Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Or did he? You be the judge.... <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://conservativepost.com/army-vet-3-minutes-destroy-obama-gun-control-plan-2/">http://conservativepost.com/ar...-plan-2/</a> I am personally horrified by his assertion that his right to bear arms trumps the rights of the dead, but I am not surprised. However, the notion that soldiers are fighting first and foremost for our right to have guns everywhere makes me sick to my stomach. If this is what America values more than innocent lives, I want out.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well, I only needed to read the first line of the article to find out how far into Crazyville I was getting: >>If there has ever been a speech that everyone needs to see regarding Obama’s plan to take our guns. This is the one!<< I don't recall a "plan to take" your guns. I must've missed the Deluded Paranoid Daily Memo.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I don't subscribe to the extreme nonsense sometimes connected with the "right to bear arms" amendment. What I do believe is that it was put there as an insurance to insure that massive amounts of "innocent" lives are protected. Unfortunately, to some degree it has caused death of innocents. So has what people feel is their right to operate a motor vehicle, where is the call for that control? Where is the stomach turning reaction to the number of people killed, per day, by irresponsible drivers. Back about a month ago there was a rash of people killed by knives. It seemed like the weapon of the month there for a little while. No one advocated to knife control, in fact, no one seemed to react to it at all. I guess those "innocents" were less dead. Bottom line, there is over-reaction on both sides of the argument. I personally don't own a gun, never have, but, I sleep better at night knowing we can. I also believe that certain tyrants have held back in plans to take over our world because of it. I know that those that want everything from a little more control (like owning automatic weapons) which I heartily indorse. (There is absolutely no justification for possession of war ready weapons in everyday life.) Complete banning is living in a fools world. I don't want the only people that have guns be people that are willing to break the law to get one. They are the reason we need to have the right to arm ourselves.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Bottom line, there is over-reaction on both sides of the argument.<< No, there isn't. You cannot point to a leader in the Democratic party who has called for an all-out ban on guns, or who has made similar inflammatory statements. What you find is the President making reasonable calls for reasonable gun control, and, as this article shows, the other side freaks out and says President Blackula is comin' fer our guns! False equivalency.
Originally Posted By ecdc In the United States in 2012, police shot and killed 400 people. In Great Britain, it was one. Last year, police in Britain shot and killed precisely zero individuals. While these are not entirely analogous situations, I find it hard to believe that the United States somehow requires a 400:1 ratio.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Complete banning is living in a fools world. > So is thinking that anybody with any sort of political power is proposing anything even close to that. I think you're probably in the right place on this, Goofy. You obviously understand that military weapons shouldn't be for sale at Walmart and (I'm guessing) that no one has a legitimate need for 30 or 50-round clips to defend themselves and that those are only good for killing as many people possible in as short a time as possible. The trouble is when some common-sense restriction gets proposed, the NRA screams about "they're coming to take all our guns!" and too many people say "well, there are extremists on both sides..." and then nothing gets done.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Every gun owner should read the Declaration of Independence, especially this part: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Note that the right to bear arms is not identified as "unalienable" -- but LIFE is.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>No, there isn't. You cannot point to a leader in the Democratic party who has called for an all-out ban on guns, or who has made similar inflammatory statements.<<< >>>So is thinking that anybody with any sort of political power is proposing anything even close to that.<<< >>>Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.<<<
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost #1 I never once said that the democrats or anyone else, in power, has advocated getting rid of guns entirely. But, I don't see how you can deny that many of the masses feel that way. Please vary slightly from the fool quoted in the first post. I'm talking generalities. Some advocate that anything with a barrel should be allowed (NRA) others feel that nothing at all should be legal. Those are the extremes. Why do you think that I feel that the government advocates that? #2 That is correct. That would be an extreme. So you're saying that no one at all within our governing bodies, harbor such thoughts. Heck, there are plenty in this board alone that advocate for it. You are just highlighting my point. #3 And how does one insure that those changes can happen the ones running the place have all the guns and you have a rubber band and a toothpick to back up your demands. Do you honestly think that someone bent on controlling us will pay any attention to a vote? Voting only works if everyone is on level ground. Do I believe that there is anyone in our government that is going to make any move, which would only involve getting the military establishment behind them, no I don't think there is. However, it may be because of the level power that prevents it. In short, I don't care what ratio there is between England and us. They are a different culture and more inclined to go along with what the government wants them to do then the general population of the States. They are still supporting the Monarchy for gods sake. Spending millions a year for what exactly? The size of the population makes a big difference as well. This is our problem, not theirs. They do not compare in any way shape or form other then being human beings. My post was expressing how I feel about things not defending the wacko that was quoted, hence the reason why I didn't quote any of it. Don't twist my wording to fit a different agenda.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <#1 I never once said that the democrats or anyone else, in power, has advocated getting rid of guns entirely. But, I don't see how you can deny that many of the masses feel that way.> Actually, if you look at the polls, it's not all that many. Most are fine with private gun ownership, including me. I don't want one, but I don't mind if others have them. Most of the populace is either there, or more pro-gun. <Please vary slightly from the fool quoted in the first post. I'm talking generalities. Some advocate that anything with a barrel should be allowed (NRA) others feel that nothing at all should be legal. Those are the extremes. Why do you think that I feel that the government advocates that?> I didn't say you did. I'm pointing out that it's a phantom fear to have if there's no one in a position of power advocating for it. There are some people out there who would like to ban the eating of meat. They think it's wrong, it's destructive of the environment (which, actually it is), etc. etc. But if no one in any position of power is backing this, it's a phantom fear to think it could happen no matter how passionately some people would like to see it. <#2 That is correct. That would be an extreme. So you're saying that no one at all within our governing bodies, harbor such thoughts. Heck, there are plenty in this board alone that advocate for it. You are just highlighting my point.> Nope. Find me anyone in Congress who has called for banning guns entirely. We'll wait. Do they "harbor thoughts?" Talk about a low bar. There may be some who think "You know, we'd really all be better off if everyone was vegetarian" too, but you don't see them proposing legislation to mandate it, now do you? So it's a phantom fear. <#3 And how does one insure that those changes can happen the ones running the place have all the guns and you have a rubber band and a toothpick to back up your demands. Do you honestly think that someone bent on controlling us will pay any attention to a vote? Voting only works if everyone is on level ground. Do I believe that there is anyone in our government that is going to make any move, which would only involve getting the military establishment behind them, no I don't think there is. However, it may be because of the level power that prevents it. > Right. That's why Denmark and Norway and Japan and Australia and all those other countries where few people have guns are having coups every few months.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Right. That's why Denmark and Norway and Japan and Australia and all those other countries where few people have guns are having coups every few months.>> LOL, no kidding. We are a nation that lives in fear of the boogey man when in reality we only fear each other. If we can find a way to fear each other less, such as, I dunno, reducing the hundreds of millions of guns floating around, we might make the boogey man less fearful. The whole "guns protect us from our government" argument is such crap, and is based on irrational fear. Look how many countries are at least as free as the U.S. without the guns.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***They do not compare in any way shape or form other then being human beings*** <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://bit.ly/nowaytoprevent">http://bit.ly/nowaytoprevent</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The whole "guns protect us from our government" argument is such crap, and is based on irrational fear*** Well, I wouldn't say irrational necessarily, since the threat of a tyrannical government is always a possibility - history tells us so. However, if such a government should arise and oppose its own citizens, assuming it had the military on board all the guns in all the gun-nut hands across the nation couldn't do a bloody thing about it. If they *didn't* have military control, then there still would be no need for guns, as the military could handle it themselves with their vastly, ludicrously superior weaponry. Either way, the argument "pro-gun" in this day and age falls apart on even a bare amount of scrutiny. The self-protection argument is actually legit, but ironically that's only because there are so damned many guns. Go figure.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Mr. X, I know this will come as a shock, but I agree with all that. However, we all have a tendency to feel that the whole world is the same as we are. We, in spite of what might seem the opposite, do believe in peaceful transition of government. The more civilized and privileged countries do as well. But, those with less then that, in an informed sense, do not. I feel, and I know it's my opinion, not fact, that we have avoided anyone from trying to take over, because they all have the somewhat mistaken feeling that all of us have guns and are willing to use them. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it is a deterrent, in my mind. Everyone makes it sound like it would be next to impossible to have the government request that the military take action against our citizens. Could never happen? Think Kent State 1970. Don't forget that our President is their Commander In Chief. Is it a long shot? Yes! Is it impossible, of course not. >>>"Right. That's why Denmark and Norway and Japan and Australia and all those other countries where few people have guns are having coups every few months."<<< True, but, if you look world wide and not just focus in on a few more advanced societies, it is quite common and you know what? There isn't anything that the general population can do about it. Those rubber bands and toothpicks are quite ineffective unless you can hit them in the eye or something. As I said, I'm not overly paranoid about it. I don't own a gun so I cannot be that afraid that something is going to jump out at me. I do see, through history, just how easy it can be to have something like that happen. It is a real threat albeit a small one. It is one thing that we, uniquely can do something about because of our rights.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 << >>>"Right. That's why Denmark and Norway and Japan and Australia and all those other countries where few people have guns are having coups every few months."<<< <True, but, if you look world wide and not just focus in on a few more advanced societies, it is quite common and you know what? There isn't anything that the general population can do about it. Those rubber bands and toothpicks are quite ineffective unless you can hit them in the eye or something.> Do countries without a history of democracy have trouble establishing democracies (if they even try)? Yes, often, for various reasons. But that has nothing to do with guns. As you say yourself, not every society is like ours. And there are other countries, in Latin America for instance, with relatively high levels of private gun ownership, and that has done nothing to prevent their various coups and violent takeovers. "It doesn't happen here because we have guns" is a fantasy. <I feel, and I know it's my opinion, not fact,> There's a nice standard for rational discourse... <that we have avoided anyone from trying to take over, because they all have the somewhat mistaken feeling that all of us have guns and are willing to use them. > The military is well aware that all the gun nuts in the country are no match for what the Pentagon could put together if it wanted to. There's no way any potential coup-plotter has been deterred by this notion. The nuts (and I'm not saying you are one, of course) love to talk about the founders. But the one time local militias did seriously try to challenge federal authority with arms (against "excessive taxation," no less), it was quashed by none other than George Washington. And he didn't exactly have the kind of firepower the Pentagon does today. <It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it is a deterrent, in my mind.> Nice standard number two...
Originally Posted By hopemax If I were worried about a tyrannical government or any national level threat, I don't think a gun is gonna help me. I'm much more concerned with cyber terrorism, and the ability to flip off banking, electrical, water, etc with a figurative flip of the switch. We're so dependant on our Western quality of life, that wars don't need to be bloody or destructive. Just squeeze our insatiable list of wants disguised as needs. There is no person or place to target to fight back with a gun or bomb. As the people can just operate from Russia to China to South America or wherever. Just look at the panic certain entities felt during the Government shut down, imagine that on a larger, longer scale. How would you fight that? Something the Founders never would have foreseen, where so much of "power" is handled digitally.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I feel, and I know it's my opinion, not fact, that we have avoided anyone from trying to take over, because they all have the somewhat mistaken feeling that all of us have guns and are willing to use them*** I'm a little confused. Are you talking about external threats? If so, I think you may have been right historically, but since around the 80's or so the threat of military retribution is a far greater deterrent.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <-- Has never owned any type of a gun and never will. Don't really understand why anyone would even want one. Wouldn't be that upset about a total ban if not for some residual concern about giving that much power to the government. On the other hand, no one's six shooter will stand up to Federal fire-power anyway. But no one would ever listen to me anyway, so there is no need to worry!!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Gun ownership as a defense against tyranny is ineffective when the tyrants have convinced the majority of the population to follow their line. The same GOP that bleats about the dangers posed by immigrants or gay marriage or liberals or the NEA has widespread support among gun owners and wanna-be Freemen-style militia members. And you can think about whether or not the slaves in the antebellum South felt that they were living under a tyrannical system, or even women in the 1890s before suffrage. Or Native Americans, or Chinese immigrants in the West, or Japanese Americans in 1942. Guns don't do a damn thing to prevent tyranny if the owners aren't smart enough or honest enough with themselves to see it when it is happening all around you.
