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

OWB
OK you are just telling me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong because you don’t like what I’m saying.

That is fine.

But it doesn’t make what I’ve said go away it just raises the question why can’t you produce any rational counter arguments beyond telling me I’m wrong?

Please would you stop simply trying to score cheap points and do a bit of thinking before replying, then explain in a rational and logical way why you think I’m wrong.

 

Thundakat

So let’s see –

You fear the US ‘government’ is trying to take away your constitutional rights?

You are so frightened of where you live you feel you need a gun for protection?

 

A VERY interesting topic.
While i dont live in US. Im in little brother country AUs.

Much as many lament firearms.. You cannot remove them from contemporary society.
On earth there are some 1.5 to 2 billion unregisted firearms.
Its like swords in prefirearm days.. should you register a sword.?

Laws on firearms are pointless.. Educate your kids.. oh you cant. You bought them an xbox 360 and they are playing Battlefield2 Or CoD ModernWar2

Hipocracy

 

Yes you are muddled.
The first reply was to your article "Can guns save you from suppression?".

And the second reply was about the thread we are in "Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?" .

If you'll notice there are two different contexts and neither of my posts claim or imply that your claims are legitimate. Again you read but don't understand.

 

(LOL – where did ‘socialism’ pop up from?)
"Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force."

You don't even read your own posts and yet continually demand that others read them.

 

Actually it seems that all you are interested in is scoring points. If not you would have seen, instead of an attack on you, someone trying to explain to you why everybody gets so upset with you and it's not because your arguments are so good.

If you had read anything I had said you would know that I'm not interested in discussing 1, 2, 3 or 4. What I am interested in is whether it is an inalienable right to own a gun.

In that debate, after all this is a debate about outlawing or banning guns not gun control per-say, I've seen you blow a lot of smoke but nothing you've said seems to apply to the topic at hand, which is again whether a person has the inalienable right to own a gun.

If you have something to say on that subject I would be interested in hearing it but if you wish to continue with your attempts to score points in some game no one is playing but you, I wish you would just pick up your ball and go home.

 

Balbus, if calling everyone scared, telling them that their guns won't save them from anything, mentioning that if all social ills could be solved there would be no need for guns, and also accusing them of being too realistic for not wanting to waste our time with yet another counterproductive damaging war on substance with a high demand (I would suggest you look at the US war on drugs, the US war on alcohol, etc) actually meant anything, you would have long ago won this debate, and it would be over.

But despite a complete lack of progress derived from them, you keep repeating these dogmatic points. I get it, in your opinion I'm just scared of doing impossible things because I want to keep my boom-sticks that I don't have to dig in and fight for my liberty. But in reality, that's not how it is. You've made a great argument for a Utopian society without guns. And we all know how awesomely those Utopian societies work out. (see: soviet russia)

 

Anyone can look it up for themselves, I stood up to you and rather being a man about it, you called me liar and banned me and closed the thread so I couldn't even respond to your slander. Interestingly you find it humorous, personally I found it gutless.

 

As for the rest of this "post", it seems that you think personal attacks are "rational argument".

Once again rather than trying to understand what someone has said you would rather make up your own ideas about what was said and argue with yourself.

 

I have but it's like talking to a wall, the only difference is the wall bounces back what you actually said and does not make untrue assumptions about what is said and try to tell you that that is what you've said.

 

When I was young I was given this example to show that liberty, freedom and rights have limitations and come with responsibilities.

I person has the right, the liberty, the freedom to swing his arms around anywhere he wants and as long as he wants but that freedom ends at the nose of the next person.

And I don't see how mere gun ownership, for what ever reason, violates the rights of the next person.

 

no because then only criminals will have access to guns and it will become like the drug market. unregulated

 

I don't care for guns. I have never taken my dad up on his offer to teach me to shoot because I don't think I'll change my mind and own one. Also it kinda turns my stomach when people are all riled up about their guns, their gun rights, and shooting their guns.

That said, it seems glaringly obvious that prohibition is not a viable solution to gun violence/crimes.

Prohibition consistently leads to a stronger criminal population (but I've heard Japan has done well with gun prohibition)

Thoughtful regulation and qualifications for gun owners would seem to be the most reasonable solution (especially for the immediate future).

I voted "I don't really give a damn" by virtue of the fact that I could care less to educate myself on current gun laws or proposed changes. I have no clue what they *should* be (weapons are barbaric neanderthal tools that we, to our own embarrassment, haven't evolved out of the 'need' for). Either way, the NRA and its lobbies will never allow them to be outlawed.

 

OWB

OK so I went back to check, rather tedious - and if you were more honest unnecessary - but it is important as the legitimacy or not of my argument and your agreement or not of it are still in play.

*

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

This is from the original Suppression post

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.

That was your criticism of it.

Personal ‘freedoms’ - which many consider as essentially ‘American liberties’ (read the posts) and often seem to point to the ‘US constitution’ as an expression of them (read the posts).

My reply to your criticism of the suppression post, pointing out what I thought was its flaw (that people in gun issue threads do bring that up).

Did you ever stop to think that in a thread with the theme "Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A", that people might talk about "American liberties and often seem to point to the ‘US constitution’" quite often.

Your reply to that (pointing out that in a gun issue thread people have brought up what I said they did bring up).

*

Clearly all along we are discussing the line in the suppression post.

Now the significance of it seems lost on you so I’ll explain.

My view isbased on statements made by pro-gunners. Statements along the lines that they saw gun ownership as a means of upholding American liberties and the US constitution, that for them gun ownership was a protection against government suppression.

To put it simply if pro-gunners have never suggested guns as a protection against their government then my views have no legitimacy but if they have they are legitimate.

The problem is that you seem to be saying that my viewpoint isn’t legitimate (because you don’t like it) but then seem to agree that many pro-gunners have suggested that gun ownership is (seen by them) as protection from their government, which implies my augment is legitimate.

Again can you please clarify your position?

 

OWB
To explain – the pro-gun arguments for opposing gun control seem to be
1) Protection against crime
2) Protection against government
3) A right under the US Constitution
4) Hunting
I’m only really interested in 1 and 2 since for 3 and 4 I’m not against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun. What I’m asking is are 1 and 2 legitimate and are they distractions or barriers to actual prudent and sensible action? So far you haven’t put up an argument against what I’ve present beyond saying I’m wrong, because you think I’m wrong.That doesn’t work.

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

Crime

Your first post aimed at me in this thread was -

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.

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

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.

*
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'.

 

OWB

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.

I mean inalienable implies that it is not subject to forfeiture but that clearly is not the case.

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.

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, 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.

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 –

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.

 

Roo

Thank you for highlighting the problems I’m having here, some pro-gunners rather than debating honestly are trying to undermine an argument(s) they don’t like through gross misrepresentation bordering on or passing over into actual lying.

I’ve explained at length and in detail that I don’t think it would ever be possible to ‘solve all social ills’ I have said that if people were less fearful they probably wouldn’t feel the need for a gun and the best way of lowering that fear would be through socio-economic and political change.

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.

As to the current US policy toward drugs, I’ve also written at length about that too (there have been lots of threads on drugs here over the years), and I’ve pointed out that in my view the US drug policies seem based in a lot of the same attitudes that seem to underpin the desire for gun ownership. That it is silly and counter productive, because it is based in the idea that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression are legitimate means of societal control.

The problem is that I’ve made no such argument, but what I have suggested is that to me many pro-gunners seem to look to guns as a means of tackling the symptoms of social, economic and political problems rather than trying to tackle the causes of those social, economic and political problems.

 

Once again in in your "Suppression post", you made a general statement about gun owners in general "Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution."
to which is what I replied to. I believe it is true of even American pro-gunners let alone, since it is a general statement about pro- gunners and is not specific, pro-gunners from around the world could care less about "defending American liberty, upholding the US constitution"

and your reply;
Personal ‘freedoms’ - which many consider as essentially ‘American liberties’ (read the posts) and often seem to point to the ‘US constitution’ as an expression of them (read the posts).
After reading the posts as you suggested twice, I stated;
Did you ever stop to think that in a thread with the theme "Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A", that people might talk about "American liberties and often seem to point to the ‘US constitution’" quite often.
which is a statement about the "posts" in this thread and why you would incorrectly assume that many pro-gunners would "feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution" from looking at this thread, because this thread is about "defending American liberty, upholding the US constitution"

 

Guns make it easy to kill . Easier than a sword or a rock.
A mater of degree.

I could. 'if so inclined' kill more with a truck.

A formal set of rules needs to exist.. much as 'dueling'

It could even be syndicalised and make huge profits on TV
If certain people want to kill. let them do it for entertainment and profit.. Their genes will not be missed.
Im all for gladitorial combat with real weapons.. Lets be roman.. after it is a roman world.

 

OWB

Let me see if I can untangle your torturous reply.

Your first point doesn’t make much sense – You seem to be trying to say that a post that was clearly placed in a US context wasn’t about the pro-gunners of the US?

Are you honestly trying to claim that a post that constantly referenced its US context and mentions - US history, the US political establishment, Republicans and Democrats, J. Edger Hoover, Congress, the Un-American Activities committees, the US sedition act, the KKK and the American Progressive party, to mention just a few – wasn’t in your opinion specifically American enough for you?

Your second point seems to make even less sense since it seems to imply that I was basing something I originally wrote back in 2007 on a thread that was only begun in March 2009.

Do you honestly think I can travel backwards and forwards in time?

*

Could you please answer the specific question asked of you –

To put it simply if pro-gunners have never suggested guns as a protection against their government then my views have no legitimacy but if they have they are legitimate.

The problem is that you seem to be saying that my viewpoint isn’t legitimate (because you don’t like it) but then seem to agree that many pro-gunners have suggested that gun ownership is (seen by them) as protection from their government, which implies my augment is legitimate.

Can you please clarify your position?