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

A theory? Okay.

It may seem that way to you but there is no way of actually knowing.

This is your opinion and many, including myself, disagree with it.

Once again your opinion, that you offer as fact.

As for overthrowing a government; I don’t know if a government like the US or any of the first world governments could be overthrown by the people, it hasn’t happened lately but 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.

I’m not sure what this has to do with gun control but okay.

This seems to be a case that disproves your point, since unions did improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society and we do have an eight hour day, 40 hour work week and a minimum wage.

What this has to do with gun control is anybody’s guess.

The reasons for Americans voting or not voting are many and varied and this is just a over simplification.

Again, what this has to do with gun control is anybody’s guess.

An interesting rehash of the of history of the US Socialist Party but again, what this has to do with gun control is anybody’s guess.

Your opinion again but in contrast I would say that they are not so much interested in owning guns to defend American liberty and uphold the US constitution but to defend what they consider to be their personal freedoms and liberty.

Because of the personal sacrifice involved, people do not generally rise up to overthrow a government until the excesses of that government exceed their ability to survive.

Nothing new here.

Again, your opinion.

Yep.

Whether having Gun will save them or not, does not abrogate the right to bear arms.

Again, whether gun owners believe that their guns will save them or whether that belief is true or not, does not abrogate the right to bear arms and the right to bear arms is what we are talking about.

And you still have done nothing to prove your constant use of the idea that "many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment" is true. As I've pointed out there is nothing inherent in gun ownership that prevents a person from engaging social debate or trying to counter the "establishment".

Perhaps you would be so good as to point to a political system that is not a threat to its people. You keep nagging the gun owners to be more socially aware, to put down their guns and change the world but yet you give no solutions and have not done so in any posts of yours that I've read.

And no, I‘m not going to search through all of your over 4000 posts in hopes of finding out if somewhere you may have commented on a possible solution to the problem.

When in a debate and you are asked a question, you are not allowed to say; I've already answered that in another debate, go look it up. You are to answer the question.

So once again, perhaps you would be so good as to at least point us in the direction of what you would think is the right direction.

 

Fuck Charlton Heston! ha

 

Well, seeing as he's dead, doesn't that make you a little strange?

 

lol indeed it does. i was not aware he died... well this sucks hah.

 

Shouldn't this question be put to rest? Considering the political makeup of this site, and the poll results, there is nothing left to debate.

 

Very true, you can hardly expect sensible poll results when the user base is high 24/7

 

Yeah he died in 2008. I just had to rib you about it.

 

Statistics show that violent crimes are way up in states that have very strict gun laws, as opposed to states that are very liberal with their gun laws. Whether you like it or not, the bad guys will ALWAYS have guns. Why deny the people their 2nd constitutional right to bear arms and at least try to protect themselves. I also don't want to hear the typical, "well guns kills innocent people!!". No, stupid people with guns kill people.

 

And guns should all be proving that people can restrain themselves in the Cannon of Pure Reason from applying their weapons to ethical living. That is: it is some kind of ethical reality from the point of sale to the point of responsible ownership to tell oneself I am in control of distrust of the enemy.


Instead, truly it is that guns show that we restrain ourselves in the state of the Union (or something which binds us with commonwealth) that pure Reason allows for an arms race whether it be the ordinary citizen or the hired gun of the government. Here there is an enemy as well of the restraining creating 'God'.


In other words, you're all being exploited when you buy a gun by the distrusting violent crowd.

 

Come on, stop giving balbus answers, and just trying to discredit people who disagree with you.

His point is obviously (IMO) that this is a very peaceful site with considerably more tree-huggers, people who won't even be in the same room with leather, meat, or a bath tub, people who don't own guns, cars, or shoes, than the US population at large, and guns still won by an outstanding margin. And it seems that even though there's plenty of those peaceful types in the US, most of those who favor outlawing guns in the US don't actually even live in the US, and may have never seen a legal civilian owned gun in their life.

That is all.

 

I was kind of being sarcastic. And if Mr. Franklin was serious, he might be more concerned about our non-existent freedom from fear rather than a very limited freedom to own very limited kinds of weapons.

Balbus answers? We would be well past page 48 if I did.

 

I stand corrected, THAT is a very good point.

But somehow you still manage to say just as much as him if not considerably more in the space you use

As for freedom from fear, I do see your point, but I think there is more to fear in defenselessness than in the possibility that others will be armed. This sort of falls back to the way I'd love to disarm the world, but it can't be done, and I'd rather openly admit that people have weapons, and have an even playing field, than to prohibit me from having legal weapons but not be able to do a thing about the fact that the people who will actually hurt people with them can still have weapons.

I take that back, I would get rid of firearms the world over if I could, but I love my knife, I'd feel naked without it. I've never actually pulled it on anyone though, other than the first room-mate I had in college. And I'm very glad I did, I almost certainly would have been in a fist fight to avoid jesus-empowered rape if I had not, it was a very bad situation. *edit* not trying to make a cheap attack at christianiy, he was really a christian nut, and sexually self-repressed as a side effect of it,it was one of the most tense situations of my life, because I don't usually have to sleep next to my enemies, I go home and leave that shit behind. I slept with my knife.

 

I also wanted to say something about taking guns out of the hands of criminals.

As for taking guns out of the hands of criminals, I believe that the government can be 100% successful in getting guns out of the hands of criminals without the need for more gun control laws or a ban on guns, just arrest those who commit crimes with guns and put them in prison and voilà, no guns in the hands of criminals.

 

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Anyone who is a "criminal" by definition is someone who probably already has no morals and/or no conscience, would you agree? So what makes you think that it will deter that individual to not buy/steal a pistol, when they're probably already breaking a dozen laws to begin with? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already technically arrest people that commit crimes with a gun?

 

Yes we do and that is what I was saying.

Why do we need more gun control and a possible gun ban, when all we have to do to take guns out of the hands of criminals is arrest them for the crimes they commit and put them in prison, thus guns have been taken out of the hands of criminals without taking them out of the hands of innocent gun owners.

 

Don't let's split the world into "innocents" and "criminals". Aren't most gun massacres performed by people with no history of crime? The idea that someone commits a crime and stays a criminal for life is just that - an idea. Psychology and tendency to commit crime aren't like physical attributes, they can fluctuate in an instant - an innocent can turn bad with no prior notice and a criminal can (and often does) go without doing anything for his remaining life.

 

Are you saying that the principle of innocent until proven guilty should be thrown out the window and we should take guns away from people that are not now nor have they ever been criminals? And while we're at it, let's lock up anybody we think might commit a crime some time.

 

No, just that people who have committed a crime may not be any more prone to commit again than those that have never committed a crime. Which is the opposite to what you were saying.

 

Indie

As I’ve said your stance seems like an implicit agreement that criminal should have easy access to guns, in that it would seem to reject measures that are aimed at removing that easy access.

 

Oh what fun - yet another pro-gunner who doesn’t read the posts

See what I mean about the pro-gunners handbook – the same stale arguments and the same silly slogans.

Do I have to repeat myself again?