• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Gun control

Here in Texas we understand proper gun control. It means you can hit what you aim at.
 
Filmmaker Michael Moore pointed out that gun ownership in Canada is actually higher than in the US. Hunting is a popular sport up there. Yet, the Canadians manage to have less than 1% the number of gun homicides that we do. What is up with that anyhow?
 
I'll keep my replies public, for now. I'd like to involve as many people as possible, so I can get to know different points of view on this matter.

...

I am not arguing war is wrong in itself.
What I am asking is: why do you think *this* war is right?
What makes it right, while the government is not?

Let me sum up what you've posted so far, guys: media are biased. Politicians are just preaching their own cause. Central government could be corrupted, and you expect it to take back what it has granted you so far.

If I distrusted my own government, as you probably do, I would distrust any of its decisions. War being the first, considering its cost and consequencies.

So, why do you trust media, politicians, and government, about *this war*?
 
Kalamos, it is the institution of Government that we distrust. That is one reason we insist on remaining armed. We understand the potential for tyranny that is inherent in any ruling body. Even an administration we generally support and helped elect isn't going to please each of us in every thing it does. (I support Bush's war on terror, but recoil from some of his domestic policies.) Our defense of the Second Amendment to our constitution, the one granting the right to keep and bear arms, boils down to a fundamental philosophy: citizens who are not allowed to own weapons are not citizens...they are slaves. They may be well-treated slaves, with many privileges and abundant security, but they are slaves nonetheless.

For the record, our government and news media are not monolithic in their support of the war in Iraq, as you seem to assume. The Democratic party is vehemently against it, as are major news organs like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the big three broadcast networks. Liberals would like you to believe that dissent is being silenced in this country simply because powerful media voices have finally arisen to advocate the opposite viewpoint.

I support the war because, although Saddam Hussein was not directly involved in the 9/11/2001 attack on the U.S., he was nevertheless a part of the problem. He provided money and safe havens for terrorists of every stripe. He brutalized his own people in hideous fashion. He defied the U.N. and the sanctions placed upon him after the first Gulf War and should have been taken out even if 9/11 had never happened. A democratic Iraq will emerge from all this strife and the Middle East and the world will be the better for it. (I grant you we have made a hash of many aspects of this war, thus confirming one of the bedrock principles of American Conservatism: that even when Government attempts something worthwhile, it usually fucks it up.)
 
Kalamos I think what you are stuck on is Americans distrust of gun control laws ( trusting thier fellow citizens ) and our right to bear arms ( distrusting the govt. ). But these two ideas cannot be separated logically. Therefore we must trust our fellow Americans or give up our right to arms. That is what makes our country so great, Because if it wasn't there wouldn"t be the constant stream of people trying to get here. For instance if Italy didn't have such a f***ed up regime under Mussolini I would be writing this in Italian because my grandparents wouldn't have come here. We have the chance here to change our leaders every 2-4 yrs. That is if the powers that be allowed a viable alternative. But while our leaders may change our constitution doesn't and that constant is the stabilising factor that glues us together as a nation. The New World Order faction of our govt. is of Europeon origin(British, French, Italian bankers). If we had followed George Washinton warnings of getting involved in Europeon politics we might have been better off but you all would be speaking German. Once a right was given to us in the constitution it should not be taken away and since you cannot separate the right to bear arms from gun control then geometric logic says you can't have gun control.
 
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

That sums it up pretty much for me. The gun is just the tool which allows the murder to be acted out, but the gun will do nothing if you don't pull the trigger. Its not as if it's it's own entity or lifeforce and it acts out violence and homicide. The person does that, not the gun.

A great deal of this all boils down to who you can trust with a gun. There are perfectly safe people, even gun nuts, and then there are unstable people who see the gun as a weopon of murder as opposed to a defense, a way to get their way and control other people. But the dangerous thing is that there is no way to tell these people apart unless its apparent (ie gang members who dress a certain way).

I'm sure the founding fathers only gave us the right to bare arms under the impression that we all had a right to defend ourselves from serious physical harm, a threat of harm, or immediate danger which would necessitate the use of a firearm to dispatch an assailant before they can dispatch you.

They had the right idea, and for the times they created this decree it made perfect sense and it was practical.

But in the world of today, that is to say, America today dangerous people are looking to upsurp power or control. These people are usually criminals already.

Personal gun usage for otherwise upright citizens is a matter of responsibility and good judgement. So the question is less and less about guns and more and more about the mentality of people when they use them and what for. Laws are already in place for reckless shooting, brandishing a gun (concealed or otherwise), limits on the types of guns that can be purchased by a civilian (an attempt to decrease gang/vigilante insurgance and power) and the discharging of firearms in public and thats as far as the law can go really without infringing on an individual's right to bare arms.

What type of weopons they own is of more concern to me than anything. While we cannot stop anyone from aqquiring high-powered weopons, for order to remain law enforcement needs to remain at the top. So long as the law can outgun some punk gang member or moronic vigilante then society is alot safer, but the individual is not.

As for the criminals which invade our homes, businesses and rob us at gunpoint or attempt to, all I can really say is do what you've got to do. I can only hope that instincts wouldn't take over and that instread you'd try to deliver a non-lethal shot(s).

Most criminals are shooting to kill and are reckless with their weopons though. So if it comes down to you or them you really have no choice, now do you? No one will judge a person for saving their own life or the life of others in this way and theres heavy consequences for criminals.

Things balance out. The one thing that is not balanced is the possibility that anyone would just pull a gun on you. Thats something you can't prepare for because it can happen any time and any place no matter who you are. It's practically fate to find yourself in that situation. And if the gun is already pointed at you, then its too late.

The idealogy of gun ownership is that "if I own a gun I can stop them before they do anything!" And while that has merit, its also paranoia, as aren't you just as suspect as they are? The more paranoid we become and suspicious of a stranger that we would need to carry a gun even out of the house, the more dire situations we breed and give the possibility for.

The crime that claims a life is sad, but its fate and you can't stop it. Because theres no real way to prepare for an attempt on your life, having a gun is really just one portion of the equation. I think we all need to think a little more on this in retrospect and use our heads, not our instincts.

What seperates us from the criminals is justice. We need to make sure we don't stray the path. That means both acknowledging gun laws and obeying them and using our firearms responsibly and only when we need to.
 
Last edited:
I am not trying to argue, or to convince anybody.

I simply never felt the *need* to buy a high-power, high capacity gun, for self defence.
There would be good reasons to, and good reasons not.

I am just trying to understand the subtleties of your reasoning.


For instance, I still cannot understand how a Constitution can be good, while a government is potentially corrupt and tyrannical.

Constitution comes from men. Government is made up of men.
I must assume somewhere, somehow, men got worse, so they are currently sub-par, compared with their ancestors.

Either that, or you trust Constitution because it gives you what you want, and government would rather not.


I'd also like to define "gun control" better: most of you are armed already. You have ready access to firearms, and I read your only limit was on mazine capacity and rate of fire.
From what I could gather, those limits have been recently lifted, so you can buy and employ military or quasi-military lever equipment.

What are you asking for, exactly?


-> Ignatz.

For the record, our government and news media are not monolithic in their support of the war in Iraq, as you seem to assume.

I am not assuming, for the sake of objectivity.
I am *relating* what other users have posted so far.
I'll take notice of your remarks on this matter.


He defied the U.N. and the sanctions placed upon him after the first Gulf War and should have been taken out even if 9/11 had never happened. A democratic Iraq will emerge from all this strife and the Middle East and the world will be the better for it.

I hope your trust is well placed.
I think you could have used other ways to dispose of him.

Your army is paying the largest toll; you are paying, with taxes, the largest toll.
I hope it is really worth it - considering most American people I've spoken to, so far, couldn't care less for Iraqi citizens.



-> plumr.

Therefore we must trust our fellow Americans or give up our right to arms.
...
But while our leaders may change our constitution doesn't and that constant is the stabilising factor that glues us together as a nation.

That was my point.

You have to trust complete strangers, and call them a fellow Americans, so you can preserve your personal right to arm.

Yet, you consider your rulers, who are fellow Americans you get to choose, untrustworthy: you wouldn't give them power from any longer lease of time.

Finally, you consider Constitution a stable unifying factor - but you won't mention it was written by men: it was written by your older rulers, people you never met, and whom you would not probably trust if they lived today.

So, I am repeating myself, by asking: why do you consider your older rulers better than your present ones?
Why is an untested neighbour more trustworthy than a politician you get to vote?


Once a right was given to us in the constitution it should not be taken away and since you cannot separate the right to bear arms from gun control then geometric logic says you can't have gun control.

Allow me to object: this is specious.

The Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Regulated means "controlled by principle of law".

I am not advocating extreme gun control, but hope you realise two possible shortcomings, in your reasoning.

First: Constitution is centuries old: it was signed in 1787 and took effect in 1789.

In late XVIII cent. they only had muskets. Machine guns appeared in late XIX, and self-loading guns about early XX.

This means the second amendment couldn't take into account full-auto guns, since they hadn't been invented yet! 😀


Second: by allowing *anybody* to get *any* kind of weapon, you might be arming potentially dangerous individuals.

Vlad is right about paranoia - which, incidentally, is the pathological lack of trust.

On one hand, in order to have a gun, you have to trust your fellow Americans. By principle, all men are created equal, so your neighbour is the same as you.
On the other hand, you fear your fellow Americans might be up to something, and you want a gun so you can defend yourself with no external help.


If you ask me, you are free to buy the largest gun you can mount on your HumVee.
But keep in mind, your "beloved" neighbour might be doing just the same, down the street.

So, what is this all about? Do you trust your neighbour, or don't you?
 
aenglish said:
Filmmaker Michael Moore pointed out that gun ownership in Canada is actually higher than in the US. Hunting is a popular sport up there. Yet, the Canadians manage to have less than 1% the number of gun homicides that we do. What is up with that anyhow?

Do not believe every statistic you see in his trash movies. He fails to mention the difference in populations between america and those nations. Its no diff than if i said that Christmas is celebrated in 9 out of 10 American homes, but only 1 out of 10 Israeli homes and .5 out of 10 Egyptian homes in an argument saying that Egypt and Israel are atheist countries.
 
Kalamos said:
Vlad is right about paranoia - which, incidentally, is the pathological lack of trust.

On one hand, in order to have a gun, you have to trust your fellow Americans. By principle, all men are created equal, so your neighbour is the same as you.
On the other hand, you fear your fellow Americans might be up to something, and you want a gun so you can defend yourself with no external help.


If you ask me, you are free to buy the largest gun you can mount on your HumVee.
But keep in mind, your "beloved" neighbour might be doing just the same, down the street.

So, what is this all about? Do you trust your neighbour, or don't you?

Look at it this way also- can you trust YOURSELF with a gun? Guns can be very posessive. Alot of people put their material possessions before their own lives because they value them more. And for something which can save your life, like a gun, its even more attractive.

People that collect guns just for the novelty of it are not as suspect as people who are mentally or psychologically dependant on the sense of security a gun can bring after they've had one.

A person who studies martial arts feels this seems empowerment and security yet they don't need something so fatal as a gun, because they are smart enough to realize that a greater percentage of the time you're more likely to be physically assaulted during a robbery than shot. The gun still is primarily an intimidator. Its more a symbol than a tool. A transfer of power from any situation to whomever holds the gun.

If the equalizer of a gun is another gun then its about who drew their gun first. After that the gun doesn't matter anymore because one person has the power of the situation and the other doesn't. And usually a criminal won't shoot if you give them what they want. Alot of victims end up trying to fight the criminals and end up shot or dead. No offense, but thats their fault. See what the gun put into their head even after the gun is out of the equation? It made them THINK they were still as protected as they were with it so they try and play hero and tempt fate. This is usually how the bulk of all murders transpire. Unless its a gang thing, a planned plot or attempted murder no one is going to come right up to you and shoot you without giving you the chance to give in to their demands.

The survival chances are alot better if you don't try and play hero. Dying is no fun and you live another day by just complying. Law Enforcement tells us this as well.

Again the point is you'd have to be paranoid enough to want to carry a gun on you all the time. Unless you live in a crime-rich neighborhood your chances of being shot are less and less likely.

Are we literally going to carry a gun on us just so we can hope that if that fraction of a percentage falls on us and we need to use the gun we'll be able to draw first and end it? What if theres a misunderstanding? Or they try and drop their gun and in the heat of the moment you shoot them?

Vigilante justice outside the law often makes the victim the attacker and the attacker the victim.

Unless you are willing to accept the fact you may get caught up in something you cannot control because of your paranoia and inability to accept your number could be up whenever and you own a gun to defy that (which is futile), then you'll become that which you hate and fear.

If people are going to be drawing guns on eachother in public, then how are you really any different than the gangster scum when they get into rivalries and shootouts over territory? The only difference is you've got some class, but that doesn't change what you're doing and taking part in.

Owning a gun for home/business protection is one thing. But wanting to have a sidearm on you at all times would be quite another thing.

We need to regulate what types of guns are available to the average citizen and to keep them from making public use of them.

As for the gansters, criminals and other low-lifes that plague society, having a gun or having a bigger gun than they do doesn't change anything. It doesn't make you any more safer. Because in this day and age, if someone wants you dead you will be. Think about that.
 
kalamos, i am not stating that every american wants to buy a high powered rifle or automatic rifle to put above their fireplace. The 2nd ammendment assures simply that we have the right to choose, whether to own one or not. The gun control lobbyists claim theres no need for such hi powered weaponry, well why are there not a massive lobby to ban suv's or sports racing cars that burn high gas contents and add to pollution, also more people die in car accidents than guns.

To the const is good but govt is bad, a perfect example is socialism. Socialism on paper is an amazing govt, utopian in a sense. Everyone contributin, and the worker rules, but if you look at the countries that had socialism\communism, they became corrupt by powermad leaders and the ideal was lost. One beauty\curse of our govt is we get a potential new president every 4 years, so it could be a continuance of a good thing or a up and comming new fear of government repression.

Yes there are dangerous people but what is a dangerous person gonna do if he knows someone else is armed. I go back to the rape scenario, if we gave EVERY woman the freedom to own a gun and maybe 1 out of 5 women decided to do this, you will have criminal rapists thinking twice because now they will be thinking if this potential victim has a gun or not.

Trusting neighbors, this is very hard to state because whats a neighbor....the person who shares property with us? The next town? The next state? We are the only nation on this planet made up of 50 separate states. The states have their own laws which are also supported by separate federal laws. I can make an examle to the EU, they claim to want one whole nation but many european nations are objecting to the EU constituion. Now back to neighbors, to those of france, poland, and spain feel friendly and brotherly to each other all the time or are there differences which they disagree with.

The chief concern in this nation is the class war, this is why we distrust government. The top 1% of this nation has more wealth than the bottom 90%. With this gross disparity in the economy, people feel powerless and helpless because what power do they have when they have little or no say in anything. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and there is no solution in it. Even tho i am middle\lower class, i dont believe in taxing the rich even more, because they shouldnt be punished for being wealthy. This is a reason why we also rebelled from england. The Brittish empire taxed the american colonies ruthlessly and did not care. They felt it was the colonies' duty to pay and serve the king and thats it, and what did the colonists get out of it? Constant raids on the borders from indians, spanish and french. So the colonists said enough and rebelled and we have the United states. The civil war, or as some(and i call) the second american revolution, was also started over the gross difference in economies, the south being mainly slave labor and the north being factory and immigrant labor. So this is where the main distrust of the govt comes from, that the rich, elected official or company business man, runs the country, and can care less truly what happens to the regular people. Its similar to a king and peasants, a king is so high on his throne of money, he cant see anything happening below
 
vlad i simply ask this, about restricting what types of guns someone can have, how will that stop the criminal from getting one. Tech AK-47's are illigal yet show up all over, criminals dont follow the law right now anyway, so how will tougher gun laws that keep guns from honest citizens stop the criminal.

Also, where do u get the notion people will be drawing their guns everywhere, i believe 39 states have concealed gun laws in effect and there have not been massive shootouts. To quote professor john r lott jr and john m olin, professors of law and economics at the university of chicago school of law

"The findings were dramatic. The more people who obtain permits over time, the more violent crime rates decline. After concealed handgun laws have been in effect for five years, murders declined by at least 15 percent, rapes by 9 percent and robberies by 11 percent. These are the drops over and above the recent national declines and after such things as changing arrest and conviction rates, demographics, and other gun-control laws have been accounted for. The reductions in violent crime are greatest in the most crime-prone, most urban areas. Women and blacks gained by far the most from this ability to protect themselves."
 
1) I said before it doesn't stop the criminal from attaining the weoponry themselves or that not having a weopon yourself doesn't mean you are safer. If you were reading what I said you will have seen that more guns equals more potential disasters. Whenever someone feels they could alter a situation by brandishing a gun, we cannot assume they would do it for the common good or wouldn't panic and make a huge mistake.

Its for very human reasons, such as frailty a sense of a lack of protection and the paranoia that comes along with that that would incline more people towards carrying a sidearm with them.

2)That professor you quoted only proves my point (though his point is valid and I agree with it as a finding as well)- it helps some people but it doesn't help society, and ultimately it doesn't solve the problem. If someone wants you dead you will be dead. Violent crime that ends in death is often the interaction between attacker and victim. The attacker often takes a defensive posture if he or she feels they are being threatened by threatening you.

What could have been a plan to simply rob you will turn into a defensive mechanism and may cause them to fire. Alot of criminals aren't murderers and the gun is just their tool to get what they want. If they feel they are threatened by your preemptive action that makes things worse.

While public robberies are less likely to happen as that professor explains, the potential for fatalities rises with each given situation the more guns are involved. What would have been 1 accidental murder may have been 2 or 3 for example. It would get harder really quick for the Law to decide whose who as literally both sides could be shooting to kill.

Again, when your card is up, its up. No ammount of protection will save you so theres no reason to live in such a way. And if you think it will just because a statistic shows that some violence and robbery is down and that because more people are brandishing weopons who are assumed to be responsible and that that will somehow discourage would-be attackers, then by the same logic you present that, it just makes the criminals more inclined to possess better weoponry than you do.

Either way, its us or them, theres imbalance and not everyone is going to play "fair". It makes upright citizens more safe around other upright citizens but it just gives the criminal more reason to be prepared and to select their targets with more forethought rather than carry out a random bumbling robbery. There would be more of a strategy on their part and thats not what we want. This would result in more trouble than anticipated.

It makes us more paranoid and them more determined. Accept the fate that you may die any time for whatever reason other than natural death. No gun will safeguard you from something you cannot foresee, so we shouldn't live in fear or the paranoia of looking over our shoulder and never being at peace.

"If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword."

So its not swords anymore, rather guns, but its the same idea and principle.

Having a gun in public (I'm all for guns in the home for home protection) may increase YOUR chances of survival, but it throws a wrench into the already clogged clock-work of society. By having a gun also just because a potential person may be a potential criminal who may potentially rob you just complicates things. That paranoia doesn't make things better and it never will. Surrender your soul, your life, and your flesh to God or whomever or whatever you believe in. Trust in that, and live in peace.
 
Last edited:
Kalamos , on your first point I definetly would trust our founding fathers before today's pols because they walked the walk and were trying to protect what they fought for; however it was they who didn't trust future leaders and installed the limit on terms , but only for the congress. Remember presidential limits took effect after FDR.That was because the Pres, didn't have as much power under the original constitution and with checks and balances they built into the system they felt safe. Do I feel safer trusting my neighber then a pol., in a word, yes.I have much more in common with him then a politician. In the original constitution The House of Rep. were elected and senators were appointed by the governor for a term of 6 yrs., he could be recalled if he didnot vote the will of the people from his state when that changed it opened up a chance for corruption and bigger federal govt..And it's been getting bigger all the time. Now on to your second point your quote of the second ammendment is the answer to your question. It says the militia is to be well regulated ; but the right to bear arms shall not be infringed( read - no gun control ). The continental congress also allowed for citizens to be subsidized for the purchase of Kentucky Long rifles , at that time this gun was the ultimate weapon in the world putting every household on a par with the military so I think that under the circumstances they would allow fully automatic weapons ( but granted that is an assumption on my part). Remember they had 13 yrs. to hash out all the possibilities they could think of for the future, it is my opinion that next to thr Magna Carta the Constitution Of the republic of the united States ( notice the small caps as they appear in the original) is the most thought out and comprehensive document ever written.It also states that any rights and privilages not stated should be assumed to go to We the people.Remember that while euros love to brag about there low gun crime rates they also never have the weaponry available to defend themselves when dictators come knocking and we wind up bailing trhem out with our blood and money. But also remember its all a game set up by the NWO powers that be.
 
Vlad made a point about weapon escalation; once you own a gun, you are not the same man you used to be.

There is a wrong assumption of illegal weapon, IMHO. How do you stop would-be criminals from buying guns from legal retailers?

Gun control should not be about capping power or magazine size.
It is about making sure only *honest* [albeit paranoid] citizens get to buy guns.
And about *properly* punishing misuses.

Mind you, I like guns.
But we just had a shootout situation over Milano. A former soldier gunned down his landlord, and SWAT could take him out only after a several hours long stakeout.
Some regulation is in order, IMHO. I don't trust human nature enough.


I tried to understand your values and your reasons.
I have to disagree, though.


Goodieluver mentioned class strife.
In his words, it is a no-win scenario.

Rich people get richer and richer, but on a principle you won't overtax them to even things out.
Yet you fear them, so instead of electing somebody clean and new - since you distrust politicians - you resort to guns as the ultimate equaliser.

If they want to buy you off, you'll accept no compromise.
Violence will be the answer.

Don't take it personally, but this is appalling.
Yours is a democracy, not a kingdom.
Your ultimate weapon should be voting - not threatening politicians with an armed response.
You are giving away a much greater power. How is it greater than guns?

My reply to plumr will show.


Plumr mentioned dictators rose to power over Europe because citizens couldn't stop them from, with guns.

Inaccurate.
Citizens *voted* those dictatators so they could rise to power!
And they were initially happy with those dictators, because they bought their promises.
[You can call them naive...]

The only armed revolution leading to a dictatorship was October Revolution.
Like America, Russia suffered under an uncaring king, and they finally overthrew him.

Unfortunately, they had no idea how democracy worked.
They knew the next worse thing: regime.
I hope you don't want to follow *their* example...


Guns didn't keep dictators from rising to power.
On the contrary, people who owned guns supported those dictators and they received benefits from doing so.

But voting really gave them power.


I can accept guns are useful - and fun.
I cannot accept they are *needed* to bring or uphold democracy.

It's not democracy. It's a truce.
 
Kalamos, while it is probably true that these dictators were voted into power , after they showed their true colors it was too late to stop them because you allowed yourselves to be disarmed, so that the common decent people were forced to cower.As you may know the only country not invaded during WWII was switzerland.It is commonly believed that was because the Swiss remained neutral< but it really was because the Swiss required every male to be a member of the militia. In fact every citizen was issued a highpowered rifle until their service was up at the age of 50 and free ammo was also distributed, they were also required to qualify at a range every year( I believe this service still exists). Hitler was quoted as saying he didn't invade Switzerland because he didn't want to get shot at from every bedroom window in the country!As for voting, well the record of the U.S. is a model to all nations , we exercise more than most. There is no shame in being fooled to vote for the wrong person , but there may be shame in allowing your family to suffer under a regime you allowed to take away your ability to fight back. I'm sure there was much regret from the 12 million who couldn't fight back when they were packed into boxcars and sent to their awful fate by the nazis. I say to you QUESTION AUTHORITY, when someone wants to take away an unalienable right it is always for a reason. Don't change your rights change your circumstances. I look at the negation of the E.U. with great admiration because it is the first step in decentralization of govt.( in our case it would be State's rights). As for the U.S. being a democracy, we are not . Our founders took great exceptions to state we are not a democracy but a republic. In a democracy pols vote to a majority with no answerability to the populace in a republic pols are supposed to vote the people's will . Due to the bastardization of and lack of knowledge of the constitution we are more a democracy than a republic and this suits the New World Order pols just fine .
 
-> plumr.

Your assumption about European dictators is wrong.

Citizens hardly realised the truth behind those dictators; they were either blind or complacent.
They did not allow dictators to disarm them: they *supported* them.

This is the greatest mystery about XX cent. tyrants.
People chose their own fate.


Why would German citizens want to overthrow Hitler? He had promised them victory, after WW I, and most supported him wholeheartedly.
Few knew the truth about lagers either; people couldn't - or wouldn't - know.

With or without guns, citizens would not rise against Hitler. That is the point.
Over Italy, fascist "brawlers" used *clubs* to keep dissenters in check.
Guns are pointless without a target and a willing shooter.

You could debate American citizens would have never voted unsuitable rulers...
From what you've posted so far, it seems to me that your present rulers aren't that suitable either.


You said "question authority". I question the authority behind a gun.
I get to vote my rulers.
I don't get to choose my neighbour - and I don't want him to mess up with a gun.


Besides, you are juggling with words.
Republic is just a form of indirect democracy: people [the demos] get to choose the representatives who then vote their rulers.

I cannot see how a democracy is inherently flawed, while a republic is not.
Democracy is just a political system where people get to elect rulers - instead of having them chosen by a guild or a king.

If democracy is flawed, so is republic - which is just a belated form of democracy.
 
To repeat again because its a viable point-

The more guns the more violence and the more potential for multiple fatalities. We have more control over the criminal than we think we do, though its in an indirect way. While we cannot stop them from stocking up on weopons (and to many this is the reason they stock up too, to attempt to counter that which doesn't stop a crime or counter anything), we can direct the flow of their thought.

If a criminal sees a percieved victim as less dangerous they are less likely to use fatal means to rob you. Its only when they feel theres something for them to lose or that they're not in control that they are more cautious, dangerous, and unpredictable. By us stocking up and going vigilante, it bolsters the criminal's resolve to be a half-step ahead of us. The harder we try to protect ourselves, the harder they try to assault us and the more deliberate and planned it is. Its an upstep of what it was before. This leads to a boiling point where both sides are more dangerous than they were before. And as such, the ratio of potential homicides increases, even if the ammount of crime decreases or reaches some sort of an equalibrium. The ammount of crime may balance out, but when a crime does occur, theres even more potential for death than there was before.

This wouldn't apply to just America, but any self-serving country. The human drive to live and thrive is never undermined, even in the materialistic world we live in.

Either way, we all lose. The citizen and the criminal. We lose by attrition.One will always be outdoing the other. This makes the revenue for vigilantes larger, and gang membership higher. Theres no way to truely win this thing, and people need to accept that. They, again, need to also accept the fact they are not invincible and while a gun can make people feel more powerful and assured, the gun itself doesn't provide any protection against premeditated assault- something we cannot control and never will be able to no matter how safe we think we are.

If someone wants to rob you, they will rob you. They won't be taken back by the fact you have a gun. Criminals these days expect that and come prepared. You cannot safeguard against something you cannot forsee because you don't have the benefit of seeing things from an offensive posture like they do.

A gun doesn't make you any more safer. It only complicates things in a public setting and thins the line of the law.

The good, honest, and upright citizen who owns a gun and carrys it in public is more protected by their street smarts, responsibility and guile than the gun itself. By playing it smart and using your head you stand to avoid potential robberies or instances where you would be in danger.

Alot of crime happens because victims fail to observe their surroundings and environment. The best weopon is knowledge. While it won't stop a bullet it will make you more savvy and you're less likely to walk into a dangerous situation if you pay more attention and don't tempt fate by thinking your all-powerful gun will take care of you wherever you go.

YOU will take care of you and your survival instincts, martial arts training and smarts, not your gun. Its just a thing. It doesn't think for you or make you smarter. If anything, it makes you more stupid and naive. It lulls you into a false sense of security because it has the power to stop someone. It won't stop anything, it will only make it worse.
 
Last edited:
Kalamos do you live in a cave, why are you so terrified of your neighbors . ( guns are pointless without a target) The fascist brawlers were the target thats the point.As far as my juggling of words there is a subtle difference between a republic and a democracy and that subtlety could be the difference between many years of poor decision making until a term is up or the recalling of a corrupt pol before excessive damage is done. That kind of lazy thinking is how we started heading down the wrong path in this country and keeps us from repairing it.Our economic freedom was taken from us by corropt pols influenced by the Federal Reserve bankers(foriengers all) who took us off the gold standard. It was done very quietly by a communist backed educational system and mass media who discreetly changed definitions and kept us distracted with inane headlines while this conspiracy wove its web.Subtle definitions in the differences can have far reaching consequences down the road as each generation is replaced by a new one that assumes the last one took care of everything.
 
That's a good question: why am I terrified with neighbours?
Ironic you asked it, considering you are so worried about your own rulers.

I'll repeat myself. I distrust people.
I don't think I am better than most, though.
But I think that some are *worse* than me.

That's why, if I lived over US, I wouldn't want two-digits-IQ idiots to have free access to firearms.

You are basically telling me the same story over and over again.
You had great founding fathers. They created the perfect Constitution. Then capitalists swindled you out of your money, and now you are hoarding guns for the upcoming revolution.

Ok, that is fine with me.
I am not questioning YOUR right to buy an M4.
I am questioning the village idiot's right.
 
Well said, Kalamos. The villiage idiot's right versus a responsible person. But by the same token no one would be above suspicion because one is more of a jackass than the other. Any time a weopon is issued to anyone thats a potential risk.

This is a war of attrition.
 
Hi Kalamos let me explain I don't even own a gun,but we already have laws in place to prevent the wrong people from owning guns. My fear is that through the continuation of this gun control mindset that we may face the loss of this right. I haven't fired a gun since I gave up hunting for the frustrating game of golf 10 yrs. ago. BTW I am enjoying our repretoire and I admire you sticking to your guns ( pun intended). Great thread Goodieluver.
 
Guns didnt keep dictators from rising to power but guns helped remove those dictators.

and the world has a class war, the rich countries\people bull the weak\poor countries. Its the way this planet revolves
 
Please feel free to download these files and read through them carefully. I think many people here will find them enlightening. (Redistributed with permission. Unzip Lethal Laws and open with WordPad or another word processing program; unzip Gun Facts and open with Adobe or compatible .pdf reader.)

All the best,
 

Attachments

I see your point, plumr and goodieluver.
And I can tell why mine is different from yours.

While I distrust people, I still trust the system - because I am an active part of it.
I'd never let *some* control to become *total* control. Be it on guns or any other aspect of life.

That is why I consider sad the country that *needs* guns, as a means to preserve democracy.
The way I see it, it is like surrendering greater powers to an easier tool.

I wouldn't ban guns. On a principle, I'd ban few thing, and regulate many.


[Now, let me download Val's docs so I can give a peek...]
 
What's New

11/4/2024
Check out the TMF Welcome Forum for a place to say hello!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** Jojo45 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top