The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Aren't guns supposed to be registered? So if a ban did come about, the state would have a pretty good idea who owns what. And besides, consciences, or even drugs, are much easier to hide than weapons.

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

However, the more I've been thinking about this the more I've come to see the argument of gun-ownership as a defence against tyranny as a bit of a non-issue. Of course, it would be an obstacle for an unscrupulous government, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

[King Henry V]

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

If the conditions are right for a totalitarian government to be installed, I doubt an armed populace would have a great impact, as it would be disarmed from the start. Might as well get rid of the rather unhealthy right, in my opinion, that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to own highly lethal weapons and with all the often unhappy consequences that entails.

[If any of you are wondering what my precise opinions are on gun control in general, I personally believe that people should be allowed to have small handguns, however, there must be a rigourous selection process partly to filter as many nutters as possible and partly to make it more difficult to obtain one. However, anything above handguns (and hunting rifles obviously) makes me believe that the owner has something else in mind other than merely protecting himself and his family.]

[Beskar]

Then you can start bans on knives after guns. Like in Britain. :nod:

[King Henry V]

Then you can start bans on knives after guns. Like in Britain. :nod:

That is taking it too far. What can they ban after that, forks?

Though of course the only proper method of self-defense is the carrying of sword-sticks. No ruffian bent on despoiling one of one's valuables would ever dream of using something so stylish.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

Indeed. But the only obstacle to totalitarianism is the will of the people.

"Guns do not kill people, people kill people" is an old, and valid refrain. Equally, guns do not defend liberty.

There are many ways of achieving freedom from tyranny. The United States are proud of the role their armed militia played in ridding themselves of the British Empire. India is proud of achieving the same result through strikes, marches and dignified refusal.

These freedoms are derived, no matter the tool employed, by the desire of a people to be free.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After reading (i.e. speed skimming) this entire thread, I have come to a few conclusions:

1. The people most advocating for no more guns are ones with the least amount of U.S. History knowledge.
2. From what I understood from a couple posts, we should not have guns and/or should have lots of guns because there may and/or may not be pink elephants everywhere.
3. ...

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore and comments from both sides made me very disappointed overall.

-ACIN

[Tribesman]

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

[LittleGrizzly]

Would it happen to be the "most free and safe place in the UK" because the people there can legally own firearms to defend themselves from criminals who would wield firearms anyhow, thus giving ordinary citizens a chance and crime a major deterrent?

So illegal guns do not defend freedom as well as legal ones....?

The goverment simply need to make guns illegal and thier freedom keeping properties become useless then... it thier freedom keeping properties are reduced to nothing so easily can thier freedom keeping properties be said to exsist at all...

It was just a joke anyway...

Safety eh? I think Tony Martins farm was raided loads of times... despite being an aggressive shotgun wielding umm... person

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And that always works. No maniac will ever get access to a gun...

A maniac will acquire a firearm whether it is legal or not, regardless of registry laws (and if he has to pass a background check, and passes it, he will also be able to register his firearm, so your point has no effect - unless you propose banning all firearms completely).

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

This is your answer:

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

If the conditions are right for a totalitarian government to be installed, I doubt an armed populace would have a great impact, as it would be disarmed from the start. Might as well get rid of the rather unhealthy right, in my opinion, that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to own highly lethal weapons and with all the often unhappy consequences that entails.

It entails some unhappy consequences, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. An armed populace would have an impact, however major or slight, and would therefore be a welcome obstacle to a totalitarian government. Again, it is better to give a totalitarian government a series of slight obstacles than none at all.

[PowerWizard]

After reading (i.e. speed skimming) this entire thread, I have come to a few conclusions:

1. The people most advocating for no more guns are ones with the least amount of U.S. History knowledge.
2. From what I understood from a couple posts, we should not have guns and/or should have lots of guns because there may and/or may not be pink elephants everywhere.
3. ...

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore and comments from both sides made me very disappointed overall.

-ACIN

You just proved that you didn't care enough to read through the posts and try to understand the different views.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

You just proved that you didn't care enough to read through the posts and try to understand the different views.

@Tribesman: That just totally won me over to your side. Stay classy.

@PowerWizard: EDIT: Oops that was hore.

EDIT 2: I think MRD said it best about you already.

I got this far on the first page and saw this and now I don't want to continue in the thread because you have completely discredited yourself by writing, hands down, one of the stoopidest things ever written on this forum. congratulations.

-ACIN

[Tribesman]

I've figured it out. Tribesy posts from an alternate dimension where the UK won that nasty little colonial insurrection.

errrrr.......bollox , no more needs to be said as you obviously are clueless about history
Though for those with functioning brains a simple question....If Britain was the greatest military power in the world then who the hell was the military superpower that comprehensively defeated them ?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

errrrr.......bollox , no more needs to be said as you obviously are clueless about history
Though for those with functioning brains a simple question....If Britain was the greatest military power in the world then who the hell was the military superpower that comprehensively defeated them ?

This is the statement at hand:

Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

If it is "absolute bollox" then it's all wrong yes?

Do you deny that America ("this nation") originated from a revolution against another nation? And that part of that revolution involved citizens with guns?

Or are you stuck on a little hyperbole, even though at the time the UK's military might was still significant, although it wasn't say, a sole superpower? I know you can't form an argument that isn't just smilies, but you might come off as actually credible if you spelled something out once in a while.

[Strike For The South]

errrrr.......bollox , no more needs to be said as you obviously are clueless about history
Though for those with functioning brains a simple question....If Britain was the greatest military power in the world then who the hell was the military superpower that comprehensively defeated them ?

France? Do I get a cookie?