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

Balbus, if you can travel backwards and forwards in time, would you go back and straighten out Doc Holliday? and the Clantons? and Jack the Ripper (no gun required).

you foreigners talk like you have any say in our rights to own a firearm. you do NOT. your debating is the stuff of hot air.

should hot air be outlawed in Europe and it's conquered satellites, such as the UK?

 

Please can someone put up an argument that has a bit of substance?

Something that has been genuinely thought through rather than one built purely out of animosity.

Something based on what I’ve actually presented rather than what someone thinks I’ve said but doesn’t know because they haven’t bothered to actually read my posts.

Anyone?

 

A case in point to what I’ve just said -

Reb

The thing is that I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, but I do question why many American want one.

You’d already know that it you’d actually bothered to read my posts.

And Europe is a continent with I believe over 30 countries on it one of which is the UK. Maybe you should enrol in a geography class as well as a reading class?

 

Balbus. I have no animosity. True i have but skimmed your posts. You seem frustrated that true thinking is not being injected.. I know this feeling well.
If i had all the time i wished i would read every word. i dont.

I will say this.. you want US to be like UK.
It wont happen.
No mater how good or valid your argument.

Guns are good for business

This is the world we have made

 

Proof that you don't read my posts.

Proof that you haven't read the book.

Another case of telling people they implied something that they just didn't

And that makes it not an already existing right?

 

Interesting but nothing new in repressive governments being repressive.

No to me it implies a right that every human deserves and that can only be forfeited by its misuse.

Great but aren't you the one that says we shouldn't be repressive toward criminals since they are only misunderstood.

Aren't we again being repressive toward criminals since they are only misunderstood and we should being studying the causes of crime, so we don't have to take guns of of their hands.

Nope not impossible, let them have them, that is unless you're afraid criminals that have guns.

What would be their reason for making it appear so?

It seems to me that most of this has been made pointless by my earlier answers to you questions in this post.

 

Quite honestly, You seem to be the one showing animosity.

And now you call for people to base this discussion on what you've presented, rather than on what they want to say about the topic at hand.

Face it this is not your thread and what you've posted is just not that interesting nor is it that substantive.

 

Can't +rep OWB again yet, or I would.

To comment on the contents of one of his replies though:

He never did imply that guns could or would save america from some sort of nazi takeover. I seem to recall he mentioned (or someone else did) that the underground and their guns actually did play a large role in nazi germany's defeat, after balbus said that guns could not stop something like that.

So, first balbus said that guns couldn't hold off a fascistic takeover, OWB successfully countered, and balbus acted as though by countering that attempted point, OWB had made an implication about our current situation.

Damned if you let him make a false point, damned if you counter it and get accused of comparing yourself to a resistance fighter in nazi germany. In the first case, he makes guns look pointless, and in the second, he makes you look deranged.

Interesting choice in moderator-ship, to be sure.

 

That statement is what I think I have an issue with. The problem with that in my eyes is, if you don't have a problem, then why do you feel the need to question? Obviously you're entitled to your own opinion, but the fact of the matter is that's the beauty of our constitution. I get to defend it as much as you feel like you get to question it. Because, lets be honest, if you're questioning me on my right, then you're questioning my constitution. . .and all I can say is, Don't tread on me.

 

While the question asks "Should guns be outlawed in the U.S.A.?", in reality what is being asked is "Should private ownership of guns be made illegal in the U.S.A.?".
Guns will continue to exist, not just in the U.S.A., but everywhere in the world.
Laws which do not infringe upon the liberties of free people are those which apply to how we interact with one another that may infringe upon the freedom or liberty of another. Guns, along with knives, poisons, ropes, and many other products which might be used to inflict harm upon another by themselves are not, and should not be made illegal while the uses they might be put to are another issue entirely.
In a free society, the only things which should be outlawed, or made illegal, is the actions of if individuals upon other individuals with intent to do harm or the knowledge that harm will occur as a byproduct of ones actions, and those individuals alone should be held liable, and not society as a whole.

 

the second amendment says |right to bear arms in defense' the original intent being defense against an oppressive govt, it dont say every redneck nut has the right to own 50 assault rifles cause he's "afraid da new darkie prez is gonna takes his gunz" the constitution is a fluid document meaning it is meant to be changed and it needs to be in this case, its absurd this obsession with firearms, 95% are to scared to shoot even if confronted with the situation, its just some sort of weird penis extention power trip, that now even conservative women have chimed in on, PENIS

 

america needs guns

 

What I gather after skimming through the posts is that Balbus is one of those people who assumes that others don't understand his position or the issue if they don't agree with him.
Sorry to break it to ya balbus, but there is such a thing as someone completely understanding the issue and your position relating to it, but still not agreeing with you.

It really is a naive and special type of egocentric arrogance that everyone exhibits to one degree or another, but some folks take it to a whole other level.

Balbus you have been ringing this same damn bell for what seems like forever now.
DUDE, THE FUCKING HORSE IS DEAD ALREADY, PUT THE CLUB DOWN!
:beatdeadhorse5:

 

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Constitution is fluid only in the extent to which the people will agree to its being amended. Reinterpretation does not change the original intent or meaning of the words, but instead is used as a means by which government can apply to fit the agenda of those in power to accomplish their goals without need of consent by a majority of the governed.

 

This post is an utter failure.

You say that the second amendment is to protect against oppressive government, by giving the right to bear arms.

So yes, it does say that if a redneck so desires, he can own 50 assault rifles.

And then you go on to say that the constitution needs to be changed to remove this right.

And then you tell us that it's because people don't have the balls to shoot a gun anyway, and in your opinion, it's just (95 percent of the time) an ego thing. And somehow this is supporting evidence that guns should be outlawed.

Yeah, you're totally right, non-oppressive governments take their citizens right to bear arms to protect them from that government.

Oh wait, if the government isn't walking all over the people, the people hardly even see the government, there's nothing to resist and no reason to resist it, because a government derives it legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

So, you don't have to like people having guns, but if a lot of people want guns (we're not talking about a supermajority, even a minority-just like drugs should not be illegal because more than half of people answer "no" on a questionare that asks if it's okay to peddle crack to school kids in the cafateria) and you can't walk on them, if they're not harming anyone with those guns, just because you don't agree. EVEN if your side had more people than theirs, which it obviously doesn't.

*edit* you say "even" the conservative women have chimed in on.... you're an amazingly sexist bigot, just so's you know and all. I'm not even liberal, I would be viewed by the Democrats in the US as a left radical, and I strongly support the right of americans to bear arms. Furthermore, if so many think guns are okay (and they're not chiming IN, this is an old RIGHT, they're only speaking now because of people like you making it obvious that they need to) how the FUCK can you use that as reason to take away a right? SO many people want guns, we better outlaw them.... SO many people want pot legal, better outlaw it..... Nun-uh, boy, not how it works.

 

Roo

Sorry about the BBcode but that’s not me, I’m not putting it in. But why are you getting the code in the text anyway, I don’t?

I have no problem with guns, I just don't understand why you want them. It's fine if you own them legally, I just think laws should be in place to prevent this


First is that a real quote from me, if so from where is it?

I mean making quotes up e.g. claiming someone has said something when they haven’t is a very serious no no.

Next - that certainly isn’t my position.

To reiterate - 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.

 

OWB

Call this honest debate when your reply with one liners that address nothing and don’t answer any questions put to you?

*

This is disingenuous at best but seems a lot like an open lie.

Yet you don’t seem able to refute the charge that had lied?
*
Crime
Your first post aimed at me in this thread was - try reading - More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott
A book as the title infers is about how guns are supposed to be a protection against crime. And since then you have mentioned guns in the context of protection from crime on several occasions.

Again you don’t refute the charge that you were lying?

*
Government
A little more ambiguous. But you seem to have implied that the gun owners of America could be like the resistance movement against the Nazis if it had to be commenting that “people have in the past overthrown suppressive governments and even as we speak the people in Libya are in the process of overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi and I think they're using guns.”And if you look at the sequence in the last post you do seem to believe that guns can protect personal freedoms and liberty and that could mean both from incursion by criminal or state.

But I notice you haven’t actually been able to refute the charge.
*
PS
(actually it is an already existing right recognized by the Constitution not given by the Constitution)

But if it wasn't there it wouldn't have its potection and pro-gunners could not just say as many do that - 'its in the constitution'.

You still have not addressed the question of ‘rights’.

*

Inalienable right argument
I believe we have been through this (meaning in this thread not just us two) and the thing is that the view of ‘rights’ can change 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 (in many states) only about 10% of Americans had the vote. And even today some criminals have that ‘right’ taken away from them, just as the ‘right’ to own a gun can be taken away from a criminal

That seems to be meaningless in context of what was said, please clarify?
*
I mean inalienable implies that it is not subject to forfeiture but that clearly is not the case.

Why?
*
The thing is 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

No that is not what I said, please read what I’ve actually said rather than make it up because you haven’t read it.
As I say - It isn’t exactly the rational approach, it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted - the person is a criminal and has got hold of a gun – a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals.

*
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

This is confused, are you saying that you don’t think it a good idea to try and find out what is causing crime so we can try and prevent people turning to crime or to try and keep guns out of criminal hands?
*
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.

“let them have them” - You seem to be saying you want criminals have guns?
*
But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them, limiting the access of guns to criminals is not impossible it is just seems to me that many pro-gunners want to make it look like it is impossible.

Because they are opposed to gun control.
*
The other argument that some pro-gunners seem to present is that any gun control measure undermines their inalienable right to own a gun, and it has even been implied that gun control inevitably leads to a total ban.

As one pro-gunner put it – “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”

That view seems to be why some pro-gunners seem to want to undermine my argument(s) with some rather dubious points or by just saying it is wrong rather than actually engaging in honest debate.

But it seems to me that you can have gun control measures that don’t involve a total ban. There are gun control measures in place already in the US that don’t involve a total ban.

The problem is that because of the attitudes and mentality that often seems to be associated with the desire for gun ownership there is a tendency among some pro-gunners to be against virtually any kind of gun control. That is why I don’t think they’re serious when they claim to want to get guns out of the hands of criminals

Sorry but I don’t think you actually have, you have objected but those objections have been along the lines of just telling me I’m wrong (without explanation or counter argument). But if you believe you have said something more substantive please cite these answers or say where they are and I’ll have a look?

*

 

Roo

LOL- Oh hell how many times do I have to ask people to actually read what I’ve said not just make things up because they haven’t?

Here is the sequence of posts involved here, I suggest starting at –

Page 36 Post 355

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=356769&highlight=underground&page=36

I’m very happy to point people to them because I’ve got nothing to hide.

*

I did no such thing, please cite where you think I say this?

That hasn’t been established, just wishing for something doesn’t make it so, please cite the supposed successful counter?

What? Please read the sequence then come back and explain your thinking here?

*

So you are accusing me of ‘crimes’ on evidence you clearly haven’t actually read?

*

 

Thundkat

Do you think people should just stop questioning? How are we to learn or try and understand if we don’t question?

I think the US Constitution is outdated and in need of a re-write, but we are all entitled to our own opinion.

Tear up the US constitution?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=146334

Don't tread on me - I’m not, why would you think a am or would want to?