gun control and stuff

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Renji Elric, May 13, 2010.

  1. Hey ya'll, here's my rant.
    First off, I know that our right to bear arms was garunteed in the Bill of rights. That, and also that "we need to be able to defend ourselves" i feel is the main argument for guns.
    but think about it: who do we need to defend ourselves against? people with guns. almost any other situation and it would be against the law (something like you're legally allowed to hurt someone enough so that they can't harm you anymore).
    So if you need guns BECAUSE other people have guns... thats like putting sugar on sugar. if you admit that the reason we need guns is to defend ourselves against guns (why else would you need one?) then you're admitting that you think the solution to the already existing gun problem is to put more guns into it! there's a great quote by some famous guy saying "if a small business fails, it dies, but if a government run orginization fails, then they put more money into it", which is basically whats happening here.
    and back to the bill of rights: when it was passed, people DID need guns to defend themselves. there were no police, and the replacement for that was militias, volunteers from the towns. if they didn't have guns they'd be pretty pathetic militias. Back then, guns were to some extent necessary; now, guns are the problem, and need to be stopped.


  2. yeah but if you ban guns you get upstanding citizens who don't have guns because they are illegal, and criminals with guns, because, well they don't give a fuck if its illegal and they can buy them off the black market.

    In areas where guns are legal to possess on your persons, such as on a hip holster or a back sling, its cited somewhere that crime is lower, because people are less likely to commit crimes if a girl is going to whip out a pistol every time she gets attacked.

    Also, the founding fathers put it there to protect citizens from martial law and dictator ship, such as if the US army is to be deployed in the united states (which has been done, oddly enough)

    And with Obama calling technology the enemy, trying to ban assault rifles, forming a martial law bill, and health care, you're going to want to have those guns in teh event that the troops of America turn onto us to try to stifle the people.

    if you don't know what I'm talking about, its new world order. Shit is scary as fuck:eek:
  3. The 2nd Amendment was not put in the Bill of Rights simply to protect us from other people with guns by enabling us to own guns. It was put in there so we could overthrow our government if it ever turned on us. Say the president issued a martial law and the U.S. was a police state since we all have guns we would be able to join together and form a militia similiar to Revolutionary War. One could say I lean a little right but i understand gun control and the sale of automatic pistols and assualt rifles is completely crazy, but never should they completely ban guns. That would leave us vulernable to attack not just from terrorists but from our own country.
  4. My thoughts? Well, I hate to put it so bluntly, but you're being rather ignorant about your logic here.

    We don't have guns to protect us from other guns.

    We have guns to mainly defend ourselves against the Government. To ensure that We The People still can obtain control if needed. THAT was the main reason behind the Second Amendment.

    Furthermore, we need guns to protect ourselves from VIOLENCE. Now, sit back and really think about all the shit that "violence" includes. Rape, Battery, Assault, they can all be performed without the use of a gun. I don't own a gun because I intend to kill someone. I own one because I want to prevent some evil in this world from ending my life or my families lives prematurely.

    I hope this has helped you better understand why the Amendment exists in the first place, and why we continue to need it today.
  5. hmmm.... wow, i guess i am really ignorant.
    thanks for your inputs, it helped :)
    eh theres so much to learn and only so many years to do it
  6. Start with Thomas Payne's "Common Sense."

    After that read, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American history" by Thomas Woods (who is a highly regarded scholar). After that read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution."

    Those are all easy breezy reads and afterwards you'll know a shitton more.

    After that you'll also be in a position to decide how much more you want to read. Those 3 reads are really fun, easy and light-weight. If you want to step up to the next level afterwards you'll experience the most amazing and insightful books of your life...but some folks don't want to take that sort of adventure.
  7. #7 aaronman, May 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2010
    Regardless of the law and multiple benefits guns provide, prohibition always has and will fail. We are all living proof of this.
  8. thanks for the suggestions, i'll definitely read those.

    but i was thinking... if the gun laws are there to allow us to protect against a dictatorship and such, hand guns in the hands of citizens wouldn't do that much good against the well trained, armed and prepared army/navy/ marines.
  9. And a bunch of illiterate Afghans and Iraqis with nothing but small arms and the know how of how to make shit explode (it's not hard, watch myth busters some time) couldn't possibly grind the US war machine to a halt for 7+ years despite trillions of dollars being spent, massive numbers of troops sent, and the most advanced technology the world has ever seen being brought against them.

    And there is a big difference between a 9mm handgun and, say, a .30-06 or a .50 cal.

    But anyways, the point is for the citizenry to always be vigilant and on guard against potential tyranny, and for potential tyrants and the government to always be afraid of the citizenry.
  10. #10 morefreedom, May 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2010
    The black market that will arise immediately following prohibition will let all the people who shouldn't have the guns get them and all the responsible, law abiding citizens will not have reliable access to them.

    Roughly the same situation that is happening with the drug war.

    I agree with aaronman, the prohibition of anything (excluding in my opinion a select few things such as weapons of mass destruction) will be a total failure, with more harm than good being done.
  11. sarcasm right? just checking, it doesn't carry well over the interwebz.
    American citizens most likely would not be using terror tactics, they'd be rioting on the streets like it's 1970 again. hehe sublime.

    i guess the idea is good.
  12. there's a great quote about something like you can't restrict the human mind... kinda similar to this.
    but thats also true, it's like where there's a will, theres a way
  13. It seems we have a dilemma.

    On one hand, if NO ONE had guns whatsoever, at all, then there would be no more gun murders... but on the other hand, prohibition has and always will fail for the reasons we all know.

    What's the middle ground? IS there a middle ground?

    Perhaps we outta have 'gun free zones', like 'dry counties'. The people there have all voted to ban guns from the district, and you can't bring a gun in there. It's still prohibition and people will still manage to get guns in there if they want them, at least it's not at a national level and it lets the different communities with their different populations find their own solutions to the problem. As a side note, my town isn't particularly chill, but there's a town an hours drive south that is quite a bit smaller than my town and is very chill. There might have been one murder ever for all I know, it's a very peaceful place. The point I'm getting at is that places like this would probably vote in favour of prohibition, because they don't NEED guns to protect themselves from the non-existent violence and are chill enough to make it work. My town would probably vote against and remain a 'gun' zone, because the people are violent and impulsive. So, in the end we'd see nice chill zones of peaceful people and other not so nice zones with people needing to have the freedom to carry guns.

    To bring the point to its logical conclusion, people would be drawn to live in the chill towns, or at least try and emulate whatever their community is doing right to turn the nasty towns into chill towns. Gradually, if these assumptions are to be believed, more and more municipalities will become chill and everyone will chill the fuck out. Ideally and somewhat non-realistically, no one would need guns - sorta like Marx's notion of the state withering away, except the need to carry a gun withers away. And huzzah, we have achieved peace :hello:

  14. Dude the police cannot fucking protect you. Example this last weekend I was robbed by a pack of 9 guys, just walking down the street in a nice neighborhood. Thats why we need guns to protect yourself from robbery. If I had a gun I could have stopped them called the cops and arrested all of them. I might have had to kill them too but thats the risk you take. Instead they took $80 and my cellphone. I'm lucky they could have stomped me to death in the street.

    What do bad fighters do when they get jumped by 15 guys? You need a gun for protection. Yes people abuse guns. But if we make guns illegal the only people who will have guns will be criminals, not because they have guns but accualy criminals like robbers and murderers. Street gangs would have tons of power since they control the illegal weapons trade.
  15. Is it possible to have an entire population in which NO ONE owns a gun? A gun is a tool. I piece of technology. Once a technology is invented, you can't UN-invent it. Even if you tried to take away EVERY gun on earth... people would start making zip guns and pipe-rifles.

    We need to come to a realization that guns (as well as other inanimate objects) do not, have not, and will never CAUSE behavior. Guns do not cause gun murders just as cars do not cause deaths even though there are hundreds of thousands of people killed in traffic collisions each year.
  16. There is no dilemma. Prohibition doesn't work. If guns were illegal, criminals would be the only ones using them.
  17. #17 AHuman, May 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2010

    Suppose criminals couldn't get them, no one whatsoever could get them. Unless you make a gun, you can't shoot someone. Could we ever prohibit guns to that degree? Would the peace and bliss be an ethical trade off for removing the freedom to kill someone with a gun?

    Edit: You're right, criminals would be the only ones who would have guns, because they would be illegal to own...:D
  18. I grew up with guns, dad was a collector. I never thought of using one during my crime spree days. Guns aren't the problem, people are.

  19. Not sarcasm. Dead serious. A bunch of illiterate iraqis and afghans have stopped the US war machine in its track for 7+ years with little more than 30 year old guns and home made pipe bombs.

  20. What else should be banned in the name of "Public safety?"

    We can keep banning things until we have a perfect world with only the people in charge having power, authority, and the ability to use force. Ahh slave-utopia.

    Public policy should not be made on the basis of your stunted psychological growth and irrational fear of certain objects. "GUYZ! Let's take away people's freedom to own things that scare me to make the world a better place!"

    Maybe we could try making marijuana illegal too? Then no one would smoke it. Prohibition makes problems worse, not better.

Share This Page