Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Being a new person living in the US for 5 years..I have plans to take my citizenship exam (I am from Japan) I think the 2nd Amendment should stay as it stands..the country im from firearms are prohibited. Safety and education on how to use and handle and knowing your state or city laws should be ephasized..as where I live it is not..I went to shoot a gun for the first time over the weekend and I have to tell you..It was so much fun! Scary at first..but also learned how important it is to be aware and not just recklessly pulling a trigger

 

I made a comment that was obviously misunderstood by this commentor who said; "So you believe you are at war? That you are part of a citizen’s resistance force that is fighting…well…is fighting against…well what?

Are you saying that you feel you are under occupation by Nazis?

You think your government are Nazis that your fellow citizens are Nazis?

This is one of the most bizarre arguments that has arisen in recent discussions I must admit."

Yes I do believe I am at war and that I am a fighter in that war but I do not believe in the use of violence and feel it is counter productive.

No, I do not believe I am under occupation by Nazis. A careful reading of what I said would discover the statement; "I think many would say that without the use of "guns" Nazis would still be committing genocide today." That statement is past tense and is commenting on the fact Guns had a successful impact on stopping the Nazis.

No I do not believe the government of the US is Nazis or that all my fellow citizens are Nazis, although there are some who say they are.


As for this It seems it seems to be a very broad definition of selling but okay. "Advertisers us fear all the time to sell their products – your children will get sick if you don’t us our cleaner – for example, other try to sell their political ideology through fear – the Jews will take over the world if you don’t vote for us.

Telling people that they can have a gun or not but - what will they do if they don’t have a gun when that drug addicted psycho comes through their door and rapes and tortures their wife and child before their very eyes – is selling guns.

Cleaner advertiser - it is a possibility but I don't say it to get people to "buy" our cleaner.

Extremist Politician - it is a possibility but I don't say it to get people to vote for our party."



To this I would say; "I’m asking – why would you think that was going to happen?" because those things have happened in the past and far as I know has been established to prevent them in the furture.

As for this; "You seem to be implying that - having to watch you wife and child being raped and murdered before your very eyes - is such a common occurrence that it wasn’t a matter of if, but when - that it was bound to happen at some point in an Americans lifetime." Actually no, I don't believe that it is "bound to happen at some point in an Americans lifetime" and feel that is a unlikely occurrence.

As for this comment; "Now I fear for my wife and child also but my concerns are more mundane and are about accidents and illness, being the victim of a crime is not high on the list and the idea that I would be forced to watch my wife and child being raped and tortured is very remote so remote that I think it rather sick to think that pro-gunner like you have it so close to the forefront of you minds." First, I am unsure how many times I need to say this but I am not pro gun, I am pro liberty, freedom and personal rights. I have never recommended that anyone buy, purchase or own a gun and have never owned one my self and to perfectly frank, I have no wife or children and so their rape and torture is not in the front of mind, not even in the back of my mind.




"The same – there is no alternative – argument" What? Did I say there was "no alternative"? No, I did not. I did say there is no over night solution, unless you came up with one over night and that forcing gun owners to give up what some of them consider protection, in the hopes that some day the problems of the world will be solved, seems a little naive.



"I’ve often said that I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, but that doesn’t mean I’m against gun control measures because the flip side of that view is that I’m against the criminal minded and irresponsible gaining access to firearms of any kind." There is no law that will keep Guns out of the hands of law breakers, even in the UK where guns are outlawed, outlaws still get guns.

"Now I’ve often asked do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals and the most common answer I got is – yes, but that is impossible – the second bit turning the yes effectively into no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

The ‘impossible’ argument is the idea that there is no alternative; nothing can be done to get guns out of the hands of the criminally minded.

But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them, it is not impossible it is just seems to me that they want to make it look like it is impossible."

One should understand that ofttimes people want want is impossible, that doesn't mean that they don't want it. What is being said is not that they want guns in the hands criminals but they know of no way to accomplish it.

While banning gun ownership, may make it a little harder for criminals to get a gun they will still get them, whereas the same law will disarm all honest citizens, effectively punishing honest citizen for being honest.

Okay, what is the alternative?

"And that is the problem – you think bringing about a better society is peripheral to me it is central because if people lived in a better, nicer and safer, society they probably wouldn’t be so frightened and feel the need to own a gun as protection against it." I never said or even inferred that "bringing about a better society is peripheral to" you. I merely said it is peripheral to this discussion.

In any case this thread is about "Should guns be outlawed in the USA?"

Say, in this better society where people live in a better, nicer and safer, society where they probably wouldn’t be frightened", why can't people own a gun?

 

OWB

Yes I admit I did think your response was a bit weird, as I commented at the time.

We were discussing if American civilian gun ownership was effective in defending ‘freedom’ from government suppression.

I said - "The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution. For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed. The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of? Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?"

To which you said –

Implying that you thought the situation of US gun owners was comparable to the civilian resistance movement in Nazis occupied Europe (armed civilians).

If that is not what you meant then why did you bring up the ‘underground’ and its part in defeating the Nazis’ in the context of US gun ownership?

It wasn’t exactly a ‘shot in the dark’ as can be seen by the exchange it is what you said and in the context you said it.

Thankfully you’ve now tried to qualify what you said but your qualification doesn’t address what you seemed to be implying, except for just denying it.

*

We are talking about civilian gun ownership and its usefulness (or not) in countering ‘government’ suppression.

And I do carefully read your post and yes you did say

But you specifically added

Now I think the military forces of the Allies were more important than the ‘underground’ in defeating the Nazis’ but it was the civilian resistance that you wanted to emphasize.

And you seemingly wanted to emphasize it in the context of US gun ownership and what you see as its role in resisting US government suppression.

And you categorically say –

You believe you are at war and that you are a fighter in that war.


Again you seem to wish to imply that people like you and US civilian gun owners are in some way like the ‘underground’ in the war against the Nazis.

Also the use of words is important – war – war is by definition violent yet you want to claim that you are a peaceful ‘fighter’ in a war.

It doesn’t seem to make sense what are you at ‘war’ with what are you ‘fighting’ against?

So we have established that you are not fighting ‘Nazis’ but you do believe you are fighting something.

What and/or whom are you fighting and why?

Also as interesting as this diversion has been it still doesn’t address the point I was making that us civilian gun owners have not been conspicuous in their defence of US ‘freedom’ in the past (not military forces, civilian gun owners).

 

OWB

"I’m asking – why would you think that was going to happen?"

In other words you think that a person’s wife and kid could be raped and tortured before their eyes – that is is a very distinct possibility, that you think people should fear that it might happen. (What has been established to prevent them?)

But

So while you do think it might happen you don’t think it might happen?

It seem to me you wouldn’t have brought it up unless you thought it was a very real and present danger or were you just saying it in a cynical attempt to sell your point of view?

*

And part of your stance is being pro-gun. You have come to gun issue threads and argued a pro-gun stance.

But you have used fear to sell the idea of having a gun. It doesn’t matter if you have a wife or child or not – you choose to present that frightening scenario.

In fact it seems worse that you are presenting such an image to people like myself that do have wives and children. It brings to mind a cynical advertiser who’s pushing fear just to sell a product.

*

 

OWB

"The same – there is no alternative – argument"

I’ve never talked of overnight solutions in fact I’ve said the exact opposite (again why can’t people read what I say - rather than basing their replies on what they think I’ve said).

I’ve repeatedly said that it would have to be long term and holistic project.

And to repeat for what feels like the millionth time – I have nothing against the law abiding or responsible owning a gun.

*

And I’ve not talked about a single law (again why can’t people read what I say - rather than basing their replies on what they think I’ve said).

I have talked about a holistic approach (a wide range of socio-economic programmes) as well as some ideas on gun control.

*

“they know of no way to accomplish it”

But the thing is they don’t even seem to be trying and I’ve asked many, many time and the response isn’t usually thoughtful debate but the immediate – it’s impossible.

It seems to be a matter of not wanting to accomplish it.

And to repeat for what feels like the millionth and first time – I have nothing against the law abiding or responsible owning a gun.

*

But as I’ve said and explained many times effective gun control is not just about laws it is also about attitudes and mentalities, about how people view their society and the people in it, it is about why people want guns and those are wider social issues.

And to repeat for what feels like the millionth and second time – I have nothing against the law abiding or responsible owning a gun.

 

OWB

You tell me not to ‘shot in the dark’ but you seem to be ‘going off half cocked’ before you even understand if you have a target and are therefore repeatedly ‘shooting yourself in the foot’. You really need to read what I’ve actually said and then think about it before ‘taking aim’ rather that just ‘shooting wild’.

Yours

Balbus

 

I think one of the main problems is that when gun control is mentioned in relation to the US context many pro-gunners there think it means just one thing – a total ban on all guns.

I am not opposed to the law abiding and responsible owning a gun.

But I do believe in gun control to try and limit the amount of guns getting into the hands of the irresponsible and those who are not law abiding or are unlikely to be law abiding.

In other words I’m not a supporter of unregulated gun ownership and I don’t think the status quo is working in relation to the US.

What I think is needed is a return to basics.

*

Do those in the pro-gun camp want to get guns out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible?

And if they do want that - what responsibilities are they willing to take on and what sacrifices are they willing to make in regard to gun ownership?

 

1. do i want criminals and the irresponsible to not have firearms or any weapons at all? ABSOLUTELY!

shoot 'em in the head when caught with a weapon. efficient, cheap and final. no need for any other law(s). no need for a court, a prison, ongoing gum flapping from those who don't understand the recidivists will never stop, and rehabilitation rarely works.

2. what sacrifices will i make? i will keep my handgun holstered and my rifle on a sling, not point it at you unless you threaten my person and not shoot at anything i do not intend to kill. i will be careful of what is behind what i am shooting at....i will not allow children near my firearms. if i know or suspect you are a criminal or irresponsible...or just too damn stupid to have your paws on a firearm...i will never allow you to handle my weapons, nor will i sell or give you one. (the 'you' here is not necessarily personal, Balbus)

i am perfectly willing to see the sacrifice of anyone (in the Aztec fashion) who doesn't see the necessity of the second amendment to the u.s. Constitution or ownership of a firearm. i would be willing to promise to not defend those sorts of persons even if they are attacked. let the jungle have them, since they don't want to permanently and efficiently get rid of violent criminals.

we have gotten the world society we deserve with our handwringing and constant debate about 'morality'. thank the stars, god, whatever that the libyans had firearms...or for that matter, many others who have had to defend themselves.

 

Well, that the rules were established a while back does not alter the fact that they remain the rules.

Well, for the purpose of discussing the topic of this thread, outlawing guns . . . the reasons why it can't be done might as well have been created last week. There is no expiration date; those barriers to government action are as solid and strong as they were a couple centuries ago.

Well, honestly, that's just a ridiculous exercise in mental masturbation.

Well, when we are discussing an action that can't be done then yes, I agree. Outlawing guns is an action that simply can't be done; discussing if it "SHOULD happen" is an even more pathetic waste of time.

The only thing more laughable than that is directing a moment of thought to how you characterize this discussion, "removing the right the right to bear arms".

The government has as much power to remove a right as it has to ban gravity. Rights of the citizen, like a rule of physics, are simply not within the ambit of authority of government . . . EVER!

 

It would be good if you could say why, otherwise it's your word against mine (both equally useless). Government has power to do anything the constitution gives it power to do. For example the government could grant the right to use marijuana, then remove it.

 

The U.S. needs to return to being a government of laws not men, in compliance with the Constitution which, when adhered to by those who govern, provides all with a consistency under which they can each individually plan their lives and business dealings. The misinterpretation, with political agenda, of the Constitution creates uncertainty which each of us has to deal with individually, and most often compounds the problems of not only government, but more so of businesses and individuals. Laws should apply to all equally in a free society, and new laws should be few, infrequently created, applicable equally to all, and enacted only as a result of acceptance by a 3/4 majority of the governed, amending the Constitution if to be applicable to all States.
It is governments responsibility to protect the rights of the people, not to try and equalize the outcomes of each individuals life by diminishing the rights of some to achieve some form of equality for others. The right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. is Constitutionally guaranteed right of inhabitants of all 50 (or is it now 57) States, which can only be changed by amending the Constitution. It might be very important for us to focus closely on future Supreme Court nominees and speak out loudly when those who are being considered have a political agenda rather than a true understanding of the words that are contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Rights of the government are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, which is one of Obamas' major complaints. They have, over the last 100 years greatly ignored and exceeded the powers enumerated, and it is time for the people to put a stop to governments taking power from the people.

 

Just curious, but where in the Constitution is government given the power to grant rights?

 

Which constitution? I am speaking of constitutions generally. As long as there is the power of the legislature to make laws, there is obviously within that a power to grant certain rights, as long as that particular right is not expressly dealt with in the constitution - for example, freedom of speech in most countries with constitutions.

 

This would have been a brilliant post, if it wasn't for the blatantly ignorant and irresponsible intro.

Summary ANYTHING doesn't work, and is not how civilized societies work.

Also, in this society, you can be a criminal for distilling your own spirits, growing your own pot, or having a host of chemicals. Or for importing a nissan skyline. I think people who do all of those should be free and clear as far as the law goes, and should be able to have any guns the next guy can. But by your criteria, if you see someone in a skyline with a gun, you can kill them on the spot.

Wild west=fail. That's why it doesn't exist any more.

 

Well then by your own admission if the guy next door to me has a 20mm beltfed auto cannon where do I sign up for one??

Oh and by the way making your own Moonshine is LEGAL....provided you don't sell it.....the Govmint don't cotton to losing out to their cut of the extortion....er um I mean taxes!!

 

The freedom of speech is expressed in the Constitution as a right not granted by the government, but to be protected by the government, therefore they can produce laws to ensure that the right to free speech cannot be infringed upon. Obviously the right to free speech cannot be taken away without amending the Constitution, which applies to the right to keep and bear arms as well.

 

Reb

Thank you for your post it has been very helpful.

*

An argument put forward by many pro-gunners is that civilian gun ownership is a bulwark against a states ability to suppress or persecute its citizens.

But you wish to give the states security forces (the police etc) the ability to execute citizens without trial or due process - just to “shoot 'em in the head” as you put it.

As a means of state suppression I couldn’t think of a better one.

As I’ve said before my theory is that – “there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.”

And it is my contention that this mentality leads toward the desire for gun ownership, as a protection against state persecution.

But I’m beginning to realise that the same mentality can lead people to support state persecution.

*

The next thing to ask is do you think that the ‘criminals’ you would have executed without trial were born as criminals?

*

Also please read another section of my general theory

Against Crime

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.


(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

 

Rick

Why a waste of time? It is only considered impossible because there isn’t the political will or the popular mandate.

But things can change, I mean once it was thought that ending slavery simply couldn’t be done.

But some people asked - should slavery exist – are you saying that their struggle was a pathetic waste of time?

Now I’m not against the law abiding and responsible owning guns, but I do believe in gun control, is that in your opinion also a pathetic waste of time?

Bullshit – the view of ‘rights’ changes with time and place. The people of the US have the ‘right’ to vote, but that wasn’t always the case at the beginning of the union only about 10% of Americans had the vote. And even today some criminals have that ‘right’ taken away from them.

I mean if gravity kills someone can you take away its ‘right’ to pull people toward the centre of a mass?

 

Indie

But that greatly relies on what interpretation or spin you put on the Constitution and that can be strongly influenced by a person’s political bias, for example you have expressed a rather right wing interpretation.

But of course as I said just above the way someone sees a misinterpretation is going to be strongly influenced by that person’s political bias, for example someone with a rightwing agenda and interpretation of the US constitution is going to see a leftwing view of it as a misinterpretation.

But advantage and disadvantage within a society makes outcomes and equality of outcomes problematic, even within law. Someone with wealth, power and influence is can often have a very different outcome before the law as someone with no wealth, power or influence.

But who decides what rights the people have? As I’ve said wealth can bring power and influence and if not checked can manipulated the system to work in its interests rather than those of the ‘people’.

Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

But again it is a matter of interpretation some believe the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, but other see it as a component of a the "well-regulated militia"

Personal bias can then come into play.

But what political agenda are you talking about - a rightwing agenda or a leftwing agenda?

You’re a right winger with a rightwing agenda and a rightwing bias so your interpretation of most things (including the US constitution) has a decidedly rightwing twist. So I think any ‘true understanding’ you have is not objective but coloured by your own prejudices.

But virtually all your ideas would give increased power and influence to a view to the detriment of the many.

This is well know to anyone familiar with your posts (from your idea to give extra voting power to block the votes of the many to your views on letting what you consider as valueless people die)

So to consider you as a champion of ‘the people’ is a bit of a joke as far as I’m concerned.

 

I can assume that what you mean by irresponsible is anyone with a record of violence, but to be sure is that what you mean?

As for 'unlikely to be law abiding', what do you mean? What standards do you support to define 'unlikely to be law abiding'?

And also:

How do you propose to get guns out of the hands of criminals?

Thanks.