• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Gun right/control poll


  • Please log in to reply
263 replies to this topic

Poll: Forum members' firearm views wanted for USA (87 member(s) have cast votes)

Regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Heller vs Wash DC.

  1. I agree, the 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right (53 votes [60.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.92%

  2. Disagree, provides for only a collective right. (2 votes [2.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.30%

  3. Disagree, but believe individual jurisdictions may allow personal firearm ownership (3 votes [3.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.45%

  4. Gun ownership should be banned. (29 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Do you believe one is personally responsible for his own and his family's protection from criminal elements?

  1. Yes (61 votes [70.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.11%

  2. No (26 votes [29.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.89%

Regarding gun ownership...

  1. Individuals should be allowed guns for use in the home. (12 votes [13.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.79%

  2. Guns should be allowed for use inside the home and for concealed carry. (44 votes [50.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.57%

  3. Guns should be banned (31 votes [35.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.63%

Do you believe gun control laws make for safer communities?

  1. Yes (35 votes [40.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.23%

  2. No (52 votes [59.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.77%

Do you feel that communities with more liberal guns laws are safer communities because of these laws?

  1. Yes (42 votes [48.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.28%

  2. No (45 votes [51.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.72%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#151 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 23 November 2008 - 05:53 PM

Could you justify it in self-defense? Shooting someone in the back as they run away is immoral IMO and illegal.


Not always. For instance, there was a case here in Dallas back in the 80s, long before concealed carry. A man walked up to a lady at a shopping mall and killed her on the sidewalk in front or witnesses. He then walked to his car and proceeded to drive away. A bystander sitting in his car nearby who witnessed the murder, happened to have a Thompson Contender single shot target pistol (illegally) in the front seat of his car. He fired a round through the perpetrator's car door killing him. The grand jury ended up no billing him and he was considered a hero. The police said he was justified because at the time as far as anybody knew the perpetrator could be planning to drive to another location and kill someone else. Part of the reasoning to no bill him was that his gun was a single shot target piston, and he claimed to be either going to, or coming from (I can't remember now) a shooting range.


Yes that is different. The police I believe are also authorized to use deadly force to stop a fleeing perp who is known to have committed a crime of that nature.

#152 Zenob

  • Guest, F@H
  • 328 posts
  • 1

Posted 23 November 2008 - 08:34 PM

Luv, how come religious people are almost always for the death penalty?



Genesis 9:6 KJV

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


Yea, yea and capital punishment is also recomomended for:
You want to kill people for all of those things too?

And if you make a mistake and kill the wrong person? God's OK with that, or what?


If you are basing any of your decisions on the writings of 2000 year old bronze age primitives then you've already screwed up.

#153 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:06 PM

Luv, how come religious people are almost always for the death penalty?



Genesis 9:6 KJV

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


Yea, yea and capital punishment is also recomomended for:
You want to kill people for all of those things too?

And if you make a mistake and kill the wrong person? God's OK with that, or what?


If you are basing any of your decisions on the writings of 2000 year old bronze age primitives then you've already screwed up.


Hmm. Seems like a logical fallacy that an older civilization couldn't possibly have superior moral and ethical standards than a more recent civilization. Primitives? Seems circular to me. The primatives' civilization is inferior because they are primitive. Ethics goes hand in hand with technological progress? Clearly a fallacy. I think you'd better rethink your entire post.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#154 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 24 November 2008 - 09:55 PM

Luv, how come religious people are almost always for the death penalty?



Genesis 9:6 KJV

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


Yea, yea and capital punishment is also recomomended for:
You want to kill people for all of those things too?

And if you make a mistake and kill the wrong person? God's OK with that, or what?


If you are basing any of your decisions on the writings of 2000 year old bronze age primitives then you've already screwed up.


Hmm. Seems like a logical fallacy that an older civilization couldn't possibly have superior moral and ethical standards than a more recent civilization. Primitives? Seems circular to me. The primatives' civilization is inferior because they are primitive. Ethics goes hand in hand with technological progress? Clearly a fallacy. I think you'd better rethink your entire post.


i see this discussion has descended into "we know it's right because the bible says so". I advise those who happen to be using logic to give up. It's a hopeless cause because the bible says you're wrong.

Edited by elrond, 24 November 2008 - 09:56 PM.


#155 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:26 PM

Luv, how come religious people are almost always for the death penalty?



Genesis 9:6 KJV

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


Yea, yea and capital punishment is also recomomended for:
You want to kill people for all of those things too?

And if you make a mistake and kill the wrong person? God's OK with that, or what?


If you are basing any of your decisions on the writings of 2000 year old bronze age primitives then you've already screwed up.


Hmm. Seems like a logical fallacy that an older civilization couldn't possibly have superior moral and ethical standards than a more recent civilization. Primitives? Seems circular to me. The primatives' civilization is inferior because they are primitive. Ethics goes hand in hand with technological progress? Clearly a fallacy. I think you'd better rethink your entire post.


i see this discussion has descended into "we know it's right because the bible says so". I advise those who happen to be using logic to give up. It's a hopeless cause because the bible says you're wrong.


Now you resort to another classic fallacious argument! I made no comment at all about the bible. I commented about your fallacious logic. Feel free to address *my* comments.

#156 attis

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Earth

Posted 24 November 2008 - 11:16 PM

I don't own guns, but I don't fear them either. Then again, I prefer to avoid barbarians when possible, otherwise a good stiff jab of my fingers in their eyes should teach them a lesson (or any other quick blows to vulnerable spots) for being savages. *Shrugs*

#157 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 24 November 2008 - 11:37 PM

I made no comment at all about the bible. I commented about your fallacious logic.


you said all that in regards to bible references you quoted which say things like you should be put to death if you work on sunday. I suggest being more clear in the future if you don't want people to be confused.

Also you weren't responding to my " fallacious logic. You might wish to read who the author of the post above yours is.

#158 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 24 November 2008 - 11:50 PM

Feel free to address *my* comments.


Now, if you wish me to address your comments in vacuum, instead of the context in which they were presented very well.

Seems like a logical fallacy that an older civilization couldn't possibly have superior moral and ethical standards than a more recent civilization. Primitives? Seems circular to me. The primatives' civilization is inferior because they are primitive. Ethics goes hand in hand with technological progress? Clearly a fallacy. I think you'd better rethink your entire post.


on what basis could a primitive superstitious civilization possibly form a superior ethical code when we know that every primitive civilization based their ethics on what an imaginary man in the sky told them, or what the earth mother said, or animal spirits, or other such nonsense generated by those schizophrenic enough among them to hear it (they didn't have anti-psychotic medications in those days you know).?

Or are you contending that that man in the sky is real and did convey to them the ideal ethical code and we should put people to death who work on sunday not to mention those like myself who blaspheme by denying his very existence? Or did some other random group of primitives happen to get it right? Which one was it?

Edited by elrond, 25 November 2008 - 01:52 AM.


#159 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 25 November 2008 - 01:00 AM

Hmm. Seems like a logical fallacy that an older civilization couldn't possibly have superior moral and ethical standards than a more recent civilization. Primitives? Seems circular to me. The primatives' civilization is inferior because they are primitive. Ethics goes hand in hand with technological progress? Clearly a fallacy. I think you'd better rethink your entire post.


So there is no such thing as moral progress? Relativism, ugh. That's a good way to make sure there never is any.

#160 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 25 November 2008 - 11:12 PM

Now, if you wish me to address your comments in vacuum, instead of the context in which they were presented very well.


Sorry. You can't make a valid argument using logical fallacy, regardless of a vacuum, no vacuum, semi-vacuum or partial vacuum. It's that simple, and any amount of posting, *other* than addressing the fallacy is a waste of breath at this point.


on what basis could a primitive superstitious civilization possibly form a superior ethical code when we know that every primitive civilization based their ethics on what an imaginary man in the sky told them, or what the earth mother said, or animal spirits, or other such nonsense generated by those schizophrenic enough among them to hear it (they didn't have anti-psychotic medications in those days you know).?


I don't buy your postulate. Try again.

Or are you contending that that man in the sky is real and did convey to them the ideal ethical code and we should put people to death who work on sunday not to mention those like myself who blaspheme by denying his very existence? Or did some other random group of primitives happen to get it right? Which one was it?


Sorry, I feel no need to address your straw man, other than to call it for what it is. Try again.

#161 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 26 November 2008 - 02:37 AM

Lol, it's doesn't matter whether or not it's OK to kill homosexuals or witches or non-virgins, that's irrelevant; but using a logical fallacy, now, that's what's important here.

#162 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 26 November 2008 - 02:14 PM

You can't make a valid argument using logical fallacy, regardless of a vacuum, no vacuum, semi-vacuum or partial vacuum. It's that simple, and any amount of posting, *other* than addressing the fallacy is a waste of breath at this point.


as I've already noted it was not my argument. However as I'll point out once more, and perhaps a little more clearly, the "logical fallacy" you are pointing out is this

If you are basing any of your decisions on the writings of 2000 year old bronze age primitives then you've already screwed up.


which is more of an offhand comment than an argument, and in the real world is valid at that.

You responded with the following

Seems like a logical fallacy that an older civilization couldn't possibly have superior moral and ethical standards than a more recent civilization


It was never stated that it was impossible that an older civilization didn't have superior moral and ethical standards. So you're logical fallacy never existed in the first place.

However, moving on, it also isn't impossible that all the oxygen molecules in the room you're in, will, through random molecular motion, all end up in one corner of the ceiling resulting in you suffocating. It still isn't going to happen. Or in the case of these older primitive civilizations, did not happen based on all the evidence we have.

This is the last I'll say on this subject. Semantic arguments are stupid and pointless.

Edited by elrond, 26 November 2008 - 02:15 PM.


#163 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 27 November 2008 - 03:15 AM

Guns on campus poll. 25,000 votes, interesting sentiment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27706201/

#164 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -3
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 27 November 2008 - 12:09 PM

The reinstitution of the so-called assault rifle ban is the most likely bill to come up for a vote.

It amazes me that you are actually allowed to own an assault rifle. Those things are designed for battlefield scenarios. What on earth would a civilian need such a weapon for? Unless they are afraid a civil war or something is coming. Paranoid people with assault weapons. Not a good combo IMO.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Assault_rifle


militias use them

www.awrm.org

might be handy in event of martial law or FEMA operatives coming to take you and your family away to what amounts to effectively a death camp in the event of biological or nuclear retaliation from Iran

when we attack them for peacefully developing nuclear energy

#165 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 27 November 2008 - 03:41 PM

The reinstitution of the so-called assault rifle ban is the most likely bill to come up for a vote.

It amazes me that you are actually allowed to own an assault rifle. Those things are designed for battlefield scenarios. What on earth would a civilian need such a weapon for? Unless they are afraid a civil war or something is coming. Paranoid people with assault weapons. Not a good combo IMO.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Assault_rifle


militias use them

www.awrm.org

might be handy in event of martial law or FEMA operatives coming to take you and your family away to what amounts to effectively a death camp in the event of biological or nuclear retaliation from Iran

when we attack them for peacefully developing nuclear energy


Or when they detonate a nuke off the coast of Tel Aviv. Of course, that's such a remote possibility considering Iran's level-headed leadership and the friendliness they bestow to Israel.

#166 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -3
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 30 November 2008 - 04:33 AM

The reinstitution of the so-called assault rifle ban is the most likely bill to come up for a vote.

It amazes me that you are actually allowed to own an assault rifle. Those things are designed for battlefield scenarios. What on earth would a civilian need such a weapon for? Unless they are afraid a civil war or something is coming. Paranoid people with assault weapons. Not a good combo IMO.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Assault_rifle


militias use them

www.awrm.org

might be handy in event of martial law or FEMA operatives coming to take you and your family away to what amounts to effectively a death camp in the event of biological or nuclear retaliation from Iran

when we attack them for peacefully developing nuclear energy


Or when they detonate a nuke off the coast of Tel Aviv. Of course, that's such a remote possibility considering Iran's level-headed leadership and the friendliness they bestow to Israel.


US/UK/Israeli special forced have been caught invading Iran
Iran has complied with nuclear inspections
They openly declare that they do not intend to use nukes on Israel or even develope them

Israel, however, does have nuclear weapons and intends to use them preemptively on Iran without evidence of a nuclear weapons program!

Israeli intelligence is a bunch of thugs, have you seen them go around breaking arms of palestinian boys?

Edited by abolitionist, 30 November 2008 - 04:35 AM.


#167 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 30 November 2008 - 05:52 AM

Guns on campus poll. 25,000 votes, interesting sentiment.


If they had voted the other way, should they be able to take our guns away?

I don't believe our rights should be subject to the tyranny of the majority.

#168 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 30 November 2008 - 06:20 AM

Guns on campus poll. 25,000 votes, interesting sentiment.


If they had voted the other way, should they be able to take our guns away?

I don't believe our rights should be subject to the tyranny of the majority.


Exactly. The poll was moot, as our 2nd Amendment right says we have a right to bear arms. The point of my posting the link was to show a strong majority supports that right in the context of a college campus.

#169 Korimyr the Rat

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • -1

Posted 03 December 2008 - 06:49 AM

Regardless of any legal issues which are applicable only within the US, the fundamental difference between a citizen and a subject is that a citizen has the prerogative to go armed if he so chooses. Disarmament is the first step in enslavement, and the means by which any other unacceptable laws may be forced down the throats of the "citizens".

Because a free citizen is a member of society and has the moral obligation to protect himself, his family, and his community, any weapons he chooses to carry are an extension of the lawful defense of society; not only should this practice be permitted, it should be encouraged and supported by any State that considers itself part of the society to which it belongs.

#170 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 03 December 2008 - 07:43 AM

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door . Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers . At
least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way . With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it . In the darkness, you make out two shadows .

One holds something that looks like a crowbar . When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire . The blast knocks both
thugs to the floor . One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside . As you pick up the telephone to call
police, you know you're in trouble .

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless . Yours was never registered . Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died . They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm . When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter .

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask . "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing . "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven . "

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper . Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you
shot are represented as choirboys . Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them . Buried deep down in the article,
authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times . But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't
Deserve to Die . " The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters . As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media .. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero ..

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several
times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects . After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time . The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars ..

A few months later, you go to trial . The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted . When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you . Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man . It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges . The judge sentences you to life in prison .

This case really happened ..

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second . In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now
serving a life term . How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903 . This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license . The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns .

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns . Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987 . Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw . When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead .

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions . (The seizure of all privately owned
handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle . )

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school
.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals . Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up
law-abiding gun owners . Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns . The
Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens .

During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism . Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun .. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released .

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands . "

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no
fear of the consequences . Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars .

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities . Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law . The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply . Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed . Kinda like cars . Sound familiar?



" . . it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds . . "

--Samuel Adams

#171 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 06 December 2008 - 04:22 PM

I'll let you use two swords if you let me use my Remington 870. Deal?


I was considering the Remington 870, but decided on the Mossberg 590 instead. What made you choose the 870?

#172 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 06 December 2008 - 04:37 PM

I'll let you use two swords if you let me use my Remington 870. Deal?


I was considering the Remington 870, but decided on the Mossberg 590 instead. What made you choose the 870?


I juts got a good deal on one. I inherited it from an uncle. : )

#173 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 December 2008 - 01:14 AM

Regardless of any legal issues which are applicable only within the US, the fundamental difference between a citizen and a subject is that a citizen has the prerogative to go armed if he so chooses. Disarmament is the first step in enslavement, and the means by which any other unacceptable laws may be forced down the throats of the "citizens".

Because a free citizen is a member of society and has the moral obligation to protect himself, his family, and his community, any weapons he chooses to carry are an extension of the lawful defense of society; not only should this practice be permitted, it should be encouraged and supported by any State that considers itself part of the society to which it belongs.

I can see your point Korimyr, but against the forces of the state, a jive little handgun isn't going to cut it. If we really want to stand up to the state, aren't we going to need some rather larger weapons? RPGs? SAMs? You know, the good stuff.

#174 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 07 December 2008 - 01:21 AM

Regardless of any legal issues which are applicable only within the US, the fundamental difference between a citizen and a subject is that a citizen has the prerogative to go armed if he so chooses. Disarmament is the first step in enslavement, and the means by which any other unacceptable laws may be forced down the throats of the "citizens".

Because a free citizen is a member of society and has the moral obligation to protect himself, his family, and his community, any weapons he chooses to carry are an extension of the lawful defense of society; not only should this practice be permitted, it should be encouraged and supported by any State that considers itself part of the society to which it belongs.

I can see your point Korimyr, but against the forces of the state, a jive little handgun isn't going to cut it. If we really want to stand up to the state, aren't we going to need some rather larger weapons? RPGs? SAMs? You know, the good stuff.


The Swiss think it sufficient to issue every man a so-called "assault rifle." I'd be willing to stop there.

#175 Korimyr the Rat

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • -1

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:49 AM

I can see your point Korimyr, but against the forces of the state, a jive little handgun isn't going to cut it. If we really want to stand up to the state, aren't we going to need some rather larger weapons? RPGs? SAMs? You know, the good stuff.


You know, during World War 2, we used to air drop crates full of "jive little handguns" to the French resistance. Cheap, nasty little things made out of sheet metal, designed to fire a single round at close range. Turns out occupying forces carry all sorts of interesting weapons, and they just can't shoot everyone who gets close enough to drop a round into their head or chest. Goes double when the "occupying force" is made up of one's own countrymen, whose loyalties may lie more with their own people than with their orders.

In any case, I think you mistake my point. I do not need weapons with which to oppose the State-- I own and carry weapons because I am the State. My weapons are both an extension of the State's power, and a guarantee that the State's interests cannot be cleanly separated from my own.

#176 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 07 December 2008 - 05:09 AM

I can see your point Korimyr, but against the forces of the state, a jive little handgun isn't going to cut it. If we really want to stand up to the state, aren't we going to need some rather larger weapons? RPGs? SAMs? You know, the good stuff.


You know, during World War 2, we used to air drop crates full of "jive little handguns" to the French resistance. Cheap, nasty little things made out of sheet metal, designed to fire a single round at close range. Turns out occupying forces carry all sorts of interesting weapons, and they just can't shoot everyone who gets close enough to drop a round into their head or chest. Goes double when the "occupying force" is made up of one's own countrymen, whose loyalties may lie more with their own people than with their orders.

In any case, I think you mistake my point. I do not need weapons with which to oppose the State-- I own and carry weapons because I am the State. My weapons are both an extension of the State's power, and a guarantee that the State's interests cannot be cleanly separated from my own.


I don't think Niner doesn't misunderstands your point. He's making fun of you and your point. You're just another "gun nut" to him.

It's interesting that parts of the left mirror those of the right, intolerance being one thing in common. There's a certain symmetry to American politics. Fortunately, our country has a decent set of checks and balances, together with a political process that tends to damp extreme views, absorbing them.

Interesting viewpoint regarding you and the state. We ought to have another thread for that.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 07 December 2008 - 05:16 AM.


#177 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 December 2008 - 05:36 AM

In any case, I think you mistake my point. I do not need weapons with which to oppose the State-- I own and carry weapons because I am the State. My weapons are both an extension of the State's power, and a guarantee that the State's interests cannot be cleanly separated from my own.

OK, that's an interesting point, and it wasn't exactly what I had in mind. I still think that if the state wants to take you out, or take your family or your neighborhood or city out, that the balance of power is tilted so far in the direction of the US military that the usual weapons about which pro and anti gun forces argue the most (i.e. handguns) would be useless.

#178 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 December 2008 - 05:38 AM

I don't think Niner doesn't misunderstands your point. He's making fun of you and your point. You're just another "gun nut" to him.

As usual, you are wrong.

#179 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 December 2008 - 05:47 AM

The Swiss think it sufficient to issue every man a so-called "assault rifle." I'd be willing to stop there.

I'd be willing to start there. I'd like to see the handguns used in the vast majority of street crime be much harder to get. Long guns are in a very different category, IHMO. I would not be terribly concerned if they remained legal.

#180 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 07 December 2008 - 07:26 AM

The Swiss think it sufficient to issue every man a so-called "assault rifle." I'd be willing to stop there.

I'd be willing to start there. I'd like to see the handguns used in the vast majority of street crime be much harder to get. Long guns are in a very different category, IHMO. I would not be terribly concerned if they remained legal.


Limiting ourselves to rifles wouldn't cut down as many gun deaths as you think. It wouldn't do much to prevent 50% of all gun deaths, suicides. Unless one has unusually short arms, a rifle is a fine way to end it. I know a few that have. I doubt many gangbangers would be deterred, as they could still carry one in the car. Of course, gangbangers don't obey laws, (almost forgot!) so they'd carry handguns regardless. Hmm. I think the main effect of outlawing handguns would be to deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves when out and about. That's it.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 07 December 2008 - 07:28 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users