U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Tribesman]

i have a pretty decent knowledge of US history. from my knowledge, after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Brits withdrew. so technically we did beat them, AFAIK.

If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Correct, however even under current laws. Lubys still would be within its rights.

That is the business of Luby's. I don't see how it relates to my point more than slightly, I'm sorry.

[Strike For The South]

That is the business of Luby's. I don't see how it relates to my point more than slightly, I'm sorry.

I fail to see how a 1 in 10,000,000 occurrence should be a factor in legislature.

If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .

pfffttt. We don't need a stinkin navy or French officers and guns!!!!

[Sheogorath]

If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .

Does that mean the United States won less than France?
Are we talking like 60/40 here? 20/80?

Can we even quantify victory?

Would you say the British won the Napoleonic Wars less than Russia because the Russians beat Napoleon at his strongest, whereas the British only beat him after he got his ass kicked a few times?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I fail to see how a 1 in 10,000,000 occurrence should be a factor in legislature.

Oh, I see what you mean now, and I agree with you. Self-defence in general, however, was summed up by the second video I linked and by the Cato Institute article. I intended the first link for her explanation of what the Second Amendment was intended for, not her personal story. You must admit, however, that her personal self-defence story is echoed in one form or another by many different people.

[Husar]

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously. Everyone knows that certain groups of people are dangerous behind the steering wheel and we can't let our children walking to school accidentally be hit. I want a complete switch to bicycles, not only will public safety increase and deaths decrease, but the transportation industry will create thousands of new jobs when we need 250 people on bikes to carry what one 18 wheeler could.

Finally someone who understands what's REALLY important!

In fact, I'm almost sure that people who stand around in NYC traffic jams for hours every morning would be faster at work with a bike, would save the environment and cause less ait pollution etc. etc.
But agaion and again it's not a matter of practicality but principle and convenience.

Some people think cars = freedom, some think guns = freedom. I say planes = freedom, as long as you're the pilot anyway. But you still have to land and fuel up, space is unreachable etc.

The only good way to find out whether the second amendment should be changed/banned would be to make a poll or a referendum. But since some here think referendums are bad I guess you'll have to go with whatever the god-president Obama and his cronies want.

Also Whacker, bringing an assault rifle to a tank battle won't help you much either.

[PowerWizard]

We are lucky to have the right to bear arms. People should respect that right by not running around shooting one another.

Too bad some people don't respect that and run around shooting one another.

You can not defend yourself against attack as well as if you had a gun.

Yes, I can defend myself. And the probability that people will shoot me in my own country is lower if not anyone can own a gun. I feel myself safe in this country, and I don't need a gun to "protect" myself. I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.

So, you are compromising one of your freedoms.

No I am not, where did you get that? I am perfectly free, and I don't need a gun to feel "freer", in fact it would just be a burden. And by supporting a policy that allows anyone to own a gun you compromise the basic human right to live of many other humans. Which is higher in the priority of human rights than this "right to bear arms" 18th century nonsense.

[Strike For The South]

Too bad some people don't respect that and run around shooting one another.

The same could be said for alcohol, drugs, cars and knives.

[PowerWizard]

The same could be said for alcohol, drugs, cars and knives.

Faulty parallelism. They aren't especially designed to kill people.

[Strike For The South]

Faulty parallelism. They aren't especially designed to kill people.

Neither is a gun.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.

No, your logic is flawed. Data beats personal experience. Always. Anyone that brings up that they themselves have never or have always blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point.

[Sheogorath]

Neither is a gun.

Well, now, to be fair, some are.

But then, there are quite a few vehicles design to kill people as well.

Do we assume that cars are a subset of vehicles, as military weapons are a subset of guns?

[Strike For The South]

Well, now, to be fair, some are.

But then, there are quite a few vehicles design to kill people as well.

Do we assume that cars are a subset of vehicles, as military weapons are a subset of guns?

I don't see how you couldn't, add knives to.

A gun is a tool. A dangerous tool but a tool none the less.

[PowerWizard]

Neither is a gun.

I see. So guns are designed for what? Slicing carrots? Traveling to distant destinations? Getting drunk?

No, your logic is flawed. Data beats personal experience. Always. Anyone that brings up that they themselves have never or have always blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point.

No, your logic is flawed. Anyone that brings up "data beats personal experience" blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point or actually show data (with sources) that support their argument. And what about data that traces gun violence in the United States? Do you ignore it?

[rory_20_uk]

No, your logic is flawed. Data beats personal experience. Always. Anyone that brings up that they themselves have never or have always blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point.

"Worth" of data:

Multi study meta analysis
Multi study
Large study
Small study
"Personal experience" - liked by senior doctors as justification, utterly worthless from a statistical standpoint.

There's more than just the guns, as Americans kill each other a lot more than do the Swiss. If only all vermin could keep their own numbers down...

[Fragony]

Guns don't kill people, mom's do. Well I expect him to be dead, viewer discretion.

[Kralizec]

I accidentally voted no as a US citizen, meant to vote no as a non-citizen.

[PowerWizard]

Guns don't kill people, mom's do. Well I expect him to be dead, viewer discretion.

Can we just skip this bumper-sticker slogan of NRA supporters please? A phrase Dimebag Darrel had always sided with. He believed that guns were no threat, only the people who use them incorrectly are....Ironically, Wednesday, December 8th 2004....Dimebag was shot to death during one of his concerts.... by an U.S. marine, whose job would be to use guns correctly. He also killed four other people in the crowd and injured two.

Eddie Izzard said once: “Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too if they have a gun.”

[LittleGrizzly]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Guns are just an incredibly effective way to kill someone as a private citizen... (obviously the army has some slightly better methods...)

[PowerWizard]

LOL.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

What, exactly, makes you think the US rebels would engage in conventional combat? Most of you're posts about rebellion seem to hinge on that assumption.

Aren't we on some kind of loop here? If you need to bear firearms to feel able to defend yourself, then I think something is going wrong in your country.

No, I feel I have the right to. It's a vast difference.

Interesting thing about that, the Brits tried to abolish the monarchy once, and guess what? They asked multiple monarchs back into the country when they realized they had no idea what they were doing. Wanna abolish the government? Be ready for two things- First anarchy, then military rule as a power hawk tries to quell said anarchy from destroying the country. Government exists for a very good reason.

Funny post from a guy complaining about generalizations of his posts. Making the government fear the citizen is not equal to abolishing the government.

And getting rid of the second amendment and leaving it to the states is wrong. It's a right, not a privilege to be decided by some state government.

CR

[Strike For The South]

I see. So guns are designed for what? Slicing carrots? Traveling to distant destinations? Getting drunk?

Hunting. Sport shooting. Collecting.

[Fixiwee]

A gun is a tool. A dangerous tool but a tool none the less.

Well everything is a tool if you argue like that.
A gun is made for killing. Or firing bullets.
Eeeeeehg.

[seireikhaan]

Funny post from a guy complaining about generalizations of his posts. Making the government fear the citizen is not equal to abolishing the government.

And getting rid of the second amendment and leaving it to the states is wrong. It's a right, not a privilege to be decided by some state government.

CR

You think a ruler isn't afraid of their people when they chopped off the head of the predecessor?
EDIT: And I resent your accusation. You see, you generalized my opinion when you stated that I complained of generalization of my posts. I never even complained once. I mocked generalizations. Get your story straight.

And NO, having a gun isn't a right. Don't be silly. There is NO such thing as an innate right. Only what society demands and obtains for itself.

[Sheogorath]

Well everything is a tool if you argue like that.
A gun is made for killing. Or firing bullets.
Eeeeeehg.

Note to self:
Guns shoot bullets.

Are we going to have to go into the vehicle example again?

Commercial jets are what makes modern society possible. Without them the economy would collapse on itself, because we'd be back to taking a week to cross the oceans by boat.

But the military uses jets too. In fact, there are probably more military jets than large commercial jets. I'd even be willing to bet that airplanes in general have killed more people than guns.

So, should we ban airplanes?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You think a ruler isn't afraid of their people when they chopped off the head of the predecessor?
EDIT: And I resent your accusation. You see, you generalized my opinion when you stated that I complained of generalization of my posts. I never even complained once. I mocked generalizations. Get your story straight.

Sorry, just meant it as a joke.

And NO, having a gun isn't a right. Don't be silly. There is NO such thing as an innate right. Only what society demands and obtains for itself.

I would argue that there are such things as innate rights. The right to bear arms is part of our right to defend ourselves from evil in individuals or government.

Of course, society only gets what it demands and obtains.

CR

[Ironside]

What, exactly, makes you think the US rebels would engage in conventional combat? Most of you're posts about rebellion seem to hinge on that assumption.

So winning the rebellion has very little to do with gun ownership at the start of the rebellion?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What's the pupose of partisan warfare if the opponent cannot retreat?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To weaken the opponent and gather own strength until you can béat him in conventional combat. In the US that would require years, particulary to gather weaponry. At that point smuggled equipment will be the vast majority, if nothing else the ammonition needs to be replaced.

Anyway, should I try to conquer the US from within I wouldn't touch the second ammendment. In fact I would embrace it to create a proxy militia, not because of it's combat value, but because they are a good recruitment area for garnision troops after my loyal military forces have crushed all the main resistance. And that I like stylish moves. Controlling the military is prio one though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's a book that's fairly well known among second amendment rights supporters. It's called Unintended Consequences. In many ways it's the fantasy of a gun-loving libertarian. Fantasy in that the events depicted, a rebellion against the US government, are very unlikely to happen.

But it posits an interesting case for how a rebellion might occur. It's a sort of grass roots movement and involves fighting (killing) government officials directly, not the military. The rebels wouldn't even fight the military, but would seek out and kill the various government officials they felt had wronged them. Then other agents of the hated government agencies would be less enthusiastic about continuing their jobs and quit, until said agencies imposing on the rights of the people couldn't operate any more.

Note that I don't write this out of admiration for the book (long winded and very vulgar at times) or in agreement with the message, but just as an example to counter the "But the Marines would defeat the citizens in open battle!"

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, I can defend myself. And the probability that people will shoot me in my own country is lower if not anyone can own a gun. I feel myself safe in this country, and I don't need a gun to "protect" myself. I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.

My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true. Whether you feel you are in danger is not the issue--neither do I. We are discussing a principle. If there was one murder a year in the US the principle would remain.

No I am not, where did you get that? I am perfectly free, and I don't need a gun to feel "freer", in fact it would just be a burden. And by supporting a policy that allows anyone to own a gun you compromise the basic human right to live of many other humans. Which is higher in the priority of human rights than this "right to bear arms" 18th century nonsense.

You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.

The issue with individual rights vs collective rights has been discussed before, so I'll just make a comparison.

1) People have the right to life
2) Alcohol being legal leads to drunk driving accidents
3) Therefore, alcohol should be banned

Do you agree with the conclusion?

[LittleGrizzly]

My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true.

That's very true, my problem is its alot harder to defend yourself when the other person has a gun...

You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.

I would argue that i am far freer without an armed populace...

Although i can see your basic point that if your denied anythingyou are less free, but that just gets silly if you think about it... one country could be freer than another because it allows each and every resident to have thier own arsenal of missles (now thats what you need to take down a goverment!)