Gun Control - Pro

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Thu May 03, 2001 7:55 pm

I concede nothing... I don't believe that every minor point needs or deserves rebuttal. Any absense of a rebuttal on any point does not imply concession. We've both made points and positions and I am attempting to focus on the more important aspects of the true debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

I'd also be happy to start a thread generally about government.

Socialism need not figure into this debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally we arrive at the heart of the matter. This debate has always been about socialism (ie. communism, totalitarianism, modern American liberalism). Guns are simply an essential means to the ultimate end: The discouragement and prevention of socialism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

A ban on guns is inline with the government's function as Bastiat puts it.

Completely disagree. I wonder if you are reading the link that I posted... Bastiat asserts that every individual has the natural right to defend, even by force, his life liberty and property. Bastiat's view of a just and enduring government is one where government augments (but never diminishes) the individual right of defense.

Regardless of the original posting and premise, the true focus of this thread (and any others where individual freedoms, liberties and Rights are targeted for destruction) should be: How much individual power (physical and intellectual, when suffused throughout the population) is necessary to guarantee that government will forever be the servant and never the master of the People?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I'm sorry, that was an honest mistake that I didn't even realize I had made until you pointed it out. I wasn't intending to call you "Panthey."

Thank you. Apology accepted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I don't think I've made that clear at all. I think that's something that you've drawn from my words which isn't there. I'm not saying I have a right to take away any of your rights. All I'm saying is that since it's understood that some limitation is acceptable (in the case of nukes) that it is reasonable consider what the extent of that limitation should be.

If you "limit" a right out of existence, then you have, in truth, taken that Right away. Regardless of the "reasonable" propaganda of the gun grabbing socialists, the facts are clear (and their own internal memos, as well as a few very public "slips of the tongue" prove) that their goal is completely and totally disarming all American citizens. In that regard no creeping limitations are "reasonable". The gun grabbers have already broken their "just this one last law" promise for over 65 years, why should we believe that another restriction on top of the over 20,000 already on the books will make one whit of difference to the criminals who (by definition) ignore those other 20,000+ laws? It won't! Because it's not about criminals, it's not about safety, it's about sweet-talking the lawful citizens of this country into putting the handcuffs on.

It's obvious that we both agree that suitcase nukes are overkill (please excuse the pun) in the cause of keeping government under control. So the question becomes, how much firepower in the hands of We, the People is sufficient to prevent government from devolving into tyranny.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm not interested in getting into a contest over how far I am willing to go to defend my beliefs.

Even if I were, how does my willingness to die for my beliefs affect in any way the correctness of those beliefs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because ideas survive and evolve Darwinistically.

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 03, 2001).]

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Fri May 04, 2001 7:30 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther:
Completely disagree. I wonder if you are reading the link that I posted... Bastiat asserts that every individual has the natural right to defend, even by force, his life liberty and property. Bastiat's view of a just and enduring government is one where government augments (but never diminishes) the individual right of defense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That link is in fact the entirety of what I've read of bastiat. And my point exactly was that if every individual has a right of defense, then we shouldn't outlaw anything that could possibly be used in that manner, which would include high powered explosives for defending against tanks. And since he also says that the purpose of government (to paraphrase) is to act as a collective extensive of the individual's rights to defense. And again I make the point that if it's reasonable under this schema to outlaw certain weapons as being innapropriately powerful, then the question isn't "whether" to limit armament, but "how much" which then neccessitates an examination of potential benefits of a particular limitation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If you "limit" a right out of existence, then you have, in truth, taken that Right away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if you're arguing from Bastiat's philosophy, then the right isn't "to own guns" it is to personal defense. And it is not the case that gun ownership is so synonymous with personal defense that to totally eliminating guns is the same thing as totally eliminating personal defense. '

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Regardless of the "reasonable" propaganda of the gun grabbing socialists, the facts are clear (and their own internal memos, as well as a few very public "slips of the tongue" prove) that their goal is completely and totally disarming all American citizens.
... t's not about criminals, it's not about safety, it's about sweet-talking the lawful citizens of this country into putting the handcuffs on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not trying to defend gun control advocates per se, all I'm doing is arguing this particular point, that banning guns would be beneficial. So whether other gun control advocates are all socialists with the desires you consider them to have, that doesn't mean it's what I want.

[this quote taken from the middle of the paragraph just quoted]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
why should we believe that another restriction on top of the over 20,000 already on the books will make one whit of difference to the criminals who (by definition) ignore those other 20,000+ laws
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's not simply a matter of asking politely that everyone give up their guns, and then just hope that they do so. The reasons that it would be beneficial, and would work, I have laready stated in my main post. One reason is that completely illegalizing guns makes it easier to prevent their spread since they couldn't be manufactured publicly in the country, thus limiting their availability.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
It's obvious that we both agree that suitcase nukes are overkill (please excuse the pun) in the cause of keeping government under control. So the question becomes, how much firepower in the hands of We, the People is sufficient to prevent government from devolving into tyranny.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And my contention is that putting it at the level of gun ownership doesn't make sense. A handgun will not protect you from serious military weaponry. If we're seriously worried about tyrranical government, then we'd need to authorize the ownership of weapons that could actually be effective in fighting one. No, I'm not saying that guns are utterly ineffectual, since there is such a thing as infantry, but on the whole guns alone will do little good against the significant forces of tanks, planes and heavy weaponry. Therefore, since guns aren't going to make a very big difference in fighting the government, they should be disallowed if doing so will be of net benefit to the people.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Because ideas survive and evolve Darwinistically. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And isn't humanity's prime survival trait to band together in groups to handle problems?

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Fri May 04, 2001 7:08 pm

As I have written before on my forum.

Discussions on the right to bear arms are at best pointless because the two camps shall forever remain divided by a huge chasm of differing opinions.

What it boils down to, in spite of all the well intentioned arguments, is this:

if you are suddenly cut off from the herd, and about to be savagely attacked, maimed or killed__ would you rather have an efficient personal weapon or just rely on your bare hands?

All those argument outlined here would not do a bit of good when that moment comes for some of us. And gun ownership, if not gun use, seems to lessen the chance of such events taking place.

Here is a question: You are rabidly antigun. You have a friend who owns and carries a gun. You and your respective wives go out to theater and late dinner downtown this Saturday night.

On the way to your parked car on a side street, a Van’s door slides open suddenly, four punks jump out with knives, grab your wives throwing them in the Van, then tell you two to get in to watch them sodomize your wives. They also promise you will be next to be sodomized while your wives are made to watch as they are forced to have oral sex.

At that point would you want your friend to pull his gun and try to save the day? What if he doesn’t? Would you hold it against him assuming you four survive the ordeal after losing your manhood in front of your wives?

Would your wives still be married to you two in six months? Would you be borrowing your friend’s gun in six months so you could commit suicide?

I know this can be rationalized in a hundred ways, but it is down to very basic primal instincts that I argue. The rest of the arguments leave me disinterested.

Reminds me of what Clint Eastwood said once “ I believe in gun control. If there is a gun around I want control of it”

BTW..The above scenario really happened.

------------------
Van Canna

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri May 04, 2001 8:24 pm

First, Bastiat's philosophy must be taken in context. He was French and lived at a time when firearms weren't very prevalent in that country. The concept remains the same regardless of word games. Since people have the inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms (a firearm being one type of "arm") and the people having the inalienable Right to self-defense... It is not your or anyone else's place to deny a person the best tool for their self-defense. That tool being a firearm.

When someone takes a position in a debate or voices a point of view in a discussion, it most certainly does tell me what they want! Not only that, but when the ramifications of someone's position are spelled out for them and they still maintain their position, then other underlying desires can not only be deduced, they (like the Truths spoken of by the Founders) become "self-evident".

Now, we see from your assertion that a moderately armed civilian population can't possibly stand up against tanks, planes and heavy weaponry... and your advocacy for making firearms completely illegal in this country... that you not only have no knowledge of the events in Afghanistan (which I feel telling you yet again to check into what happened there is more than enough hint), but you also are completely clueless regarding the events in Great Britain and Austrailia surrounding registration, confiscation, and victimization.

You have shown that you are unwilling to do your own research on the subject. Canna-sensei is correct in that we will remain divided on this issue. One difference, as I've previously stated, is that I (and my freedom-loving compatriots) are willing to die to prevent you and those of your ilk from infringing on our Rights. What does that have to do with anything? Simply this: People aren't willing to die for possesions, places, or "things". People are only willing to die for "ideals" and beliefs. If someone believes so strongly in an ideal that they are willing to die for that ideal, then that person will assuredly fight harder to maintain/retain that ideal. (and the opposite is also true.)

It doesn't even have to be as "extreme" an example as Canna-sensei gives to tell you the consequences of whether or not one choses to defend themselves with a firearm. It could be the fact that those who you are with "vanish" when the proverbial $htuff hits the rotating device... leaving you alone against the group of young punks.

Just how confident in your "empty handed" training are you?

Ever wondered what it was like to be second guessed while laying in a hospital bed with the grim-reaper standing in the doorway?

And the debate, no matter how much you wish it to be true, is not about guns. It's about control. Which is what you and your ilk want over others... and what I will never let you have... I won't put on your handcuffs.

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 04, 2001).]

FIRECHILDE · Post by **FIRECHILDE** » Sun May 06, 2001 7:28 am

a armed nation is a free nation. a disarmed nation is made of slaves

ex. 1
Hilter banned guns in the name of crime control. he then went on to murder 6 million (at least)Jews. They gave up their guns in the name of,then they died for it.Many of the non-jewish despised what hitler was doing, but with out weapons there was no way to fight back. some did fight back, although it was with sticks and rocks, and they died.

ex. 2
when Okinawa was taken over by japan, ALL WEAPONS and FORMS OF SELF DEFENCE was banned from the fear of peasant uprising seaking freedom from opression.

ex. 3
As panther has already pointed out Moa's(RED CHINA) theroy of control being the "point of a gun barrel".I do reamber students being merdered there because they were ralling for FREE SPEACH, something we are doing right now.

these are only 3 examples out of many, of what happens when a country is disarmed.
try this one on for size "an armed man is a citizen,a disarmed man a subject."

Panther, It is good to know that there are some who are still keeping the faith.

[This message has been edited by FIRECHILDE (edited May 06, 2001).]

FIRECHILDE · Post by **FIRECHILDE** » Sun May 06, 2001 8:12 am

That last artical wasnt anough, i have to say more. what is the conceipt that a if a person doesnt resist, a crimal will not cause physical harm. Have you went off your campus latly and seen the real world. Yes the real world where gangers shoot at people at random? Where street thugs beat old ladies to death for $50? Where a drugie cranked up on PCP kills 2 cops with his hands, after being shot by said cops.
I say resist, alot!

then tere is the wild animals. a friend and I stoped at a wilderness overlook just yesterday. As we started into the woods a pack of wild dogs started for us. before my friend could turn to run, I had already drawn my firearm and was giving him cover. there goes your theroy on that.

then you also said a gun is more dangrous than a knife. my friend that is not true. a gun simply has advantage of reach(unless we are talking of high power rifles). at hand to hand combat range, knives are much more deadly than guns(if you dont belive me, try disarming a knife attacker just once)

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Sun May 06, 2001 10:21 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by FIRECHILDE:

at hand to hand combat range, knives are much more deadly than guns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely true. If I had to be thrown in the middle of a large bunch of thugs with the choice being a big knife or a low-capacity (remember, that's what us peons are limited to) firearm, then the knife would be my choice. It makes a bigger mess, but 1) you don't have to reload, 2) you can do damage from a number of angles of attack without worrying that it's pointed in the right direction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

(if you dont belive me, try disarming a knife attacker just once)

been there, done that, scars to prove it... it was "real", it wasn't "fun", and it definitely wasn't "real fun".