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

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local...n-phoenix-traffic-stop-linked-to-atf-strategy

YEA SURE GUNS ARE A GOOD THING
u'll be getting some kudos from Klondike Barbie

 

While you may consider the minimum wage a right, it only becomes a duty for me to provide you with it should I decide that employing you would result in my obtaining something of equal or greater value in return.

But you're correct, this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

 

Reb

You really need some history lessons.

British hegemony was in decline a long time before the 1970’s. I’d say at least from the beginning of the 20th century. It is coupled with the rise of US power.

The reasons for this decline were many but in my view the main ones were the costs of having an empire, the erosion of the lead the industrial revolution had given Britain with the rise of other industrial powers (e.g. Germany and the USA) and of course the first and second would wars.

Incidentally all those things weakened the power of the elites and saw an improvement in the position of the ‘common’ people. For example men (over the age of 21) got the vote in 1918 and women got the same in 1928, shifting power from the few to the many and a subsequent increase in the health and wellbeing of the majority as legislation was enacted to bring those things about.

You think imperialism is a good thing? To me the British Empire was a tragedy for the people that were ruled over abroad and brought little benefit to the great majority of the British people at home.

Again you need to do some research, prior to the ‘rebellion’ (say up to the 1770’s) relations between most of the British colonists and the ‘homeland’ were often quiet cordial.

The Scotland that has its own parliament and is having a referendum on independence?

And the UK government has just given the Irish a huge amount of money to help them out of their present financial difficulty.

What? We have some of the toughest immigration laws in Europe.

LOL – were did you get that idea from?

I don’t believe that is true.

What?

 

Reb

Please read my posts.

Post 555

“Fuck the Queen (although not literally), I’m a republican, I’d kick her and the rest of her sorry parasitic family out on their pimply arses.”

Yes you heard me – I’m a republican – I have the very opposite of allegiance to the English monarchy.

*

Post 269

“I grew up in the countryside around people that owed guns for keeping down vermin and hunting. I was also a member of a gun club and was a fair shot, but I grew out of it”

*

And to repeat for what feels like the millionth time (and in many, many posts in this thread)

I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun.



So basically you are wrong on all accounts


*

 

Reb

You are basically talking about the idea of the ‘divine right of kings’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

And notice it is the divine RIGHT of kings -

It is the idea of the ‘right’ of some to rule over and dictate to others and it has not gone away - here is something I posted recently in another thread -

Basically ‘individual determinism’ is a variation on the ‘deserving and undeserving’ argument. And that is only a variation on the older rationales the advantaged have tried to put forward to justify advantage.

- The religious argument was that god(s) choose where someone was to be born, be it slave peasant or noble, so it was divine will that people be in the position they were.
- Later the pseudoscientific argument was added – this claimed that social position was ‘natural’. That some races were inferior to others and so could be subjugated or enslaved - that this was part of the human ‘evolutionary’ process. In the same way advantage was a sign of evolutionary success and disadvantages a sign of evolutionary failure. And as such the disadvantaged, some argued, should be allowed (even assisted) to die ‘for the betterment of mankind’.
- And then there is the moral argument which claims that advantage comes about from ‘better behaviour’ that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they will be advantaged but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they will be disadvantaged.

None of these actually stands up to much scrutiny but they can be very seductive to those that are greedy or want to feel superior.

*

The thing is that these arguments over who has the ‘right’ to rule are just justifications for the holding or wielding of power. And it is power that dictates the de facto ‘rights’ of people.

That is why the ‘rights’ of people change with time and place.
I think people should have certain rights, but I realise that such rights are not just there they will not magically appear or remain if not campaigned for or protected.
The problem as I see it is that the view some have toward guns in the US is that they see them as the magical protector and so stop actually protecting.

That is the point of my post

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

It points out that ‘rights’ can be eroded and even taken away - with the support of people that claim they are the protector of rights.

And the problem is that I think they’d give there support again even now.

For example I don’t believe even one pro-gunner who’s read - ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ - has then come back and said – ‘that’s terrible that shouldn’t of happened we should make sure that doesn’t happen again’ - instead they usually come back either indifferent to the history or demanding ‘what has that to do with gun control?’.

I mean as one pro-gunner has put it

*

 

Now one of the great means by which people can be manipulated is through fear.

And in the US fear has been a successful tool of the elite, fear of Indians, fear of black people, fear of communists, fear of drugs, fear of terrorists…and fear of criminals.

Crime especially violent crime is a sign of a troubled society. Now crime will probably never be eradicated but if people are so frightened of crime that they feel they need a gun as protection then something is really wrong.

Now as I’ve pointed out - 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 so that leaves street crime.

The deterrence being talked about is basically aimed at the type of crimes been undertaken mainly by the lower classes. In a sense gun ownership can be a means of keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Now it has always suited the upper classes to stoke up fear among the middle classes about the lower classes. One is the old trick of divide and rule, but in the US context there is also the way in which the armed ‘decent’ citizens can keep a lid of calls for social change.

So crime is not seen as a symptom of socio-economic problems but as bad individuals that attack the ‘decent’ people.

Time and again pro-gunners talk of – the murderous, drug-crazed thugs who invade private homes, committing carjackings, rapes, robberies, and any number of other crimes – but hardly ever do these same people seem to ask why has their society produced such people?

And people can get sucked into that fear especially as it is pumped out constantly by the media, in fiction and yes in online forums.

 

Who even gives a flying fuck about that?

The only reason those guns are being subverted for criminal activity is because the US has silly fucking laws about drugs that make crimes out of things that shouldn't be crimes. If drugs, prostitution, gambling, where legal, there would NOT be that kind of situation. You wouldn't bust motorcycle gangs with anti tank weapons to protect their meth, because no one would want their shitty low grade meth, and as such, they just wouldn't have anything to protect in the first place. You wouldn't catch runners with pot and guns, because no one would want their cheap shitty schwag, or care HOW much they had, there wouldn't be anyone to shoot. You wouldn't catch crack dealers bustin' caps to protect their block, because no one would give a fuck about their block or their 60% baking soda product, they could go to the drug store and get the good shit. You wouldn't have mafia hits over prostitution, there would be no money in working for some shitty low-life disease infected establishment, compared to the safe clean screened place down the street.

The problem isn't the guns, it's the things people do with them. So stop giving them reasons to kill over things that shouldn't even matter. Because otherwise, they'll just stab each other, car bomb each other (as methed-out bikers already do in canada) or do whatever else. People are creative.

Not to mention, the only reason those guns where even there is because ATF agents SOLD THEM TO THEM, because of...... DRUGS BEING ILLEGAL!

 

OK Indie and walsh I’ve begun two new threads
*

Equal Rights?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6924151#post6924151


*

Is democracy the means by which our freedoms are eroded?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6924148#post6924148

 

Roo

This is very close to what I’ve been saying all along. The regulation of such things as drugs and prostitution would be part of the holistic approach that would tackle the social, economic and political problems within US society (as well as in the UK).

It is a means of tackling the fear that underpins many pro-gunners concerns.

The problem is that many pro-gunners don’t seem that interested in taking that route.

 

You misunderstood me. I'm not happy for "‘criminals’ to own a gun", I am delighted that any and all can own a gun, if they choose to do so.

In my part of town that's called freedom.

In a free society it is the misuse of your freedom that abrogates your right to freedom, not how you think or feel or what you might do or how others think of you but it is the actual misuse of freedom that abrogates your right to freedom.

 

This has nothing to do with "pro-gunners".

The people who speak for less control of guns are afraid of losing their right to bear arms because of the boogy-man of armed druggies or mobsters.

These gangsters don't WANT guns legal. Because then you can have them too. These guys moving them over the border into mexico, they want powerful illegal (and foremost, intimidating) guns in a society where nobody else has them.

There's simply no need to control things like this. Or, again, how about outlawing cars? or pet sharks? Or I don't know what? All you need to do is stop making laws that make it lucrative to shoot people, or feed them to your pet sharks.

Guns are not the issue, the issue is laws that put people in positions where they derive power from criminal activities-guns themselves are not what makes drug runners dangerous-the fact that they have a highly sought after yet illegal, and thus valuable, cargo makes them dangerous. Guns are just caught in the middle, an easy scapegoat.

The problem is other prohibition laws. And gun prohibition laws will not help either.

 

OWB

Go back and read the - Can guns save you from suppression? – thread.


Did the left wingers misuse their freedom, and so could have their right to freedom of expression and views removed?

I mean people were persecuted for what they thought, even what others thought they might be thinking.

*

And I’d ask what level of misuse in your opinion warrants the removal of their ‘right’ to own a gun?

 

Roo

As I’ve said - many times - if the fear was lessened many people wouldn’t feel like they needed a gun.

So the best thing to do is work toward lessening the fear, but the problem is that many pro-gunners don’t seem to want to lessen the fear they seem to want to promote it.

 

You're right, dumb people, just like smart people, like guns. Or people with other motives. Some do promote fear.

However, the fact that some people have guns because of fear doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the right to have a gun.

People having guns because of irrational fear (of things that guns wouldn't even come out in time to save them from anyway, generally) doesn't hurt ANYONE, other than the scared people wasting their money on things that can't help them. But having other laws that make people kill (thus causing the fear of others) DOES hurt people. (the ones they're killing-duh)

If you change the legality of guns, those killing people in violent crime syndicates keep killing people.

However, if you change the things that give those bloody syndicates power and something to protect, they stop killing people. You can't beat your biker bitch and hide with your guns if no one's buying your meth, you'll be standing in the unemployment line instead of killing people. You can't torture people to death because their family got caught with a ton of your pot in a border checkpoint if there's no one to buy your cheap shit on the other side of the border, and nobody catching your loads because they don't care, and know nobody will buy it because the good shit's legal too. Again, you'll be in the unemployment line.

If you take away the things that create violent organized crime where people are running guns and contaminated dangerous drugs. It doesn't matter HOW many guns somebody has, if there's nothing to protect or gain by shooting someone, NOBODY WILL SHOOT PEOPLE. Yes, there might be an occasional murder with a gun, as there is in countries with no guns, and there might be an occasional murder WITHOUT a gun, as there is in countries with no guns, but overall, if there's no reason to kill nobody will kill.

So maybe, you could lessen that fear causing people to buy guns by lessening violent crime. And you could obviously lessen that by removing prohibitions on vice and.... GUNS! because if there's illegal guns, there's a market to run illegal guns. If you just acknowledge them and say that's fine, but anyone else who's scared can have them too, well shit, everyone's happy, huh?

Seriously: when's the last time you heard of RJrenyolds, or phillipmorris, or budweiser, being involved in a violent turf war with military weapons? They kill people, but only people who volunteer. And yeah, if you legalize drugs and prostitutes and whatnot, there will be a surge in curious people using, and then higher rates may be reported, but most of those people would have used anyway even if it went unreported, people don't make their decisions about guns, drugs, sex-for-hire, or anything else "morally" weighted, based on what the government tells them. They base it on what their mom, brother, and girlfriend tell them. And the guns will be safer if they're legal and nobody's trying to pretect illegal weapons, the drugs will be safer if they're regulated and pure, the prostitutes will be safer if they're regulated and clean, the gambling will SORT of be safer if it's legal and doesn't involve violent loan sharks and bookies (quite as much, anyway).


I'm not sure YOU'VE been reading my posts. I do have a holistic approach, but it's the opposite of yours. It's not to regulate it all, it's to deregulate it all. Once AGAIN: if you go physically hurt someone else, you're responsible. If you go damage the environment, which hurts everyone, you're responsible. If you go steal peoples money or things, you're responsible. If you possess or consume substances or items that could hurt other people, or may or may not hurt you personally, you didn't wrong anybody but yourself, and as such, have done nothing that SHOULD be a crime. Being afraid and hoarding little explosive brass and lead chunks and pipes with twisted grooves inside should NOT be illegal. Being the guy making that guy afraid should be illegal.

I sort of feel like I need a gun-because I'm afraid the government may, in my lifetime, in some sort of "stop the terrorists before they get here" (again, like the REST of those that played off peoples fear) make them illegal. I would feel NO need to have a gun if the government stopped playing off peoples fears to make MORE laws and made fewer, buy more SENSIBLE laws.

 

Roo

But as I’ve said 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 try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns

Thing is that cigarettes and alcohol are regulated, not deregulated, gambling is regulated and as you say yourself “the prostitutes will be safer if they're regulated and clean”. In my view these things should be regulated as should drugs and guns.

 

To answer your second paragraph first: guns ARE regulated.

To answer the first paragraph: There's no need to keep guns out of the hands of those criminals if you destroy their criminal enterprise. They'll be pawning their guns to buy top ramen. Fight them, and you will lose slowly and painfully, and lose your civil rights along the way. Pull the rug out from under them (one that never should have been placed under them in the first place) and kill their business, and they'll hit the ground hard and have no need to hurt anyone. What's worse than being on foodstamps? Being on foodstamps and wanted for murder.

Guns are not bad for society, things that give a reason that should NOT be a reason to kill people are bad for society. You can have all the guns, blow, and hookers you want, I don't give a flying fuck. And since I don't care what you fuck, put up your nose, or carry to feel like a man, why not make it legal, so that I don't get hurt in the process?

 

Roo

Yes and I think they should be.

So why wouldn’t they turn to other types of crime? The crimes often put forward by pro-gunners are, house invasion, robbery and murder and/or rape associated with a house invasion or robbery.

Now having a more rational drugs policy aimed at helping people might reduce robbery to feed a drug habit but what about robbery to get from living on the poverty line?

Guns in the hands of the criminal or irresponsible I think would be bad for society. And in domestic violence cases easy access to a gun is more likely to make a bad situation worse.

I have suggested that 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).

 

I'm not "pro-gunners", and don't use "their" arguments in general, I use the arguments that arose from my own logical survey of the situation.

If you remove "morality" laws, such as drug laws, there will be no large "criminal" market. Theft is about the only one, and armed robbery or burglary is already considerably more legally punishable than just robbery or burglary.

Not to mention the massive criminal smokescreen that would be lifted without drug related crime. There wouldn't be other things to get in the way of police going after people who really do hurt others because of mental problems or something. As it is, you can't tell what crime is why, it's all just a hazy mess of drugs and people killing people because of drugs. And NOT junkies killing people in robberies, but organized war, or lone meth cookers, or whatever. They're all armed to protect a business, and their competition is armed too. But if the business is legal, they just won't have any thing valuable to protect. Police could do their damn job, and do it much better, while still infringing far fewer freedoms and rights.

To be clear, people hurting people in the type of crime you're talking about, it's like from 1940's movies or something.... it's NOT how most gun violence happens. It happens as a result or organized crime. A drug cartel can't just start being bandits and sticking up everyone on their road because drugs are illegal, and declare open war on society. It forces assimilation. They can be as hardcore as they want, keep their guns, and think nobody better mess with them while they flip burgers-which is cool, who's going to mess with them in the drive-thru anyway? Gun violence, as a whole, exists because of morality laws.

You want to have people be able to confidentially have their partners gun license stripped? what a horrible idea! how about just choosing partners who you can trust and who agree with you on issues like guns? What better way to breed distrust and possible violence than THAT?

 

No, I will not read again the "Can guns save you from suppression? – thread". I have already read it several times and each time I have found it valueless and empty of any clear or valid reasoning and reading it was just a waste of time.

That appears to be what you are recommending but is not what I'm suggesting.

As I have already said several times, committing a violent crime with a gun would warrant the removal of their ‘right’ to own a gun.