First  Prev  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
19216 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 1/8/13



Done with Dyme whatever his name is. but I see you bring nothing to the conversation either.



you're right I don't; I don't compromise on freedom
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/8/13

sarrukin wrote:




Done with Dyme whatever his name is. but I see you bring nothing to the conversation either.



you're right I don't; I don't compromise on freedom


Okay so you're in favour of privately owned nukes, biological weapons and private armies right? that's freedom?


5036 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/8/13
no, too dangerous and a bad excuse for self defence
32018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / Florida,USA
Offline
Posted 1/8/13
Although I wasent rreally responding to your post you did have a couple of good points IE crazy people & the like, I dont know where you are what country your in really dosent matter I was resonding to the thread in general
19216 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 1/8/13



Okay so you're in favour of privately owned nukes, biological weapons and private armies right? that's freedom?




the US 2nd amendment (based on the various other writings of our founding fathers) refers to whichever small arms happen to be common at that time.

nuclear weapons and bio weapons kill indiscriminately, something people who actually believe in liberty would never do, unlike governments throughout the 20th century. I recommend reading the University of Hawaii's study on Democide.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

the rules of free people prevent killing as such:

- No man has the right to initiate force against another, unless in self-defense.

as far as private armies, ill say that individuals have a right to gather and form voluntary militias to protect their state, county, city or neighborhood.

14224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Michigan, USA
Offline
Posted 1/8/13
People with proper training and education for handling guns, yes. But no one "needs" assault rifles. But if someone is breaking into my home, & trying to hurt me, my fiance, my child, or my animals, I don't want to call the cops & wait 20 minutes for them to get there. I will shoot them in defense.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/8/13

guzzidave1998 wrote:

Although I wasent rreally responding to your post you did have a couple of good points IE crazy people & the like, I dont know where you are what country your in really dosent matter I was resonding to the thread in general


I see, sorry if I jumped down you're throat. I've had encounters with Americans who assume I'm against the right to bear arms (which just proves they've not read the bulk of my posts to this thread. perhaps not any) and proceed immediately to personal attacks and other bankrupt tactics. One of which, I believe, is the 'nobody can tell us what do' argument. People, Americans included, tell others how it should be all the time. Anyhow, thanks for not being a dickhead.




sarrukin wrote:




Okay so you're in favour of privately owned nukes, biological weapons and private armies right? that's freedom?




the US 2nd amendment (based on the various other writings of our founding fathers) refers to whichever small arms happen to be common at that time.

nuclear weapons and bio weapons kill indiscriminately, something people who actually believe in liberty would never do, unlike governments throughout the 20th century. I recommend reading the University of Hawaii's study on Democide.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

the rules of free people prevent killing as such:

- No man has the right to initiate force against another, unless in self-defense.

as far as private armies, ill say that individuals have a right to gather and form voluntary militias to protect their state, county, city or neighborhood.



I'm going to have to get back to you on the study, it looks interesting but more than I can read before responding in a timely fashion to this post.

The point of my question was to establish that there WERE limits and responsibilities associated with your freedom. That the right to bear arms does indeed have a upper limit on lethality and risk. Surely there is room to discuss those limits and responsibilities.

On that... would private ownership of arms capable of resisting concerted government action be okay for private ownership. Ie, Air Defence weapons that can could take on strike fighters and missiles? Anti-Armour assets able to deal with a force composed of multiple M1 Abrams? etc...

Do legal small arms include assault and battle rifles? ( I mean REAL ones not hunting rifles/carbines dressed up with pistol grips and 'nasty black plastic' so the anti-gunners can demonize them)

Are there any reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon this right. Licensing? psychological testing? restrictions on rates of fire or ammunition capacity? or must ever attempt at such restriction be fought because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed?




67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/8/13

savannahbeme wrote:

People with proper training and education for handling guns, yes. But no one "needs" assault rifles. But if someone is breaking into my home, & trying to hurt me, my fiance, my child, or my animals, I don't want to call the cops & wait 20 minutes for them to get there. I will shoot them in defense.


Shotguns work well in this regard. Devastating close in, unlikely to over penetrate and hurt someone outside your house.
19216 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 1/8/13 , edited 1/8/13


I'm going to have to get back to you on the study, it looks interesting but more than I can read before responding in a timely fashion to this post.

The point of my question was to establish that there WERE limits and responsibilities associated with your freedom. That the right to bear arms does indeed have a upper limit on lethality and risk. Surely there is room to discuss those limits and responsibilities.

On that... would private ownership of arms capable of resisting concerted government action be okay for private ownership. Ie, Air Defence weapons that can could take on strike fighters and missiles? Anti-Armour assets able to deal with a force composed of multiple M1 Abrams? etc...

Do legal small arms include assault and battle rifles? ( I mean REAL ones not hunting rifles/carbines dressed up with pistol grips and 'nasty black plastic' so the anti-gunners can demonize them)

Are there any reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon this right. Licensing? psychological testing? restrictions on rates of fire or ammunition capacity? or must ever attempt at such restriction be fought because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed?



the answer to your last question is yes, it is in the nature of every government to eat away at liberty in favor of its own power. it is the duty of the sovereign individual to resist that nature.

I'm not an unreasonable person, so no, I don't think people need to have anti-armor or anti-air capabilities, the amount of people who could afford them in the first place is would be so small it wouldn't make much difference if it ever came down to a real fight; that being said, if there was ever a fight, I like to believe that not all members of the military would go along with tyranny, and that the side of resistance would be able to get its hands on military grade weapons and training through those people, as many resistance movements have done throughout history, of note would be those during World War 2.

I assume you mean military grade automatic weapons, we can own them in the States, however they cost over $15000 on the cheap end and are highly regulated and taxed by the federal government. I prefer semi-automatic anyway for the sake of ammo conservation and accuracy.

the only restriction I would be able to tolerate would be some type of mandatory training similar to what the Swiss do. I'd like to see the government teach people to handle fire arms with respect and safety instead of it teaching people to irrationally fear guns.
Posted 1/8/13
Very ambivalent on this one. Setting aside police officers, soldiers etc. I think I'd rather wonder and ask the question what makes it work for some countries to not have guns at all?

I often wonder about this difference in some countries. What does the "gun-countries" have that "non gun-countries" have and vice versa? Is it a matter of crime statistics? That just doesn't make much sense to me. There must be reasons to why it works in some countries for civilians to not own firearms.
1398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/8/13
NO!! Because people are turning insane little by little.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/8/13 , edited 1/8/13

sarrukin wrote:



-snip-


the answer to your last question in yes, it is in the nature of every government to eat away at liberty in favor of its own power. it is the duty of the sovereign individual to resist that nature.


I used to believe otherwise but experience has taught me to have less ... faith... in government agents as I have gotten older.



I'm not an unreasonable person, so no, I don't think people need to have anti-armor or anti-air capabilities, the amount of people who could afford them in the first place is would be so small it wouldn't make much difference if it ever came down to a real fight; that being said, if there was ever a fight, I like to believe that not all members of the military would go along with tyranny, and that the side of resistance would be able to get its hands on military grade weapons and training through those people, as many resistance movements have done throughout history, of note would be those during World War 2.


I'll go one step further. not only to I also believe the part in bold (I earned a set of dog tags myself (cheap set, cold warrior and weekend warrior but...) ) I also think that without that part in bold, the idea that a handgun protects you from you government is as much a fantasy as the idea that the government is free of corruption.



I assume you mean military grade automatic weapons, we can own them in the States, however they cost over $15000 on the cheap end and are highly regulated and taxed by the federal government. I prefer semi-automatic anyway for the sake of ammo conservation and accuracy.


Full Auto: a great way to spoil aim and waste ammunition. heh. actually mostly it was a dig at the other side of the fence's attempts create a buzzword then demonize a weapon 'type' (defined very loosely by them). IE "Saturday Night Special", "Assault type weapon" and lately "High Capacity Magazines"



the only restriction I would be able to tolerate would be some type of mandatory training similar to what the Swiss do. I'd like to see the government teach people to handle fire arms with respect and safety instead of it teaching people to irrationally fear guns.


That would certainly be an Idea I find favour with. I think Tennessee does or had, a simple rule about concealed carry along the same lines. "you want to carry a gun? carry a badge" and essentially beefed out it's reserve police forces with anyone who wanted to carry.

The irrational fear of guns is the thing I find most irritating about my own country. Here you might as well openly admit you're a pedophile. You'd get more tolerance and attempts at understanding than self-confessed gun owner does.


---
I take it from the first and last. that you would NOT favour a law restricting people to integral magazines only and banning detachable box magazines, stripper clips and revolver speed loaders? The only private owners I know who actually have to, and practice combat reloads are IPSC competitors. and the above regulation would greatly hinder would be massacres without IMO appreciably hindering anyone's self defense. I don't particularly like the idea but I think it's more practicable than the majority of the nonsense I hear.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/8/13 , edited 1/8/13

Amunat wrote:

Very ambivalent on this one. Setting aside police officers, soldiers etc. I think I'd rather wonder and ask the question what makes it work for some countries to not have guns at all?

I often wonder about this difference in some countries. What does the "gun-countries" have that "non gun-countries" have and vice versa? Is it a matter of crime statistics? That just doesn't make much sense to me. There must be reasons to why it works in some countries for civilians to not own firearms.


I have no idea if it's been studied. but I think for my country. Which I challenge anyone to say isn't free. (how precarious that freedom is might be worth debate but...) I think it's a matter of culture. People feel safe. There's a lot of faith given to our various government agencies. Hell we use our federal cops as a national symbol and they have the potential given their sweeping areas of authority to be something more akin to the KGB. but they are instead our charming little public relations heroes.

It's not like people are unarmed. Most rural folk hunt or have to control predators and pests on their farms. Shotguns and Trusty Enfields are common outside the cities.

we just... don't have a lot of crime. our per capita violent crime rate is a 1/7 the US and our total capita is a 1/10

We hear about bad things happening in the US 70 times more than they show up in our news. and the always show up. violance and spectacular crime, Crisis, angst, and doom. That's what sells newspapers.

(I have a theory on the differences between Canadian and American culture regarding crime and violence and our relation with the government. but I think discussing these cultural matters here would do disservice to the thread. There's separate threads on Canada and the US and someone could always start a new one)





a2rpg 
33084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/8/13

The difference between Canada and America can be found in their highschoolers. The former typically sounds like an adult when discussing something serious, and the latter sounds like a prebusecent child full of angst. Usually.

It's not the cause, but its the symptom. Think about it. What kind of people get all hyped full of fear? Rational ones, do you think? - no.

52097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / South Saskatchewan
Offline
Posted 1/8/13
I see the war starting and its simple, it should not be whether or nor that we can have/own guns, but rather how they are to be kept. Every gun based tragety of some kid (usually a young person of 10-25 though not inclusive) getting a hold of an improperly secured gun, that has its firing pin/bolt in it with ammunition readily available. As a permit holder, I am required to have the gun in a locked cabnet, unavailable to the common person, with the ammunition kept in another location, locked up, and any handgun must either be in a gun safe with a trigger lock or in the locked cabnet with the firing pin and ammunition stored in another locked location. I also must submit to any reasonable request from either the policing authorities or the master at arms office to an inspection of my hardware and its safe storage. This has gone a long way to removing the problem of shootings in Canada where gun violence is not really a problem, we prefer knives. If the USA enforced this kind of control then the whole debate would become moot.

As for carrying a gun: If properly licensed and can provide a very good and valid reason for carrying then yes, by all means. Conceiled? There is never a good reason for conceiled weaponry. I know I will be flamed for this but there are more death by cop situatons because the suspect is carrying, has identified as he is carrying and adivses and reaches for his wallet and gets shot for it. This said there are some very valid reasons for conceiled weaponry, and they will need to be properly addressed with in the system.

I am also a fan of stiffer punishments for gun related offences. Killing a person in Canada mean free room and board for 25 to life, I say work the bastard. If they dont work they get the bare minimums to survive, and they dont get all the nice privileges either. I understand the states that make use of chain gangs have a very low repeat offender count, maybe we should consider this. I know it can be seen as barbaric, but the whole point of incarseration is to educate and rehabilitate. If being nice does not work then we must be firm and fair, you will live but wont enjoy it.
First  Prev  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.