Guns Guns Guns

[Beto]

So where does everyone stand on the "right to bear arms" issue? I'd like to hear the pros and cons. I'm kinda divided right now, between the ideal and the realistic positions.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 54 by Dantalion]

Breaking into an occupied house involves more than crime against property. It threatens the well being and safety of the occupants even if the person breaking in originally and no intention of violence.

[Dantalion]

[Replying to post 54 by Dantalion]

Breaking into an occupied house involves more than crime against property. It threatens the well being and safety of the occupants even if the person breaking in originally and no intention of violence.

How so ?
I agree that it potentially threatens, but if a guy breaks in and steals your TV I don't think your safety is in any particular danger. You may feel otherwise ofc, but lethal self-defense shouldn't be employed because you think that maybe something could happen, it should always be a last resort.

[Nickman]

So where does everyone stand on the "right to bear arms" issue? I'd like to hear the pros and cons. I'm kinda divided right now, between the ideal and the realistic positions.

I don't think that the founding fathers understood what the future of weaponry was going to be. At the time of the Revolutionary War, weapons were mostly a one shot, then powder, bullet and pack. Not automatics. Those types of weapons gave everyone a fair chance. The weapons today are designed to mow large crowds down in seconds. I don't think any citizen should have weapons designed to do such. The problem here is that if the government has them, then we also need them to protect ourselves from the government if they decide to become tyrannical.

It is a tough subject to say the least.

[Darias]

I don't think that the founding fathers understood what the future of weaponry was going to be.

The self appointed could not have imagined a future such as ours in any respect. How is this an argument against anyone's liberties? Should freedom of religion also be banned because there are violent extremists among the faithful? Should freedom of speech be regulated because of the ease of access private citizens have to federal servers?

At the time of the Revolutionary War, weapons were mostly a one shot, then powder, bullet and pack. Not automatics. Those types of weapons gave everyone a fair chance.

Okay, but if the population had not been allowed to own firearms or cannon, those single shot weapons would have given an enormous advantage to the state. The Native Americans didn't really have a shot, quite literally. The types of weapons are irrelevant to giving everyone a fair chance. If everyone has access to the same type of weaponry, be it a club, a knife, or an AR-15, only then can everyone have a fair chance.

The problem occurs when someone says the government should have all the weapons and power.

The weapons today are designed to mow large crowds down in seconds.

If you're talking about AR-15s, then you don't know what you're talking about. AR-15s are actually safer than normal handguns, as their bullets tumble and walls can stop them in their tracts. AR-15s are big and not a weapon of choice for people wanting to rob a bank or break in a home -- as you can see anyone a mile away with one. I mean Sam Harris has written much about this and he has points that are really hard to ignore.

I don't think any citizen should have weapons designed to do such.

Just the police and military right? Because they never make mistakes or abuse their power, and if they do, internal investigations always solve the problem, and those guilty of using their deadly force haphazardly always pay the highest price. Meanwhile, your money ensures their continued operation, whether or not you approve of their services. Isn't government great?

The problem here is that if the government has them, then we also need them to protect ourselves from the government if they decide to become tyrannical.

Yes, the problem is the government has a monopoly on weapons much more deadly than an AR-15. They almost took out NC with a hydrogen bomb in the 60s. Government power is a huge problem, because if they ever decide to take away people's liberties, they will. They locked up Japanese Americans in WWII. They assassinate American citizens today. Someone is probably listening to a call you made to significant other right now, who knows. No one has a right not to be indefinitely detained. And there's no reversing this. I don't think the US will ever become Syria, because that would not be in its best interest (less tax revenue). But at least you acknowledge that some sort of weaponry is preferable to rocks when the government is plowing through your neighborhood with tanks. Still, if that were ever to occur, it would only be a snowballs chance in hell. Our only hope would be to hold out long enough for the state to run out of money.

The problem is, if the US ever decided to reinstate martial law, no one would have any rights, just as it occurred in Boston, where everyone had to submit to illegal searches.

I am of course not saying that everyone should have guns. Everyone shouldn't drink either. I'm all in favor of regulation and certification, so long as the market is doing it. I could imagine very easily a gun shop requiring training and background checks before selling their merchandise so they won't be held liable for selling an unstable person a weapon.

Signs with "gun free zone" are simply not effective whatsoever. Worse than ineffective, they invite the disturbed to prey on the innocent.

I hate it when progressives condemn the weapon -- but only in the hands of citizens. It amazes me that a shotgun attack by a government contractor in an area where very few armed guards somehow becomes a call to ban AR-15s for private persons. The Trayvon Martin shooting went the same way. People blame the tool instead of worrying about who wields it. It doesn't matter if laws banning AR-15s won't have any effect on criminals who rarely choose to use them -- so long as it makes people feel safer at everyone else's expense.

[Nickman]

I don't think that the founding fathers understood what the future of weaponry was going to be.

The self appointed could not have imagined a future such as ours in any respect. How is this an argument against anyone's liberties? Should freedom of religion also be banned because there are violent extremists among the faithful? Should freedom of speech be regulated because of the ease of access private citizens have to federal servers?

At the time of the Revolutionary War, weapons were mostly a one shot, then powder, bullet and pack. Not automatics. Those types of weapons gave everyone a fair chance.

Okay, but if the population had not been allowed to own firearms or cannon, those single shot weapons would have given an enormous advantage to the state. The Native Americans didn't really have a shot, quite literally. The types of weapons are irrelevant to giving everyone a fair chance. If everyone has access to the same type of weaponry, be it a club, a knife, or an AR-15, only then can everyone have a fair chance.

The problem occurs when someone says the government should have all the weapons and power.

The weapons today are designed to mow large crowds down in seconds.

If you're talking about AR-15s, then you don't know what you're talking about. AR-15s are actually safer than normal handguns, as their bullets tumble and walls can stop them in their tracts. AR-15s are big and not a weapon of choice for people wanting to rob a bank or break in a home -- as you can see anyone a mile away with one. I mean Sam Harris has written much about this and he has points that are really hard to ignore.

I don't think any citizen should have weapons designed to do such.

Just the police and military right? Because they never make mistakes or abuse their power, and if they do, internal investigations always solve the problem, and those guilty of using their deadly force haphazardly always pay the highest price. Meanwhile, your money ensures their continued operation, whether or not you approve of their services. Isn't government great?

The problem here is that if the government has them, then we also need them to protect ourselves from the government if they decide to become tyrannical.

Yes, the problem is the government has a monopoly on weapons much more deadly than an AR-15. They almost took out NC with a hydrogen bomb in the 60s. Government power is a huge problem, because if they ever decide to take away people's liberties, they will. They locked up Japanese Americans in WWII. They assassinate American citizens today. Someone is probably listening to a call you made to significant other right now, who knows. No one has a right not to be indefinitely detained. And there's no reversing this. I don't think the US will ever become Syria, because that would not be in its best interest (less tax revenue). But at least you acknowledge that some sort of weaponry is preferable to rocks when the government is plowing through your neighborhood with tanks. Still, if that were ever to occur, it would only be a snowballs chance in hell. Our only hope would be to hold out long enough for the state to run out of money.

The problem is, if the US ever decided to reinstate martial law, no one would have any rights, just as it occurred in Boston, where everyone had to submit to illegal searches.

I am of course not saying that everyone should have guns. Everyone shouldn't drink either. I'm all in favor of regulation and certification, so long as the market is doing it. I could imagine very easily a gun shop requiring training and background checks before selling their merchandise so they won't be held liable for selling an unstable person a weapon.

Signs with "gun free zone" are simply not effective whatsoever. Worse than ineffective, they invite the disturbed to prey on the innocent.

I hate it when progressives condemn the weapon -- but only in the hands of citizens. It amazes me that a shotgun attack by a government contractor in an area where very few armed guards somehow becomes a call to ban AR-15s for private persons. The Trayvon Martin shooting went the same way. People blame the tool instead of worrying about who wields it. It doesn't matter if laws banning AR-15s won't have any effect on criminals who rarely choose to use them -- so long as it makes people feel safer at everyone else's expense.

I am a progressive but I in no way condone taking away our weapons. Like I said, we need them to overthrow government if need be or if we even possibly could. It is not the weapon that is the problem necessarily, but an AR-15 or M-16 is definitely lethal and more capable of taking people out than a hand gun. With qualification on AR-15, M-16, and 9mm, I understand which ones have more damage. The .223 is designed to injure the enemy which costs more for the government of that enemy to treat them. If it kills them, there is not very much cost or burden on that government. The 5.56 Nato, however; is more effective at killing due to tumbling in the body which creates a large cavity. It all depends on the bullet itself. Regardless of whether or not a bullet is designed to kill, it is still designed to inflict injury at the least. These automatic, or three round bursts are way more effective at mowing people down. If you take a bullet you will be down, and depending on where it hits you, regardless of its lethality you can die.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 62 by Dantalion]

How would you react if someone broke in while you were there? How will he react when he sees you there, not knowing how you will react? It could bet violent.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 64 by Darias]

AR-15? AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every -- in the room, accept no substitutes.

[McCulloch]

I am a progressive but I in no way condone taking away our weapons. Like I said, we need them to overthrow government if need be or if we even possibly could.

Reality check. If it comes down to a fire fight between the forces of an armed citizenry and the forces available to the government, the citizens will lose. I certainly hope that we have gotten past the stage where we really think that we need arms in case we have to overthrow our government. Cuz its not gonna happen. Not even with AR-15s or M-16s.

[Philbert]

Reality check. If it comes down to a fire fight between the forces of an armed citizenry and the forces available to the government, the citizens will lose.

Um, governments are being overthrown by citizens across the Middle East at the moment. The fight in Syria is about a toss up, and the rebels have little more than rifles and grenades, while the government has tanks and jets etc.

[Dantalion]

Reality check. If it comes down to a fire fight between the forces of an armed citizenry and the forces available to the government, the citizens will lose.

Um, governments are being overthrown by citizens across the Middle East at the moment. The fight in Syria is about a toss up, and the rebels have little more than rifles and grenades, while the government has tanks and jets etc.

That's because no government is going to go full-out on it's own people.
Without the threat of international consequences, the rebels would have been annihilated, along with many innocent civilians.