove our government if that ever stops being the case. You said yourself:

I believe our government doesn't fear us and they should.

Tell me, how are they meant to fear us if they can call a few artillery strikes and roll in some heavy armor against any protest we ever bring against them? Not saying that that's how they'd handle it, but if it ever got really bad, that's an option, and they can rest easy on their superiority of force.

 

[Tim L]

Perhaps zbrod you should further your education by attending Parris Island. They have wonderful teaching methods that I'm pretty sure you haven't experienced before. When you graduate with your PHD (post hell degree) you will have a new appreciation for the Freedoms that most take for granted.I relish the thought of you engaging in a spirited debate with the staff and their amusement at your point of view.

 

[highlander]

and remember the 2a isn't about guns it is about arms, in the next XX years when we have blasters and light sabers I want to be able to own one of them as well and maybe even one of those wookie crossbowthings

I'll see your blasters and raise you 2 phaser pistols

 

[cekim]

zbrod,

First as to the personal attacks, I try to avoid that, though you must understand that when someone tells me they have an "inner socialist," it sounds no different to me than someone talking about "the filthy Irish." It's insulting, it reflects very poorly on your character and I think people should be told this and shunned in public for expressing such offensive viewpoints. They/you are free to have them of course, I believe that too, but you are not free from the insult coming your way for doing so.

Second, as to the various limits on "arms", you are missing the problem...

WHO DECIDES this limit? If you give government the power to make that decision, it will ratchet it down (often slowly so no one notices, and often with the complicit propaganda and social programming of the elite who want to see "the masses" disarmed), to the point where "the people" no longer present a threat to the government.

I do not advocate violence to bring about political change, but the historical reality is that without the threat of violence as the "bluff" to force government to respect the limits imposed upon them in the Constitution, they will abuse their power.

Once you understand the brutal reality that politics and war are just points on a continuous spectrum, you _should_ better understand that 2A must be an absolute prohibition on government deciding what arms we may have.

As to nukes, as far as I am concerned, given the danger of even handling them, the question is not whether government or civilians should have them, but whether anyone should be permitted to have them. It's a waste of time to debate civilian vs government, it's a binary question as pointed out previously, they can be had by people with bad intentions today and it will only get easier with time.

The issue of violence is always one of the "people" doing violent things. Merely handling radioactive material without taking great precautions is an act of violence on those around you which should be punished extremely harshly. Regulating the materials becomes secondary when you focus on the real problem - people.

Tanks, C4, rocket launchers, grenades - these are all power tools - nothing special needs to be done. Bad people that cannot be trusted with power tools (as evidenced by their committing violent crime) should be tried, convicted and kept out of circulation until they can demonstrate they are no longer bad people and executed if they commit a crime sufficient to demonstrate they are beyond rehabilitation.

 

[NHPatriot]

Economist: believe it or not, I've always believed that gun rights line up with (my interpretation of) liberal ideals. That is why gun rights is, for the most part, the sole issue with which I do not line up with traditional liberals. I was actually kind of surprised and disturbed when I first learned how anti-gun most liberals were. I think I've mentioned before that I get angry at my fellow liberals for some of the arguments and tactics they use in this debate, it seems inconsistent to me with the way liberals behave with regard to all other issues. It is one of the things I am wrestling with; it can really shake you up when you see people you know are smart, good people spewing some of this bullshit.

I would be more than happy to describe to you why I think gun rights and liberalism are compatible, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea. I think it would just stir up the pot more, and it's not like I've done a dissertation on this, there will be additional things I need to work out while explaining it and if the past is any indication I will be pounced on for any little hole or inconsistency in my reasoning (which is fine if you are just pointing it out, but I don't need people telling me everything I say is false because I don't have everything 100% figured out).

By all means Zbrod, please do articulate those beliefs. And you don't have to have everything 100% figured out. If you articulate it in an objective way without personal attacks there are plenty of people here who would like to have a rational discussion and it wouldn't just be "stirring the pot".

What I think you will find, though, is that once you put those traditional liberal beliefs under rational scrutiny, you will see that they are incompatible with personal firearm ownership as Economist says. My guess is that you don't see that right now, but once that comparison starts I bet it will be quite informative.

 

[P-14]

Zbrod: Have you ever shot a gun? You have not said one way or the other. If not, perhaps first-hand knowledge will help you finalize your thoughts on the thread that you have created.

 

[cekim]

Zbrod, as I said, we've already told you what gun control measures we think would work and we would accept...

Zip, zilch, nadda, goosegg, thank you please drive through...

In your search for knowledge, I suggest something more productive. Lay out some ideas you think have promise and we can explain/demonstrate where those ideas have been tried failed and why.

Bring it!

 

[jude061]

I was actually kind of surprised and disturbed when I first learned how anti-gun most liberals were. I think I've mentioned before that I get angry at my fellow liberals for some of the arguments and tactics they use in this debate, it seems inconsistent to me with the way liberals behave with regard to all other issues.

it lines up exactly with the liberal/progressive agenda, and the tactics that are used by the gun grabbers are the same tactics that they use to attempt to force other infringements on personal liberty. it's a sense of "false-altruism": that is, it is the feelings game. bad guys have guns, so it must be the guns that are bad, so in order that bad guys don't kill people with guns, we have to get rid of guns. how is that any different than: some people are poor, so let's force the public to support them, because it is the feel-good thing to do. most liberal/progressive ideology involves taking, be it money or liberty, to further the construction of a massive, micromanaging nanny-state of a government, under the guise of "doing good." Personal responsibility and accountability is nearly extinct (among the right and the left). The government has very little ideological authority, rather it enforces its will under pain of death (you break one of the laws, no matter how rediculous, the police come for you; you resist, you get hurt or killed). By passing more restrictions on the individual, the government gets more power. Why do you think civics education is lacking in the school curriculum? good followers don't question...

 

[zbrod]

Yikes, I've realized I've done very little work today, but it has been informative at least. If I do start on about my liberal views it will have to be later when I have more time. Maybe I'll start a new thread called "Why I'm a Liberal" and see if we can get it up to 50 pages.


Let's see if I answer a few things before I have to head out this evening:


-Yes I have shot guns before, and I have mentioned it, though I know it is easy to get lost in these threads.
-I think different groups have their own "dirty" words. For you it is "socialist", for me the word "Republican" has caused similar bouts of rage, but I try to contain it.
-I don't have any laws for you guys to refute, and I didn't come in with any in mind, even if I didn't come off that way.
-I know there is an issue of who decides the level of force. Like I've said, whenever you draw an arbitrary line you are asking for trouble. Hence my attempt to come up with a non-arbitrary one, like "the amount of force to kill one soldier." Obviously that did not go well, but that is what I mean.
-I want a lightsaber.
-I don't feel safer in NH, but that's because I live in Davis and work in Cambridge, it's not too dangerous around here from what I've seen. Mostly hipsters. In fact, the first time I drove through I couldn't help but think, "damn, this place needs some crime." That was probably after swerving to avoid a bicyclist with a guitar strapped to his back. But I definitely miss NH, the beauracracy here is intolerable.

 

[Mike S]

Zbrod, here's one for you to chew on, discuss this with your socialist, everyone is equal friends.

Just using MA as an example.

Gun control is the strictest in the inner city of Boston, it's difficult, if not impossible for a law abiding citizen to obtain an LTC A which enables them to carry concealed.

Who lives in the inner city?

Where is crime the highest, especially violent crime?

Would you consider the people who are not legally able to arm, or protect themselves victims of fate in that they live in the inner city, or could it perhaps be a bit of racism?

Remember, our own AG has come right out and said that she i.e. the state, is against "self help"

Many liberals I know, love social programs, and love to THINK that they are helping the "poor" via the feel good programs that they support. I think if you really start looking at it you will find that these programs are a lie, created for another purpose all together.

 

[cekim]

t
-I think different groups have their own "dirty" words. For you it is "socialist", for me the word "Republican" has caused similar bouts of rage, but I try to contain it.

It's not a "dirty word," it is a murderous ideology. That's like saying "slavery" or "pedophile" is "just a word," no, it's an activity which should not be tolerated because of the harm that it brings...

-I don't have any laws for you guys to refute, and I didn't come in with any in mind, even if I didn't come off that way.

That's what we are trying to point out to you - you aren't the first person to think "hey, if only we had some laws to try to stop the bad guys." Every conceivable law has been tried somewhere and the result is always the same. Crime does not drop, in fact, it usually rises and people get hurt badly because of these laws. Sometimes millions at a time are marched to the ovens for lack of ability to defend themselves as a result.

I know there is an issue of who decides the level of force. Like I've said, whenever you draw an arbitrary line you are asking for trouble. Hence my attempt to come up with a non-arbitrary one, like "the amount of force to kill one soldier." Obviously that did not go well, but that is what I mean.

No, it didn't go well and it wasn't because of the specifics, it was a very general failure in your line of thinking. It's still arbitrary, presumes too much about the nature of any given threat that cannot be known or predicted and is predicated on the benevolent government setting the limit and enforcing it.

In short, you asked for a unicorn and got an ass... The same will happen the next time you request a unicorn because it does not exist.

I don't feel safer in NH, but that's because I live in Davis and work in Cambridge, it's not too dangerous around here from what I've seen.

Even in really "bad areas" your immediate likelihood of attack remains statistically low. Relying on what you've "seen" is pretty fruitless. As I've often pointed out, violent, random crime can happen in "safe neighborhoods" with 24/7 sheriffs patrols and carded gates at the entrance. (ask me how I know... )

Trying to predict when you will face a threat is futile. If you know for certain you will need a gun to go somewhere, don't go there or if you must, bring a rifle and backup. Everywhere else, carry if would wear a seat belt to drive there.

Mostly what you see when you go somewhere is your own prejudices...

 

[jude061]

one thing to ponder while you're considering the liberal agenda: some of the things that have been posted here over the last few days range from minimally critical to extremely critical of the current regime. why have we all not been arrested for our writings? because the first amendment has not been abriged...yet. why hasn't it? because of the second.

I teach high school. one of the things i've learned is that if you give an inch, the kids will try to take a mile. The same goes for government. If the people give the government a little bit of power, the machine will try and try and try to take more. where does it stop? Take FDR's new deal, for instance. It was, in its plainest, most bare bones form, welfare. Look what "welfare" has become because noone said "that's enough."

Are there some gun regulations that MIGHT be beneficial? maybe. maybe not. Does that benefit outweigh the right of the individual? hell no. why? because if the people allow one regulation, in return for the illusion of added safety (which has been pointed out abundantly in this thread as a total and utter falsehood -- a myth), then the door has been opened for a total usurpation of every right. are you willing to risk that? I doubt it. the difference between a citizen and a subject is the right to be armed.