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

We were discussing if American civilian gun ownership was effective in defending ‘freedom’ from government suppression.
Actually I thought we were discussing where Guns should banned in the U.S.A.
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 – [/I]

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.

I was not implying that the situation of US gun owners was comparable to the civilian resistance movement in Nazis occupied Europe.

I was flat out saying that your conclusions about the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Native Americans, the Japanese and others seems faulty.

We can not for sure say what would have happened if the Jews had fought back because it didn't happen but we do know that part of what helped defeat the Nazis was the civilian resistance movement, had their own guns you know.

As for Native Americans getting the support of the American citizenry, why should they, it was that very citizenry the Native Americans were fighting against and what defeated them after about 200 years of conflict was disease, a limited food supply, poor armaments and a low birth rate compared to the Europeans.


We are talking about civilian gun ownership and its usefulness (or not) in countering ‘government’ suppression.
Well that is what you are talking about and that is what I replied to but myself I'm talking about the right of gun ownership for what ever legitimate reason

And I do carefully read your post and yes you did say;
"I think many would say that without the use of "guns" Nazis would still be committing genocide today"
Yes, did say that and wouldn't you agree?



But you specifically added;
An interesting concept but I think many would say that without the use of "guns" Nazis would still be committing genocide today, and before you say that the "guns" were under the control of the Governments, the underground in many of the occupied countries were not under control of government and some say they played a significant part in the defeat of the Nazis.
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.

Of I wanted to emphasize civilian resistance, they were effective but I was not saying that the underground defeated the Nazis all on their own but then, are you saying they weren't needed and that the war would have been won with out them or their guns?


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.

What's your point? As I've pointed out personally owned guns have in the past been used in the in resisting government suppression, sometimes successfully sometimes not.

And you categorically say –
You believe you are at war and that you are a fighter in that war.
Why yes, yes I did.

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.
You are jumping to conclusions, I implied no such thing.

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.
You seem to be forgetting, Gandhi was a peaceful fighter in a war against the UK.

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?
Well ignorance for one thing, hatred and violence and the system that fosters it for another.

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).
Well they did so in the revolution against the UK and that seems pretty conspicuous.

 

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

Quote:
because those things have happened in the past and far as I know has been established to prevent them in the furture.


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?)
There is a very big difference in saying I thing is possible and there is a "very distinct possibility, that you think people should fear that it might happen.", your words not mine.

But

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

While I think it is a remote possibility, I don't think that it is highly likely.

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?
If you go back and look at it, the comment was made, "i think anything that you'd kill a person to keep is not worth much", so I made the statement, not because I thought "it was a very real and present danger" but as a hypothetical to see what he thought the worth of a wife and family was.

*

Quote:
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.


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

I'm not sure what you mean by pro-gun or pro-gun stance but I do believe that a free person is at liberty to own a gun or not as he so chooses, that is his right.

Quote:
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.


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.

No, I have not used it to sell a gun, I have used it for other things like, like showing that you or I do not have the right to force another person to give up his right to own a gun.

And once again, I have never recommended to anyone that they own or buy a gun, only that they have the right to do so, if they want. It is a rights issue. It is a freedom issue. It is a liberty issue. It is not a business issue.

And it seems to me that there are some in these threads who would like to trample on the rights, freedom and liberty of others and will say and do almost anything to do so, for instance continuing to tell others who they are and what they mean without any regard as to what has actually been said or done.

 

Can you imagine?; we need guns for the average citizen to accomplish Gaia: i.e. the world of balanced valued aging for dying humanity with respect to new birth. We saw the geographical factual events in the real world: and we believe them; in America; geography is a subject of ignorant fear-mongering for the masses to think that out there (LOL).

Truth of the matter is that we are pre-occupied with Israel and the whole Bible prophecy thing to the detriment of any conscience for nations of the World uniting for Peace. I heard that Iran's leader (what's his name) was for NATO to attack the government of Libya; in the U.S. that is supposed to be some sort of geography.

Long live the Indian film festival.

 

It is interesting that so many seem to find you to be anti-gun to point of thinking that you would like to ban all guns in the US. Why do you think that is?

I don't think anyone thinks I'm so anti-gun that I have to repeatedly say over and over again in bold letters; I have nothing against the law abiding or responsible owning a gun.
And yet I have repeatedly stated I do not own a gun nor do recommend that anyone own one or buy one, and no one accuses me of being Anti-gun or wanting guns banned. Why do you think that is?

Perhaps a perusal of the rhetoric in your posts would be of service to you.

 

Up yours. Guns, I see, are supposed to correspond for the possibility of a national health breakdown for any form of citizenry. No, guns are an excuse for the failure of helping the evolving populace from their ordinary needs to live and be healthy for able work. This is a view listened to while traveling through Tennessee

 

And I thank you for your advise and will take it under advisement.
OWB

 

There are already many gun restrictions in the US but pro gunners continue to see their rights to gun ownership deteriorate with each law that is passed and tend to see this as a one way street to a total ban on all guns.

Each new law is said to be the "answer" and when it doesn't work, it is not removed but a new "answer" is come up with that is even more restrictive. It seems a downward spiral that only ends at a total ban on all guns.

What do you propose that would break that cycle?

Great.

The interesting thing is that in the US each State has its own gun laws and so here we can compare the laws in 50 different States and none of them have seemed to be particularly effective in getting the guns out of the hands of those who are not law abiding or are unlikely to be law abiding. Washington D.C., the murder capital of the U.S., even had a total ban on guns and it's the murder capital of the U.S.

Okay.

Okay, what did you have in mind?

I can't speak for the pro-gun camp (sorry but I can't help wondering what pro-gunners do at pro-gun camp but I digress) but I would say they don't want guns in the hands of criminals and the irresponsible any more than you do.

What did you have in mind?

 

I have explained the principles of conferred powers and retained rights a couple times to you. That is why the government has no power to outlaw guns . . . Such a power was never granted to government. You seem to grasp the fundamental concept:

But you fail to recognize that government is strictly limited to act only within those specific grants of power. When no grant of power is found in the Constitution that means the people have retained it and possess it without condition or qualification . . .

As I told you before; The citizen possesses the right to arms not because we think the 2nd "gives" it to us -- we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to impact in any manner, the per-existing individual right of the citizen to keep and bear arms.

Uhhhhhhh, NO.

Just like the right to arms, the government can not give us something we never parted with; nor can it remove from the people or take back that which it never possessed!

The government claims the power to criminalize marijuana from the same Constitutional clause that they write all gun control under . . . Art I Sec. 8 cl. 3, "Congress shall have the power: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes:"

Marijuana is illegal because Congress illegitimately claims the power to regulate everything that moves between states (even if it DOESN'T cross state lines) . . .

THAT is the type of law you should be rejoicing; it is exactly the type of invented power that is the direct outcome of ignoring and dismissing the constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights I speak of.

 

Since this thread is titled, "Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?" let's confine our discussion to the US Constitution. The US Constitution is a unique charter in that the following principles (among others) are deemed fundamental and unalterable.

All power originates in the people.
Government is established to protect the inherent rights of the people.
Government's power only extends to the precise grants of power the people confer to it.
The people retain everything not conferred to government.
Government exercises those limited powers only with the consent of the governed.
Having the right to consent of government's operations can not be said to exist without retaining the right to rescind that consent.

Now you may not have the slightest affection for those principles, you may even hold views hostile to them but that does not alter the fact that such Constitutional principles govern the government of the USA. Discussing USA constitutional questions without grounding the discussion within those principles is less than useless.

 

The rights of the citizen are not subject to "political will" or "popular mandate". The USA is a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy; as such the illegitimate desires of politicians and the often ignorant whims of public opinion demanding politicians act beyond their powers, are restrained. As our Supreme Court put it:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)​

Since then the individual right to keep and bear arms has been held as "fundamental" which carries with it precise rules for application by the courts.

No, the ending of slavery is an example of the fundamental principles of the Constitution overriding "political will" and "popular mandate". The self-evident truths that demanded the US dissolve its bondage under England demanded that Blacks be released from bondage.

While ending slavery was significant the real events to inspect are the Southern States enactment of the Black Codes and Congress' response; the Civil Rights Act of 1867 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

There are some measures that are constitutionally legitimate; there are many that are not. It will take years to shake out. The lack of political will you see is really the unwillingness of politicians to do what will soon be undone.

In years past that wasn't so much of a concern; politicians could comfortably pass laws intended to have people think they were "doing something about crime" but everyone knew were unconstitutional. They enjoyed then a legal climate that meant it would be decades before a challenged law would be struck down. Now that the 2nd Amendment has been reaffirmed, that "I'll be long gone before this could bite me in the ass" mindset has vaporized. So you see, it isn't me who thinks it's a waste of time.

Where you live? Definitely!

Were I live? Absolutely not!

The legitimacy of felon disablement procedures is long standing and harkens back to merry old England. That certain civil rights (voting, holding public office, holding a position of public trust, entering some types of contracts, practicing medicine) can be disabled for specific criminal acts after due process is not a proof that inherent rights that do not depend on ordered society to exist can be restricted for all.

No of course not, that's why I used such an absurd analogy. The effects of a law ratified by a Congress exceeding the defined and limited powers granted to it by the Constitution has exactly the same force as a law banning gravity. . . NONE!

Congress, as a creature of the Constitution, is only charged with the authority to act under the Constitution. It can not "see" anything beyond that; it can not direct or effect anything beyond its constitutional authority!

As our Supreme Court said:

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. . . .

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.

To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. . . .

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. . . .

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

​

The powers of the government extend to only that which is included in the Constitution. That restriction of power is meant to be definite and final, not vague and malleable. The Constitution itself can not be changed by normal legislative processes and neither is its meaning or ambit of power subject to political will or popular mandate.

 

Rick

Life - The US has one of the highest rates of state sponsored execution in the world.

Liberty – The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world (737 persons imprisoned per 100,000).

Property – Native American property?

Free speech – The US has had Sedition Acts that jailed people for what they expressed and has even persecuted people for what they might think.
Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

I could go on but I think you get my drift.

In other words rights can be taken away - the ‘right’ to ‘own’ a slave can be taken away the ‘right’ to vote can be taken away and the ‘right’ to own a gun can be taken away.
I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun so a lot of your argument doesn’t apply.
The rest of your argument seems to be based on the interpretation of the constitution, and others have a differing interpretation.

 

OWB

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

Oh no need for petulance.

Debates have a habit of evolving, I believe in gun control but not a gun ban, but as you rightly pointed out - many pro-gunners seem to see any kind of gun control as ending in a complete ban.

My questions are aimed at trying to understand why so many Americans feel they need guns. As pointed out many seem to feel they can tackle crime and the possibility of government suppression, through gun ownership, but I think this side tracks them form alternatives. I’ve written at length about this, please read my posts.

Strange you should assert that and then later go on –

Which is suggesting that US gun owners are like a civilian resistance movement?

I’m not saying that resistance forces didn’t help but I think the allied armies would still have won without their help. Also in many places the most valuable help they gave was in the collection of intelligence and sabotage rather than pitch battles.

And once again you seem to be drawing parallels between the WWII underground and present day US gun owners.

*

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.

But the parallels you keep drawing are of much more violent resistance and you keep emphasising the ‘armed’ (and often violent) nature of such resistance. So I’m sorry this doesn’t ring true.

Also the examples you give invoke occupation by ‘foreign’ forces that your ‘war’ doesn’t seem to have.

*

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).

Again violent confrontation (not peaceful), again against a ‘foreign’ force, and again the decisive contribution was military not civilian.

*

The point I was making is that you and others that push the idea of guns as a means of tackling crime often us such gruesome ‘examples’ as a means of pushing their personal and political opinion. And it is often presented as an immediate and very possible occurrence.

It is how some newspapers sell a political agenda – publish something dramatic in headlines on the fount page – “You could have your wife and child raped and tortured before your very eyes” only to write a clarification sometime later at the bottom of page 20 in small print that says – “its is very, very, very unlikely that it would ever happen”

*

I’m not saying ‘sell’ in the business sense but in the cajoling sense of ‘selling’ an idea or viewpoint.

I mean this new tack you are taking is another way of ‘selling’ your product – linking it to ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’.

As in – anyone that doesn’t share your viewpoint on this subject is clearly then an enemy of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’

As in -

Again it comes across as just another sales pitch.

*

In many cases it’s because they don’t read my posts and in others it’s because some tend to see moves toward gun control as a one way street to a total ban on all guns (as you pointed out).

*

If you had actually read my posts you would have an idea of my views and ideas on that – why not go back and read them, I’ll wait.

*

 

I was going to respond to your post and then realized that it was the same rehash of what you say over and over again.

It really doesn't matter what someone says, you have standard relies that you try to make fit and it's getting tiresome. It's so bad that instead of talking to people, you refer people to read posts that have almost nothing to do with what is being said.

So far in our "discussion" you tend to make false assumptions about what I've said and then attack me about those false assumptions using the same worn out answers that don't fit.

I'm sorry, I would actually like to talk with you about this subject but you seem to have turned off and nothing I say seems to register.

When you are ready to actually talk, PM me.

May you sing and dance with one hand free,
OWB

 

so the constitution guarantees rights? is that what you are saying? and that carrying a gun is a right? do you mean civil rights?

 

Rights can only be taken away if you allow them to be, but government has greatly exceeded its' enumerated powers by creating the perception that entitlements are also rights, burdening the productive portion of society with the responsibility to provide them.

Rights also include responsibilities, and while you have a right to own or even carry a gun, you also have a responsibility to not do harm to another unjustly, or perform a criminal act using a gun.

You have a right to work, although you don't really have a right to a job without possessing some skills desirable to those who might employ you.

You have a right to life, however you have a personal responsibility to produce or provide the things necessary to sustain your life.

Rights are many, however many of them have a cost. Charity is not a right, it is a gift, and government cannot give what it does not own or possess, therefore socialism allows theft to become legal when exercised by government who must take from those who have in order to give to those who have not.

Why should guns be outlawed in the U.S.A.?

While I carried a gun frequently while living in the U.S., I only needed to make use of it but a few times, and did so successfully in each case without firing a shot.

 

OWB

I’m sorry but this just smacks of evasion. I mean you don’t seem willing or able to actually address what is said and then when pushed to do so you walk off saying that oh yes you’d really like to have a debate but…well…you know…its just well…

It simply evasion.

For example take the bit about civilian resistance to the Nazis.

You made comments in the context of US gun owners that seemed to imply you thought of them like the WWII resistance to Nazis occupation in Europe. So I sort clarification.

You replied that’s not what you meant – but didn’t explain what you did mean by the comparison – but then went on to make statements that seemed to imply that you did think US gun owners were like the WWII resistance to the Nazis in occupied Europe. When I again seek clarification, you refuse even to talk.

That to me is evasion.

If you mean that I’m forced to ask the same thing over and over because someone is evading answering then yes I’m guilty as charged - but is that my fault or the fault of the person doing the evading?

For example there are a lot of outstanding questions against your name, are you actually replying to them now or are you doing a melodramatic exit, because you seem to find it difficult to debate your views honestly and openly?

Sorry to say - it does seem to be the latter.

LOL one moment you are getting at me for repeating but when I suggest that someone just goes back to read a post so I don’t have to repeat myself again you get at me for that?

Again I think this whole reply is about you trying to blame me for your evasion.

I’m trying to work out what your views are from what you say, it is difficult because you don’t seem that willing to actually explain your thinking in many cases. As I’ve said I’m still none the wiser on many of your ideas and so assumptions are all I have to fall back on – but you can always correct a ‘false assumption’ by explaining why it is false – you don’t seem willing to do that and instead are running away without explaining anything.

LOL – classic – oh yes of course you would like to debate, but it’s just that…well…you know…it’s…oh yes its really all Balbus’ fault…

Simple evasion

What’s the point when you have made it very plain you are not willing to talk?

 

Or let guns fall into the hands of criminals or pass on guns to criminals…

 

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

Here are a few of ideas I’ve suggested before

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

Also according to the FBI gun misuse is often associated with domestic violence. So -

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

If in a relationship a partner, if they could give due reason, would have the ability to veto (in confidence) the handing out of a gun license (or have it removed).

 

Suggestions denied.
We kicked you and your ideas out of this country around 1776.

You went your way, we went ours.

 

This is not how rights work.

How about this:

you can have the right to a jury trial, IF you can prove that there's a reasonable doubt you're innocent.

you can have the right of habeus corpus, if you're not baselessly accused of being an enemy combatant, and sent to guantanamo bay.

you can have the right to free speech, if you can pass a psychological exam to make sure you're not spreading dangerous ideas.

you can have the right to freedom of religion, if your religion fits a narrow view of what comprises a religion, virtually excluding the natives of this land and many others by requiring that one worships without chemicals, in a house with a point on top.

Rights are YOURS, and you needent give up one for another. You have the right to be free from search and seizure, and you don't have to give that up to prove you have a gun safe, you don't have to PROVE your good intentions before using free speech, or your right to remain free from search, or your right to not self incriminate, or your right to religion, or your right to own a gun.

In the nature of building one "image" of your opponent, and referring all of their arguments to this one cookie cutter argument, as you keep doing: Your argument is this same lame "the ends justify the means" greater good style argument. You may not walk upon my rights for an unknown amount of good accompanied by an unquantifiable amount of not so good.

But I expect balbus to read my post and go, "but the ends justify the means! bad things happen with guns, go read my other posts where I clearly state that blah blah blah".