What gun control would you actually support?

[TomH]

As for civilians owning them; if we really want to have this discussion, I would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people. That puts them in an unequal position of power.

Except the government does, so it wouldn't be unequal. If for some reason everything broke down, and they were coming for you, they aren't sending in one guy with a pistol.

 

[Blitz1]

I'm still figuring my position out. I routinely debate this issue with my liberal friends in order to challenge myself from that side. And I'm on here riling up you wingnuts to challenge me on the other side. I strongly believe in the right to bear arms because of the reasons many of you have mentioned, however I also need to be able to justify why people should not be able to own atomic bombs or biological weapons. That sound's extreme (apparently the tank was not extreme enough), but that is how you challenge your beliefs, by taking them to the logical extreme. Generally drawing an arbitrary line about what is "reasonable", as you guys have pointed out, is not acceptable. So what is the reasonable line that says guns are okay and atomic bombs are not? This is what I've historically struggled with the most.

If you want to know, my current working theory is that you have the natural right to own the minimum amount of force that puts you on a (theoretically) level playing field with any other person, including a soldier of the government or just another civilian. Guns are that minimum, whereas tanks are not. There is more to it, but I don't want to write a book and I don't have it all worked out yet, but it seems to me a solid working foundation.

So You trust the government with them?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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.

Get it?
This is what separates Our Country from the rest of the world.

Our current government does not believe this.

 

[Jose]

I would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people.

What do you think this is for?

That puts them in an unequal position of power.

You're still stuck on stupid thinking that there is a way to make no one have more power than anyone else.

 

[Gonzo]

I'm referring to civilians owning atomic bombs. I actually support the idea of countries having atom bombs (and I agree with Ron Paul about Iran having one), because atom bombs are the "firearms" at the country level, they put everyone on a level playing field.

As for civilians owning them; if we really want to have this discussion, I would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people. That puts them in an unequal position of power.

EDIT: I'm recently out of grad school. And I don't see anyone having any qualms about using "moonbat."

Well, according to the gov't documents, this gov't is made up of we the people, so we do own the bombs.

Here's the rub: You either make people responsible for their actions, (called being a grown-up), or you limit their behavior and abilities (called being a kid, unless you're not one, then it's called slavery).

It's that simple. Really. There's no great discussion that needs to be hashed out. You tell me how to live my life, I'll tell you to FOAD. What then? You're gonna have to get your gang, and I'm gonna have to get mine, and it's gonna come to blows, one way or another. It always does. It always has. And it always will.

 

[Supermoto]

no proficiency, no pass. an hour or 2 so you don't hurt yourself. tho i guess no matter what or how much training, people will do what they will regardless.
hmm, and as i think about it, i guess you can buy a lot more dangerous stuff than a gun with no license or training, so ... that logic kinda fails i guess.

And if we just went by the 2nd amendment and nothing else, more people would be familiar with firearms just through an abundance of ownership.

so i guess i need to retract my statement.

who's going to pay for the class? Are the poor not afforded the same rights as the rich?

who determines the standard that needs to be met... Let say I get to determine the standard, I think a 5 sec el prez is a good level of proficiency? What do you think about that?

 

[economist]

As for civilians owning them; if we really want to have this discussion, I would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people. That puts them in an unequal position of power.

See, this is what makes you look like a troll. You make arguments that no sensible person could make, which makes you a troll or some kid fresh out of an introductory philosophy course.

You "would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people". Did you think for even a few seconds before you typed that? Do you really want to take the position that a man should be able to defend himself, but only against a single attacker? What if two guys show up? Are you opposed to self defense against any attack where the attackers outnumber the victims?

Don't answer.

 

[TomH]

who's going to pay for the class? Are the poor not afforded the same rights as the rich?

who determines the standard that needs to be met... Let say I get to determine the standard, I think a 5 sec el prez is a good level of proficiency? What do you think about that?

Haha, give the guy a break he just retracted the statement after reasoning it out.

 

[Gonzo]

Are the poor not afforded the same rights as the rich?

Umm....in practice or in principle?

 

[Blitz1]

Chances are she is just some brain washed college student that is using this forum for a term paper. She obviously doesn't have any real world experience what so ever.

 

[Slowdive]

Doing harm or intent to do harm to innocents is universally accepted as wrong. The problem comes when you try to associate other tangential activities (such as the acquisition of inanimate objects) that could be used as a vehicle for execution, as either intent or opportunity to do harm. Its an abstraction designed to proxy intent. Your left with presumptions and "risk mitigation" policies that state its better to trample on all peoples individual rights on a pre-emptive basis than to miss the rare miscreant who's intent is to plot something devious even though the evidence of that malfeasance is indirect . There is no bottom to that rabbit hole. Hoping to filter out the lowest common denominator thru an inefficient filter of proxy'd intent will always result in a blunt instrument that erodes freedom from the general populous...whether or not it actually achieves this goal becomes irrelevant as ultimately public policy is a game of perception.

 

[bolt]

The second amendment.

 

[TomH]

See, this is what makes you look like a troll. You make arguments that no sensible person could make, which makes you a troll or some kid fresh out of an introductory philosophy course.

You "would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people". Did you think for even a few seconds before you typed that? Do you really want to take the position that a man should be able to defend himself, but only against a single attacker? What if two guys show up? Are you opposed to self defense against any attack where the attackers outnumber the victims?

Don't answer.

Exactly. Natural rights can afford someone the ability to be able to kill multiple people. Some people are born with stronger bodies, able to simply beat more than one person. Others might be able to pick up a stick and swing it better than others, taking out multiple people. You can hit more than one person with a car. The arguement of natural rights allowing only the ability to go one on one is some kind of rainbow unicorn utopia dream world. Natural rights say you have the right to defend yourself and your natural rights, by any means necessary. They don't say you're guaranteed to be successful, as everything isn't sunshine and rainbows in this world. You have to have more just in case. In the case of our constitution, the founders believed the people should have MORE firepower than their government. This is because the government is derived FROM the people, and work FOR the people.

Chances are she is just some brain washed college student that is using this forum for a term paper. She obviously doesn't have any real world experience what so ever.

This kind of attitude is wiped out quickly when confronted by multiple assailants intending to do harm. Some people don't need it to come to that to see reason though.

I'll leave you with this, often attributed to Franklin, a wiser man than I will ever be:

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

 

[Blitz1]

The OP is a girl. She's a troll. Well she's a he trying to be a she.

 

[pernox]

I'm referring to civilians owning atomic bombs. I actually support the idea of countries having atom bombs (and I agree with Ron Paul about Iran having one), because atom bombs are the "firearms" at the country level, they put everyone on a level playing field.

As for civilians owning them; if we really want to have this discussion, I would argue that a single person does not have the natural right to possess the firepower to kill multiple people. That puts them in an unequal position of power.

You can kill plenty of people with a gun. Scads of them, in fact. A bunch of people with guns that know what they're doing can kill even more than that. If someone has the resources, will, and motivation to build their own nuke, do you really think that a law is going to stop them? A single person has the natural right to do whatever they please - it's when they stop the Liberty from flowing for another that we as a society need to step in and handle it. Either you are free, or you are not. Free men have to constraints, limits, or permitting processes on what they can own.

EDIT: I'm recently out of grad school. And I don't see anyone having any qualms about using "moonbat."

What they ought to be called is not fit for the language policy here.

 

[Gonzo]

The OP is a girl. She's a troll. No I won't say why.

Pics?

 

[Supermoto]

The OP is a girl. She's a troll. No I won't say why.

So Zbrod is actually Zbroad?

 

[zbrod]

I like the whole pretending I'm a female thing, real classy. Are you trying to make a statement about women, because you should just come out with it.

Like I said, recently finished 2 years of grad school, after 4 years of undergrad. So yes, I'm educated if that's what you're asking. It's not like going to college is uncommon these days, limited to super-liberal douchebags. Besides, I'm a software engineer, not a Philosophy major.

I don't think I've sufficiently thought out the imbalance of force thing enough where I can express it properly.

 

[Blitz1]

Pics?

See the amended post. Still want pics? Get them from your brother.

 

[Gonzo]

So Zbrod is actually Zbroad?

I went to college to study Abroad.

 

[Slowdive]

...

 

[Gonzo]

I don't think I've sufficiently thought out the imbalance of force thing enough where I can express it properly.

Yup.


And BTW, we're not PC here at all. I just feel the need to point out the obvious sometimes.

And I'm uneducated, for what it's worth.

 

[Fixxah]

Stop illegal immigration first then ask me again.











Answer is still the same.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[Blitz1]

I like the whole pretending I'm a female thing, real classy. Are you trying to make a statement about women, because you should just come out with it.

Like I said, recently finished 2 years of grad school, after 4 years of undergrad. So yes, I'm educated if that's what you're asking. It's not like going to college is uncommon these days, limited to super-liberal douchebags. Besides, I'm a software engineer, not a Philosophy major.

I don't think I've sufficiently thought out the imbalance of force thing enough where I can express it properly.

Go back to school, you're not ready for real life Missy.

 

[Jose]

Go back to school, you're not ready for real life Missy.

+1

 

[Jose]

I don't think I've sufficiently thought out the imbalance of force thing enough where I can express it properly.

I'll round up three more guys and we'll beat your head onto the sidewalk until your brains make a stain on it.

That will clear up the concept of imbalance of force well for you.

 

[Jose]

Like I said, recently finished 2 years of grad school, after 4 years of undergrad. So yes, I'm educated

I disagree

 

[drgrant]

I like the whole pretending I'm a female thing, real classy. Are you trying to make a statement about women, because you should just come out with it.

Like I said, recently finished 2 years of grad school, after 4 years of undergrad. So yes, I'm educated if that's what you're asking. It's not like going to college is uncommon these days, limited to super-liberal douchebags.

FWIW the board here has a bunch of individuals that run the gamut from didn't finish high school to PHDs/MDs and the like. The thing is though, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the concept of natural rights.

It does take an open mind, and some deep thought, though. EG- if the cost of not being enslaved is that someone else might do something bad with their freedom, then, are you willing to accept that cost, as a generality at least, in exchange for having that kind of freedom?

-Mike

 

[zbrod]

You guys realize that, while compared to people on this forum I might be this super-liberal naive kid, I'm much more in line with the rest of civilized society? I'm surprised some of you can open your mouths in public without being told to get back in the woods.

 

[Gonzo]

You guys realize that, while compared to people on this forum I might be this super-liberal naive kid, I'm much more in line with the rest of civilized society? I'm surprised some of you can open your mouths in public without being told to get back in the woods.

.

That's funny.

 

[Blitz1]

LOL. zbrod. Go green and come to the 10/11 shoot. If You can shoot one of my rifles with out any coaching then you'll earn some respect.