U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[seireikhaan]

I don't understand your comment. I didn't make a generalization. I simply said leaving it up to the hands of state government is not better then having the Federal government deal with it. I did not call you a freedom hater or violence monger.

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

[Hooahguy]

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

[seireikhaan]

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

Not if you agree with Thomas Paine:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

[seireikhaan]

Not if you agree with Thomas Paine:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

How could I possibly agree with the statement? It makes no logic, particularly for a democracy. The society IS the government. They are inseparable. The government is not some monolithic force, a lumbering dark monster. It an organization of people who attempt to, at the very least, give order to the rest of their society. The rest of the society can either allow this, cooperate, and thrive, or they can rebel so that a different set of people can attempt to do the same exact task.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How could I possibly agree with the statement? It makes no logic, particularly for a democracy. The society IS the government. They are inseparable. The government is not some monolithic force, a lumbering dark monster. It an organization of people who attempt to, at the very least, give order to the rest of their society. The rest of the society can either allow this, cooperate, and thrive, or they can rebel so that a different set of people can attempt to do the same exact task.

I tend to view a society as a group of people. I tend to view government as a smaller group of people with power. Power changes people, so in my eyes government and society are two different things.

[seireikhaan]

I tend to view a society as a group of people. I tend to view government as a smaller group of people with power. Power changes people, so in my eyes government and society are two different things.

And this is where we reach an impasse. In my view, the government is merely a sub-set of society. Society gives its latent support of a government by paying taxes and obeying the laws it lays down. . If society views the government is not doing its "job"(which is ensuring order, as well as any other tasks the society allows/encourages it to do), than the government is replaced by others in the society. In a democracy, this means by vote, if it is a totalitarian state, than by rebellion. Who replaces the deposed regime? Members of the society.

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

First of all, this is one reason I specifically stated abolishing/rewriting, instead of just abolishing. I know the poor 10th has been railroaded pretty consistently, but it is still a legally binding part of the constitution. If you are that concerned, the 2nd could simply be rewritten(according to my view, that is) as "The states shall have complete and independent control over arms distribution and/or restriction".(or something along those lines) Of course, that is simply rehashing what the 10th would be supposed to do, so its legally redundant, but safer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And this is where we reach an impasse. In my view, the government is merely a sub-set of society. Society gives its latent support of a government by paying taxes and obeying the laws it lays down. . If society views the government is not doing its "job"(which is ensuring order, as well as any other tasks the society allows/encourages it to do), than the government is replaced by others in the society. In a democracy, this means by vote, if it is a totalitarian state, than by rebellion. Who replaces the deposed regime? Members of the society.

But no change in government can be implemented without some sort of force behind it. Without guns prevalent among the people the only ones with weapons is the government. So you tell me how can we get rid of the ones in charge with guns and tanks and planes without anything better then a baseball bat and a knife?


First of all, this is one reason I specifically stated abolishing/rewriting, instead of just abolishing. I know the poor 10th has been railroaded pretty consistently, but it is still a legally binding part of the constitution. If you are that concerned, the 2nd could simply be rewritten(according to my view, that is) as "The states shall have complete and independent control over arms distribution and/or restriction".(or something along those lines) Of course, that is simply rehashing what the 10th would be supposed to do, so its legally redundant, but safer.

If we leave the decision up to the states, yes some will have guns and some will have banned it. But those can ban or put heavy restrictions will experience the same scenario I just stated to your first paragraph. How can the people remove their corrupt state government if they have knives and the state government has the national guard?

This is all assuming that the government's in these two scenarios refuse to relinquish power.

[seireikhaan]

This is all assuming that the government's in these two scenarios refuse to relinquish power.

My basic point is this- let's say that there are no/very few restrictions on weapons. Go open an insurrection against the state/United States government, guns blazing. See how far you get.

Rebellion does not necessarily entail just armed conflict between combatants. Rebellions require a bit more cleverness and subtlety than that. And frankly, since rebellion are acts of defiance against the law in the first place, I seriously doubt that any gun laws would frankly work anyways.

And as for the second example- who do you think make up the National Guard? Robots? Of course not, its citizens, members of SOCIETY. Hence the term Civil War.