U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[a completely inoffensive name]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

[Reverend Joe]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

Far out.

You gotta love the marketplace of ideas.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

Probably the first time in the history of the Backroom that somebody has admitted to this.

[KukriKhan]

The answer is in the thread title:

Citizens right to own a firearm

Citizens do what they will.

Subjects do what their sorvereign will.

Americans are citizens. Many non-Americans are subjects. Some Americans wish to be subjects. Some non-Americans wish to be citizens.

Rights are either assumed, or taken. Not granted. Privileges are granted - to subjects, not citizens.

Ipso facto, after a declared right to life and liberty, citizens hold the right unalienably to use whatever means they think best to defend those rights against rights-takers - especially tyrannical rights-takers, even if they were elected.

BUT, as Sasaki Kojiro pointed out in his quotation from the US DoI, overthrowing gov'ts should never be done frivolously, or for transient purpose. It's too expensive in lives and treasure, to do except in extremis.

But, because it is sometimes necessary, no gov't should restrict the possession of use of the tools necessary to effect the change(s) those citizens deem best.



That said, I'm all for gun control; as long as I am the final decider of who gets to have guns.:)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Probably the first time in the history of the Backroom that somebody has admitted to this.

Well, I have worked very hard to keep an open mind and consider both sides, otherwise I feel what is the point of even talking to either side if your opinion will not change.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, I have worked very hard to keep an open mind and consider both sides, otherwise I feel what is the point of even talking to either side if your opinion will not change.

I have always been of the opinion that we type short and sometimes rude essays on politics to relieve the anger we feel in our personal lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have always been of the opinion that we type short and sometimes rude essays on politics to relieve the anger we feel in our personal lives.

Do you feel this is bad or good? If this statement is indeed true, it makes me almost wish for many I know to feel some anger in their personal life, so that their apathy towards life and government and politics can be broken. Few things bother me more then willingly not caring about who or what is in charge of your life.

Personally, I think it is ignorance not anger that provides the fuel for rude and sometimes hate filled political essays. Maybe a combination of both ignorance and anger.

[Vuk]

Probably the first time in the history of the Backroom that somebody has admitted to this.

Nah, I have admitted to being wrong on torture before. :P Vuk has an open mind sometimes too. :P

Now imagine that the kids used as many guns as they use bicycles.
Do you really think more children would still die from bicycles?

Honestly, yes. :P If they are anything like me at least. :P Me and all my siblings were using firearms since we were 5 years old, and we have never had a gun stolen, never had an accident, and never had a gun misused. That is because we were taught to use guns responsibly (and we had a really great teacher :P). Bikes on the other hand, we used anything but responsibly. I have cracked my head three times, once with a helmet. I have broken my knee from biking, had the back of my ankle cut really deep and my achilles tendon damaged, been scuffed up a million times. :P My siblings and I used to looove to go cross-country biking anywhere on anything, and we got hurt a lot. :P More than once more than one of us came close to dying. :P I have also fallen into the way of an oncoming vehicle on my bicycle and almost gotten ran over.

Fact is, if something is done responsibly, people won't get hurt (often). If it is done irresponsibly, people will get hurt (often). With something like guns, I think there is a much greater motivation, and there for a much greater chance of people being taught to be responsible with them. Sure, responsible people may have accidents, I have been lucky not to have one yet though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

...I changed someone's mind? On the internets? My life is now complete.

To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo.

Socialism...so tempting...must resist...

There's no disputing what's most effective for home defense between a shotgun and a handgun. One of them has a pump action sound which sends invaders fleeing, and if for some reason they don't, leaves you with a blanket of buckshot that will cover any regular sized room or hallway in a typical home. The other has no intimidation factor during prep and makes a loud bang and is much more difficult to aim. Keep it simple, go with the shotgun at home.

Well...
Generally handguns have more rounds in them. And racking the slide doesn't exactly sound like 'welcome home'.

I think the spread of shot at close range may be a tad exaggerated - they still require good aiming. Of course, in the end, it's whatever you feel most comfortable with.

And let's not forget the value of a good semi-auto rifle, should that be your fancy (though not really recommended in apartment buildings).

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

This isn't thread necromancy im just a bit busy to reply sooner...

You seem to be saying if something is accidental, it isn't worth the comparison to intentional deaths.

Someone taking thier own life accidently is tragic... purposefully taking someone else's life is worse...

In pure mathmatical terms i suppose thier both one life, but it is worse to have your life ended by another than through your own carelessness or stupidity...

Though i guess if your referring to person B accidently ending person's A life in an accident then thier probably pretty equal in tragedy...

TBH im not sure where i stated accidental deaths are worse than purposeful ones...?

Should we ban swords (which have no purpose beyond killing to at least the same extent firearms do) because they might be used in a murder? Which is a bigger problem?

Less sure on swords... don't really see much need for them outside of ornaments... they are a less effective tool for killing though so less of a problem...

Yet I guess that you still support the police having them.

Nope. Not outside of very specailised units...

Outside of overthrowing tyranny, guns are useful in equalizing people.

Well as i pointed out earlier it just leads to a different set of inequalitys...

No longer can the strong run rod-shod over the weak.


Sure they can, the young fit male who has purchased a highly effective gun can take out any old woman with her rusty old gun she can barely see wheres she's aiming with...

You and others complain because these tools are designed to be effective at harming people - so what?

so... it is better not to have them around to harm people...

It's the use of them that matters, what their effect is.

Well people shoot with them... and generally if thier aiming at a living thing the thing aint living for long...

In the US, far more people are killed by people driving cars than people using guns.

And as i have said quite a few times guns and cars are a silly comparison...

1) The vast majority of people use thier cars far more than thier guns, only the biggest gun nuts and those who don't drive will use thier gun more than thier car, and im pretty sure more people own a car than a gun...

2) Our western economys are very reliant on cars, almost everyone needs to have one and your practically considered a failure without one... even in america you need a car far more than a gun...

3) A cars purpose is to get you about quickly.... a guns purpose is to kill (be it animal or human)

Of course you could go on about drifting and target practice ect. but what i am referring to is thier main uses...

[Husar]

Our western economys are very reliant on cars, almost everyone needs to have one and your practically considered a failure without one...

You forgot to mention that target practice is a preparation for actually killing people while driving practice has the goal to avoid killing people.

[Vuk]

You forgot to mention that target practice is a preparation for actually killing people while driving practice has the goal to avoid killing people.

ummm...it is? Funny, thought it was a fun sport that I did on Sundays for fun... I am preparing to kill people? If only I knew all these years... I wonder who I am gonna kill... You are so smart Husar, maybe you know! Is it gonna be all those commies and socialist?! Or maybe I will raid an abortion clinic and kill people like I have been training all my life to do.

Sorry to be so sarcastic man, but that is a pretty grave thing you just said. Target practice does not have to be training to kill someone. Heck, I could take suicide bombers and say that driving practice is training to kill people. I think you should rethink your logic. Do you really think that regular gun owners target practice so they will be able to kill people?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's true though. Just like the total war games are preparation for slaughtering thousands of men in battle.

[Sheogorath]

You forgot to mention that target practice is a preparation for actually killing people while driving practice has the goal to avoid killing people.

You're exactly right.

I plan to go on a rampage with my muzzle loading, black powder, blue light special. It may take a while, since it takes about a minute to reload.
I suppose I could do a series of drive-by shootings, since I could reload about as fast as somebody could drive me around a block.

EDIT FOR THE PARANOID:
The above is a sarcastic statement. If I was planning on shooting somebody I'd steal my dad's .44.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No longer can the strong run rod-shod over the weak.


Sure they can, the young fit male who has purchased a highly effective gun can take out any old woman with her rusty old gun she can barely see wheres she's aiming with...

Not necessarily. And anyways, the contest is much closer with guns than if you took the guns from them both.

You and others complain because these tools are designed to be effective at harming people - so what?

so... it is better not to have them around to harm people...

But they don't harm people. The vast majority of guns in this nation are never used or misused to cause injury. Just because they have the potential to harm does not mean they will.

It's the use of them that matters, what their effect is.

Well people shoot with them... and generally if thier aiming at a living thing the thing aint living for long...

Good grief. Yes, people shoot with guns. But considering the millions who own guns and the millions more guns owned 'they' simply do not shoot at people. I mean, really, just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they're going to go out and shoot at people. Shooting a person is absolutely nothing like shooting at a range. It baffles me as to how you seem to think one leads to the other.

In the US, far more people are killed by people driving cars than people using guns.

And as i have said quite a few times guns and cars are a silly comparison...
blah blah blah

It's a completely valid comparison. Unless, of course, your problem is not with people dying but with pushing a specific agenda. You see, to me, the important thing is reducing the overall amount of people who die. Cars kill more people. Hence, cars are a bigger problem. Your reasoning is inconsequential.

CR

[Husar]

Hey, that's interesting, so first you all prove to me how you need your guns to be able to kill people, self defense, against the government and all that and now you just need them for fun and never want to use them against people anyway? Maybe that's why your government isn't really afraid of you guys and your guns...

[Sheogorath]

Hey, that's interesting, so first you all prove to me how you need your guns to be able to kill people, self defense, against the government and all that and now you just need them for fun and never want to use them against people anyway? Maybe that's why your government isn't really afraid of you guys and your guns...

There's a difference between wanting to use a gun on people and being prepared to do so if necessary.

And 'when necessary' is an entirely different debate being taken care of in the 'death penalty' thread. So let's not get into that here.

[LittleGrizzly]

Not necessarily. And anyways, the contest is much closer with guns than if you took the guns from them both.

Sure the contest could be more equal it also could result in greater injuries or could allow someone to kill someone more easily.

But they don't harm people.

Guns don't harm people... I could have sworn...

The vast majority of guns in this nation are never used or misused to cause injury.

Its not those ones im worried about...

Good grief. Yes, people shoot with guns. But considering the millions who own guns and the millions more guns owned 'they' simply do not shoot at people. I mean, really, just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they're going to go out and shoot at people. Shooting a person is absolutely nothing like shooting at a range. It baffles me as to how you seem to think one leads to the other.

Errm, re read my post, do you think theres a specific reason why i said living thing instead of person, i was trying to include the uses of guns. Target practice, killing animal, killing people and the one i missed intimidation...

I did not say it inevitably leads to however... i was simply pointing out the uses of guns. Killing people is one of the uses of some weapons whether you like it or not...

It's a completely valid comparison. Unless, of course, your problem is not with people dying but with pushing a specific agenda. You see, to me, the important thing is reducing the overall amount of people who die. Cars kill more people. Hence, cars are a bigger problem. Your reasoning is inconsequential.

Or could it be that your the one pushing the agenda and thats how you strech some invalid comparisons out to make your point

Cars are nessecary for our economy, for our personal entertainment and are used far more than guns. They also give people alot more freedom of movement...