Is it time to talk about guns?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Mar 24, 2021.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,670
    Jen

    I’m not sure what your rational argument is since you don’t actually explain - but i’m confused as to what it is - given your examples i mean you say

    ‘An unarmed populace is always subjugated by its government’

    But the Boxer’s actually supported their government (which was an absolute Monarchy) and in 1930’s Germany many of the people that were armed actually supported the Nazis so you could say that the armed populace helped in bringing about Nazis tyranny.
     
    soulcompromise likes this.
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,670
    Jen

    Again i’m confused and unsure what your argument is - I mean to begin with who is this ‘our’ in

    If the ‘our’ here is gun owners, Isn’t one of the (flawed) big pro-gun arguements that people have guns to to prevent crime? As in the slogan ‘ “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

    Can you explain your thinking?

    And again a vast number of government activities are aimed at deterring crime so can you explain what you mean?

    Who are the ‘powers that be’?

    Actually if you look at gun control proposals they are often aimed at handguns because as you say a vast majority of crimes involve such weapons - so your assertion seems to be incorrect.

    This just seems to come across a paranoia.

    Again you seem to be implying there is a ‘them’ and ‘us’ - who is the ‘them’ and who the ‘us’?

    Again people have presented measures to try and lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal - you don’t seem to have put up any rational argument against them.

    Sorry but this has already been covered many times, the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals were purchased legally and then either given or sold on to the criminal or stolen from the legal owner.

    Many of the gun control measures proposed are aimed at closing off those routes to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal.

    With any illegal guns, once found, been ‘disappeared’ by being destroyed. It cannot be done through a snap of the fingers Thanos style but will work over time to limit the number of existing guns in circulation and the ease of access to them.

    Again already covered in post 37

    These would be national laws the same through all the states and a Federal department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country.

    So there would be one set of minimum/standard laws that local areas would have to adhere to.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2021
  3. FritzDaKatx2

    FritzDaKatx2 Vinegar Taster

    Messages:
    3,432
    Likes Received:
    778
    I've been reading lately how the more ambitious reloaders out there who dont mind religiously cleaning their barrels have learned to weather the ammo shortage with a homebrewed version of the primer compound used back in the 30-40 Krag to recycle their primers.
    Legal to do for personal use, risky.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,670
    The Penn & Teller video doesn’t make much sense either

    To repeat this is something from 200 year olds ago things have moved on and clearly the 2nd amendment isn’t fit for purpose today.

    Also what ‘tyrannical state militia’ did the writers fight against?

    What tyranny was there before 1776?

    Those fermenting the rebellion certainly began calling British rule tyranny because…well they were trying to ferment a rebellion, but actually many colonists were happy or at least apathetic to British rule.

    As Francis D Cogliano asks -Was the American Revolution Inevitable?

    Writing with the benefit of hindsight in 1818, John Adams, one of the central figures in the American Revolution, recalled that Americans were committed to independence in their hearts long before war broke out in America in 1775. Adams' comment suggests that American independence was inevitable: this was not the case.

    In 1763, Americans joyously celebrated the British victory in the Seven Years' War, revelling in their identity as Britons and jealously guarding their much-celebrated rights which they believed they possessed by virtue of membership in what they saw as the world's greatest empire. Americans had contributed significantly to the recent victory both militarily and financially….In 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers.[my bold]

    It was only when the British parliament (against many members opposition) began rising taxes in the colonies (that was going through a recession at the time) that the colonists started getting annoyed

    And remember their call was - "No taxation without representation"

    It wasn’t a call against tyranny or for war - it was asking to have representation within the British Empire in Parliament.

    If it was tyranny they were basically asking to be part of the tyranny.
    Even when the war began there were American colonist who stayed loyal to the British Crown for example William Franklin the son of Benjamin Franklin was a loyalist who worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war on the side of the British and of course the famous and much maligned name been Benedict Arnold.

    The historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

    Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2021
  5. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member

    Messages:
    21,713
    Likes Received:
    11,406
    Jen

    History has it that these said 'militias' have never been any good. Further, the tyranny they stand against today is liberal progressive majority-rules democracy.

    What do they hope to accomplish?


    In the context of militia I feel the gun ownership, particularly of assault weapons like the infamous AR-15, is basically a means of intimidation and coercion.
     
    Flagme15, Balbus and Piobaire like this.
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,670
    The Defensive Gun Use arguement - is actually very bad for the pro-gun lobby if you just think about it for a minute

    The argument is that guns are good at tackling crime

    But it has already been established that the general crime rates of the US are not that different than other comparable countries with much lower levels of gun ownership or eaase of access to guns.

    But if guns are good at tackling crime - then the US with its much much higher rates of gun ownership and ease of access to firearms should have much lower rates of crime than places witthout.

    But it doesn't - in other words ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to relate to lower general crime rates.

    Some gun people argue that these crimes stopped by DGU are not reported - but if that's the case then the US has higher crime rates than comparable countries that don’t have guns so actually they are doing a lot better at tackling crime than the US with guns.

    But the US has vastly greater gun related deaths and injuries compared to those countries where ease of access to guns is lower.

    So ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to tackle crime but does increase the likelihood of people getting killed or injured by a gun.

    Any rational and reasonable person would conclude that it would be better to take ease of access to guns out of the equation when tackling crime, for both law enforces and citizenry
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2021
    MeAgain likes this.
  7. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    18,259
    Likes Received:
    12,230
    I like Penn and Teller as magicians but they don't know what they're talking about in this video.
    A well regulated militia is made up of "the people", or citizens of the country. Militias were private citizens called upon to support the standing army or lack of a standing army. That's why "the people" had a right to bear arms, to support the government not overthrow it. Note the militia is to be well regulated, it is not a 20 year old kid or a gang running around with weapons.
    When the Constitution was written organized militias were formed to protect against Indians and foreign invasion (the French). Previously Washington called upon the the Virginia Militia to fight in the French and Indian War. The Virginia Militia was organized under governmental authority, was well paid, and was used to protect the colonies from foreign invasion (the French again) and Indian attacks, not the British or local government.
    When the Revolution broke out militias were organized to support the colonial governments, not rebel against them.
    Note the words well regulated, trained, defense of the state, and strict subordination to the civil power.
    Militias operated under direction of colonial governments.

    After the Revolution the citizens of Western Pennsylvania organized what would today be called "militias" to protest agaisnt governmental tyranny in the form of the whiskey tax.
    The "people" of Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties claimed the tax was unfair.
    "Militia" groups in Washington county protesting governmental tyranny tarred and feathered tax collector Robert Johnson. A warrant server sent to serve Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered, and other governmental officials were attacked.
    [​IMG]
    In Pittsburgh the Mingo Creek Association took control of the real local militia and set up their own court system; in response to governmental tyranny.
    Alexander Hamilton, remember him?, "drafted a presidential proclamation denouncing resistance" (or protest of governmental tyranny) which President Washington signed. Washington recognized that an insurrection had formed.
    Tax collectors were assaulted at gun point and had their homes broken into. Illegal "militias" laid siege to Morgantown, Virginia (becasue of governmental tyranny).
    On July 15, 1794 while serving warrants a Federal Marshal was fired upon at a farm. The "people" were using firearms to protest governmental tyranny.
    On July 16 30 Mingo Creek "militiamen" surrounded tax collector General Neville's home on Bower Hill and demanded he and others surrender. He responded by firing on and killing a "militiaman". The "militiaman" returned fire and a battle ensued. Neville defended his home from invasion with the help of his slaves. Invasion by what we today call a militia.The insurrection was expanding.
    The next day the militia returned with 600 men commanded by Major James McFarlane and with "10 U.S. Army soldiers from Pittsburgh under the command of Major Abraham Kirkpatrick".
    The house was set afire, several people were killed, and General Neville captured.

    On August 1 7,000 people assembled at Braddock's Field to protest governmental tyranny. They wanted to march on Pittsburgh and burn it the ground, attack Fort Fayette, bring in a guillotine and succeed from the Union. A six striped flag was designed.

    How did Washington respond?
    He assembled a real militia under the federal militia law in support of the government. 12,950 men from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia were drafted into the well organized militia in defense of the government. Resistance to the draft was put down by over 800 militia men resulting in several deaths.

    Washington himself then lead the militia.
    As a result the insurrection collapsed, 2,000 men ran into the wilderness beyond the militia's reach 24 men were arrested, 10 stood trail, and 2 were sentenced to hang for insurrection.

    So much for militias being used to protest governmental tyranny.

    Continuing with Penn and Teller. They equate militias with standing armies....wrong.
    They seem to think militias aren't made up of people as they emphasize that the people being separate from militias should be allowed to own arms. So who makes up the militias, dogs and cats?
    Then they claim the colonists fought agaisnt a radical state militia. Who would that be? England sent her standing armies to fight, not militias.
    They claim the writers of the constitution made it impossible for governmental militias to take away "the peoples'" arms. Well we just saw that's completely wrong as Hamilton and the rest of the signers of the Constitution did just that, took away the arms of "the people" of Western Pa, et al during the Whiskey Insurrection.
    Finally they claim a comma is a period.

    Complete bull.
     
    Flagme15 and Balbus like this.
  8. granite45

    granite45 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    1,473
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    If more and increasingly lethal weapons were the way to reduce gun deaths, the US would long ago have reduced the gun deaths to zero. What kind of twisted logic can ignore the simultaneous increases in gun violence and gun availability? The same twisted logic also ignores the experience of the rest of the developed world where some level of gun control is associated with fewer gun deaths. Long past time to for t he clueless to get a clue. Seems like those listening to the gun lobby would also be interested in a purchase of a certain bridge in the greater New York area.
     
    MeAgain likes this.
  9. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    20,103
    Likes Received:
    12,053
    IMO, it comes down to percentages as usual. There is a percentage of people that will harm and kill others. Always been thus from the days of rocks and clubs used to subdue-harm-kill others for whatever contemporary reasons. The fact that there ARE weapons shows that a %age humans are a murderous bunch whether for political, social, or reasons of survival. Under the right conditions, an extremely high %age will kill----most will not go out of their way to harm or kill others, but speaking for myself--if someone attempts to harm/kill my family---they will get an immediate case of lead poisoning with no feelings of regret. Imo--there is no solution to this gun problem and there never will be unless ---I suppose there was/is an actual ,creator that gave a shit about the continual slaughtering in which humans continue to engage. Ri-i-i-ig-h-ht.
     
    FritzDaKatx2 and wrat1 like this.
  10. MartNorth

    MartNorth Supporters HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    769
    Having watched gun control talk for many, many years now it seems to have held true when the far left thinks they have he power to push something through we have a SHARP rise in mass shooting.
     
    SaraSara likes this.
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    18,259
    Likes Received:
    12,230
    So in your opinion the far left is responsible for mass shooting not those who commit the shootings?
     
    granite45 likes this.
  12. tikoo

    tikoo Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    443
    Social irresponsibility is what gives the lunatics their fantasies . Insane war , for instance , invites a warrior's
    illusion of power with no regard for protecting community . The AR-15 becomes a black magical object . The
    lunatic warrior of anxiety walks alone , wishing to lay among the dead .
     
  13. Tyrsonswood

    Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    32,846
    Likes Received:
    24,376
  14. FritzDaKatx2

    FritzDaKatx2 Vinegar Taster

    Messages:
    3,432
    Likes Received:
    778

    Sure wouldn't want to limit my options in the event I ran into such an individual, (Or a face-munching bath salt zombie for that matter)

    IMG_20210328_133926.jpg
     
    hotwater and MartNorth like this.
  15. MartNorth

    MartNorth Supporters HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    769
    Reread what I posted, can see how it can be twisted into your statement. I nearly posted what I
    ve watched happening over Many years.
     
  16. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    20,103
    Likes Received:
    12,053
    If bullets cost 5,000 dollars a piece, every time one was sold, you KNOW a motherfucker needs shot!!
     
    FritzDaKatx2 likes this.
  17. granite45

    granite45 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    1,473
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    Right....and the control points around those cities can effectively keep guns out, huh? It’s like pouring your morning coffee in a sieve and wondering why it doesn’t work. I guess some folks tried to keep covid out of their communities with a picket fence too. Sounds like good argument for a National gun control policy as is the case in most other nations that purely by chance have fewer gun deaths.
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    18,259
    Likes Received:
    12,230
    Sure, here is what you posted:
    Allow me to parse;
    Having watched gun control talk for many, many years now....
    My understanding: you have watched gun control talk for many, many years.
    ...it seems to have held true...
    My understanding: due to having watched gun control talk for many, many years, you have concluded, or found it true...
    ....when the far left thinks they have he (sic) power to push something through....
    My understanding: due to the agenda of the far left....
    ....we have a SHARP rise in mass shooting.
    My understanding:
    1. When the far left is in power they think they can enact gun control laws. (First premise)
    2. When someone tries to enact gun control laws mass shootings rise . (Second premise)
    3. Therefore, the "far left" is the cause of mass shootings. (Conclusion)
    Are my premises or deduction in error?
    If so please correct them.
    Now we could test that conclusion by looking at each instance of the "far left" debating gun laws against the history of mass shootings, but I don't have the time.
     
    Balbus, Tyrsonswood and scratcho like this.
  19. Flagme15

    Flagme15 Members

    Messages:
    6,598
    Likes Received:
    8,496
    Exactly. Unfortunately, the pro gun people gloss over the 2A, until they see”right to bear arms”.
     
  20. Flagme15

    Flagme15 Members

    Messages:
    6,598
    Likes Received:
    8,496
    I saw this quote, today, that I think really sums it up, “my right to live is more important than your right to own a gun”.
     
    SaraSara and MeAgain like this.

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice