The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[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.

[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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

Registeration laws vary across states. And that is why I'm against registration.

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

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

CR

[||Lz3||]

you have to pass a background check.

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

[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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

Bah. An annoying strawman argument. Yes, maniacs will always get a hold of weapons, no matter the laws.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

bollox absolute bollox

I've figured it out. Tribesy posts from an alternate dimension where the UK won that nasty little colonial insurrection. It's also why posts by colonials make no sense to him...

[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 ?

[KukriKhan]

I've figured it out. Tribesy posts from an alternate dimension where the UK won that nasty little colonial insurrection. It's also why posts by colonials make no sense to him...

An impressive theory. But I think it's simpler that that: he just tracks Crazed Rabbit around, so he can fill out his bollox dance card.

[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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is the statement at hand:

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.

ooooooh, stop drop and roll Tribesman because you just got BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNED!

[LittleGrizzly]

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

Perhaps someone needs to read thier own advice... whilst i don't paticularly like Tribesman style all the time can you show me where in this thread your style has been any better...

In one of your first posts you insulted all those in previous gun debates... which considering we had on recently and i was fairly heavily involved on the anti side was pretty much an insult directly against me and possibly others...

You then make a sarcastic comment... and then say to stay classy... I couldn't tell if the irony there was intentional or not...

And then finally the most mature comment out of the lot, just piggy back someone else's argument and insult the person thier arguing against...

For someone who has criticisms of others debating style i would suggest looking at your own somewhat...

Zing! you got burned! PWNED!

Ok i forgive you for the last one... was kinda fun


Hmm, i need something on topic to go here...


Ohh i would also like to dispel the myth about being able to get illegal guns... both me and Husar would be clueless.... so keeping guns illegal successfully stops me and Husar arming up and causing all kinds of chaos... so count yourself lucky

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

Perhaps someone needs to read thier own advice... whilst i don't paticularly like Tribesman style all the time can you show me where in this thread your style has been any better...

In one of your first posts you insulted all those in previous gun debates... which considering we had on recently and i was fairly heavily involved on the anti side was pretty much an insult directly against me and possibly others...

You then make a sarcastic comment... and then say to stay classy... I couldn't tell if the irony there was intentional or not...

And then finally the most mature comment out of the lot, just piggy back someone else's argument and insult the person thier arguing against...

For someone who has criticisms of others debating style i would suggest looking at your own somewhat...

Zing! you got burned! PWNED!

Ok i forgive you for the last one... was kinda fun


Hmm, i need something on topic to go here...


Ohh i would also like to dispel the myth about being able to get illegal guns... both me and Husar would be clueless.... so keeping guns illegal successfully stops me and Husar arming up and causing all kinds of chaos... so count yourself lucky

I walked into this argument not being serious. If you looked at the last gun control thread, I was involved heavily and learned a lot from both sides. i remarked that the pro gun people convinced me and had more solid arguments which caused me to lean more pro gun. I was very serious and gave thought out arguments. This thread has been nothing so far but history blunders, insults and half thought out arguments, nothing at all like the last thread.

So yes, the irony is intentional. And yes, my last post was fun.

If you want me to be serious how is this:

Is the fact that you and Husar are inept supposed to be applied to everyone and should convince me to expect that no one could get illegal guns? I think the fact that there is a huge market for illegal guns means more people then you think are buying these guns.

See what I did there. I made an argument and inserted an insulting word above a 6th graders vocabulary toward you, (which means its ok, while insults that are not as bad but more obvious and blunt are given infraction points) does this mean I have officially perfected the backroom style of rhetoric?

[Megas Methuselah]

Ohh i would also like to dispel the myth about being able to get illegal guns... both me and Husar would be clueless.... so keeping guns illegal successfully stops me and Husar arming up and causing all kinds of chaos... so count yourself lucky

I believe there are 3 illegal, unregistered hunting rifles within my immediate family...

[Banquo's Ghost]

I would appreciate everyone getting back to topic, or returning under their bridge.

[Megas Methuselah]

Sorry, I didn't bother reading the thread, like most people here often do.

[Tribesman]

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

Correct , your nation threw off the "tyranny" not by having citizens with guns but by having an ally that was an even more powerful military than the worlds "greatest military power" .
So since the conflict was a case of a big military power getting beaten by a bigger military superpower the citizens with guns were an irrelevant sideshow .

[King Henry V]

Registeration laws vary across states. And that is why I'm against registration.



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

CR

Rightyho.

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.

All right, I suppose we should just agree to disagree. I fear mob rule more than I fear tyranny, and a heavily-armed populace certainly contributes more to that threat more than it impedes totalitarianism.

[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?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

[QUOTE=PowerWizard;2249377]This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument.

Well, PowerWizard, the mere assumption that government WON'T become oppressive is often what gives bad people the opportunity to make it oppressive. We need to make sure that government knows that we won't take crap lying down.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Actually, wanna know the reason that Japan never invaded continental U.S.? They're like, "Everybody has GUNS in this country!!!"

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

I've thought of this many times, and agree with you. If the mayor of my town declared marshall law and started rounding up and assassinating political enemies, employing the National Guard, the county SWAT team, and goodness knows whatever else, I think I'd lose.

But that's no reason to throw everything out the window. I might lose, but it would sure make the gov't think twice if they considered the resistance they might get for doing... whatever.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

When has this happened? Besides, do you think that people need "assault weapons" to do serious damage? The naievete of this idea is shocking. I know a great way to kill off a whole room full of people for under $10, no illegal hardware required.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

Because we comprehend that this is a cheap attempt at devaluing the Constitution. If that clause is "outdated," then why wouldn't the rest be outdated? Hey guess what, I think that the 1st Ammendment is outdated now. Only people who agree with me should be able to open their mouths.



If you strip away the value of the Constitution like that, then you basically say that whatever fad of the moment that we come up with should be law. And by doing that, the whole concept of the Republic is undermined; it becomes a rule of the mob.

[Ironside]

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

Psh, to get a dictorship in the US the "easy" way is to play on the enemy within card. How many soldiers would have opened fire on a bunch of people they were told were communists (or whatever this new enemy would be) after those communists had caused a 9/11? How many would do it after the second attack?

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

CR

I think I asked in the last thread, but how is this backround check done? Accessing some public record or some larger private organisations?
But the real question is, could an evil goverment gather decent information about gun ownership by some key intel gathering and cross-records?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Correct , your nation threw off the "tyranny" not by having citizens with guns but by having an ally that was an even more powerful military than the worlds "greatest military power" .
So since the conflict was a case of a big military power getting beaten by a bigger military superpower the citizens with guns were an irrelevant sideshow .

And you still haven't gotten over that loss, apparently, if you are unwilling to look at the entirety of the conflict with anything approaching objectivity. I don't know why I'm surprised by this though. Maybe I'll take a page from your book.


absolute bollox!

[LittleGrizzly]

Is the fact that you and Husar are inept supposed to be applied to everyone and should convince me to expect that no one could get illegal guns? I think the fact that there is a huge market for illegal guns means more people then you think are buying these guns.

Firstly being inept has nothing to do with it... it would just be fairly difficult for me here... ask me for most other illegal things, drugs, pirated stuff... i think i could get most of it with at least a few calls... its just not that easy to get guns round here....

Secondly i wasn't saying nobody can get guns... it was CR's Yes, maniacs will always get a hold of weapons, no matter the laws. that i was kind of aiming it at... although he wasn't clear whether he meant guns or any kind of weapon...

Im just saying not everybody can get illegal guns... im sure there are plenty of other people like me and Husar that would struggle to get a gun...

See what I did there. I made an argument and inserted an insulting word above a 6th graders vocabulary toward you, (which means its ok, while insults that are not as bad but more obvious and blunt are given infraction points) does this mean I have officially perfected the backroom style of rhetoric?

Yes, welcome to the club... although i wouldn't really call it that insulting, if, from your point of view getting an illegal gun is simple then you would think someone who can't do that thing inept, so i put it down to your point of view rather than a reflection of how .... ept ? I am...

returning under their bridge.

*returns*

BTW im fairly sure France did make a fairly big contribution... not that i can't say it still cuts to the core... that and 1066...

[Tribesman]

And you still haven't gotten over that loss

Wow , you don't only need a history lesson you need a geography lesson too

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't dispute that at all. But Tribesy wants to throw out the first half of the war to try and make political hay. And now he'll just post more laughing smilies...

EDIT: LOL just beaten

[Ariovistus Maximus]

When were illegal guns hard to get?

Keep in mind that there's not really a market for illegal guns in the US b/c atm they are still legal.

I'll be impressed with the idea that gun bans are safe when the goverment has a 90% illegal drug interception record.

But considering that your average high schooler can get meth, I don't think guns are hard to get if you really want them.

And, as I said before, I could kill a whole room of people for under $10 if I was some psychopath bent on mass murder.

Consider the components:

1. A beer bottle; THOSE sure aren't gonna become illegal.

2. A few ounces of gasoline. That's not gonna be illegal either.

3. Some detergents or other compounds to create a more volotile chemical reaction.

4. A match or two and some tape.

Fill the bottle with gas + detergent etc., tape the matches to the side and light 'em, pitch the whole thing into a house, and you've just blown up a room with a molotov cocktail.

And I'm not disclosing hard-to-get information here; you can find a zillion great ways to make efficient and effective molotovs on good ol' wikipedia.

Interestingly enough, a guy was arrested during the Republican Nat'l Convention with some molotovs... but you sure didn't hear it in the news, did you? Nope, because only GUNS can kill people! Please.

Ban the guns and knife killings will go on the rise!

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

I think it'd be easy to do it in the U.S. You may perhaps recall that civil war...?

And even today there are probably plenty of southerners who would believe anything bad they heard about me because I'm from the north! And vice versa of course.

And when it all comes down to it, the soldier will do what his officer tells him to.

And do you think the government will be like, "Go kill these Americans because they don't agree with us..."

No, the government will come up with some excuse to tell the troops that the target is a bunch of evil anarchists bent on government overthrow! We've seen it already! The CIA has branded conservatives as potential terrorists in one of their studies!

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Wow , you don't only need a history lesson you need a geography lesson too

Tribesman, instead of engaging in pointless argumentum ad hominem* and insulting your opponent by saying he needs lessons, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just give him the lesson he needs?

If you really have evidence, your point will be proven better by giving the evidence, rather than weighing down the discussion with insults.

* is a debating tactic, really a logical fallacy, in which one debater (1), rather than answering his opponent's argument, simply insults the debater (2) personally (get an education, you're a retard, etc.) instead of addressing his (2) arguments. By doing this, he (1) hopes to devalue his opponent's (2) argument by calling his (2) intelligence into question.

In short, it proves nothing and is certainly no credit to your viewpoint.

I don't mean to be preachy; it's just that I've encountered a LOT of this in debates. I've talked to so many guys who can't answer my argument, so they just dismiss me as stupid because they don't know what to say.

So Tribesman you can get much farther simply by giving your evidence.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Tribesman, instead of engaging in pointless argumentum ad hominem* and insulting your opponent by saying he needs lessons, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just give him the lesson he needs?

If you really have evidence, your point will be proven better by giving the evidence, rather than weighing down the discussion with insults.

* is a debating tactic, really a logical fallacy, in which one debater (1), rather than answering his opponent's argument, simply insults the debater (2) personally (get an education, you're a retard, etc.) instead of addressing his (2) arguments. By doing this, he (1) hopes to devalue his opponent's (2) argument by calling his (2) intelligence into question.

In short, it proves nothing and is certainly no credit to your viewpoint.

I don't mean to be preachy; it's just that I've encountered a LOT of this in debates. I've talked to so many guys who can't answer my argument, so they just dismiss me as stupid because they don't know what to say.

So Tribesman you can get much farther simply by giving your evidence.

We try to tell him that all the time, it has absolutely zero effect. There are many theories as to why.

[LittleGrizzly]

No, the government will come up with some excuse to tell the troops that the target is a bunch of evil anarchists bent on government overthrow! We've seen it already! The CIA has branded conservatives as potential terrorists in one of their studies!

Wasn't it more like they said there was a potential threat from extremist conservative groups ?

Which holds fairly true if you look at the other thread in the backroom, abortion doctor killing.

I agree with what you say though... there are plenty of ways to make americans suddenly seem less american... or like americans that don't deserve to live anyway...

Depending on which angle the goverment was coming from you could use things to rile people up like, abortion, guns (the other side wants to take yours) for example would americans have been happy for american citizens to be taken up to guantanamo bay prior to 9/11 ? probably not, after 9/11 there was a lot more support for it...

Ban the guns and knife killings will go on the rise!

If someone is to try and kill me i would rather they had a knife or some home made bomb rather than a half decent gun. Unless this guy is some knife combat expert, or very good at handling home made bombs (as in accuracy rather than making them) he is going to have a far easier time killing me with a half decent gun...


Edit
When were illegal guns hard to get?
Keep in mind that there's not really a market for illegal guns in the US b/c atm they are still legal.

Yeah you can't really get an accurate picture in America as guns are mostly legal, In Britian its a little different as (to the best of my knowledge) shotguns are legal for those who have a good reason for having one (farmers for example) as i live in Britian, it was from the perspective of someone getting an illegal gun in Britian...