Hello Pham.

[4588686]

 

 

If you read my whole post, you'll note that I said that I'm not convinced getting rid of the standing army (unlike my anarchist/libertarian brethren).  However, it's undeniable that a population made up of armed and trained citizen-soldiers would be much harder to conquer or subjugate.  It would make our country stronger, not weaker.

 

 

Right-libertarians are not anarchists.  

[ardillacid]

Right-libertarians are not anarchists.  

 

you are a unique flower

[Era Might]

You've admitted that  laws are quite ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of murderous criminal gangs, who often obtain their weapons illegally.

 

All your favored "gun control" laws would do is disarm millions of law-abiding citizens, and render them completely helpless against aggression.

 

I haven't admitted that. Guns are no different from bombs. The fact that terrorist groups are able to get bombs doesn't mean there should be no regulation of bombs.

 

 

While you may think a world in which only violent criminal gangs and governments have weapons and the means to defense - and ordinary citizens are completely helpless and at their mercy - is a wonderful thing, I do not.  But, as you say, different worldviews.

 

 

I don't believe that, but I recognize what violence is. It's not some glorious safeguard of society. You talk about "the majority [that] is quite happy to trample on the rights of the minority when it suits them." Malcolm X was defending the right of minorities to defend themselves "by any means necessary" against a racist society decades ago. And where is Malcolm X today? Shot dead, assassinated by the paramilitary group he helped build.

 

I do not condemn Malcolm X's calls for self-defense. What I have a problem with is the fantasy that the militarization of society is going to lead to a free and peaceful society. Where were the Central American gangs born? In Los Angeles among militarized immigrants from the civil war in El Salvador.

 

You want to militarize society. That is what we disagree about. I am able to sympathize with helplessness. I sympathize with the Russian Revolution. I sympathize with Latin American gangs. I sympathize with the militant activism of someone like Malcolm X. What I don't do, however, is glorify the violence as a good in itself. The Russian revolution didn't lead to a peaceful Russia. Malcolm X didn't transform the ghettos of America. But violence is the only resort of the powerless, and they will always be consumed by it. The more violent the powerless are, the more it consumes them.

 

You believe that militarization empowers people. I don't. That's what we will never agree on.

 

What is the opposite of gun control? At birth, every American child should be afforded a Bible, a copy of the US Constitution, and a Glock 9. Anyone should be able to buy guns and ammo at Walgreens, no questions asked, and brandish their arms as openly as they brandish their iPod. Anything less is gun control.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

What is the opposite of gun control? At birth, every American child should be afforded a Bible, a copy of the US Constitution, and a Glock 9.

No such thing. :|

[Era Might]

No such thing. :|

 

Shaddup. :viking:

Edited January 12, 2013 by Era Might

[Socrates]

I haven't admitted that. Guns are no different from bombs. The fact that terrorist groups are able to get bombs doesn't mean there should be no regulation of bombs.

 

Bombs are different than guns, as (if large enough) they kill large numbers of people indescriminately, whereas firearms are more precise and can be used more effectively to take out individual aggressors.  And bombs/explosives can be easily made from easily-obtainable legal materials, and are thus hard to regulate.  But that's moving into another debate.

 

You've still provided no compelling reason for forcibly depriving law-abiding citizens of the means for self-defense.

 

 

 

 

I don't believe that, but I recognize what violence is. It's not some glorious safeguard of society. You talk about "the majority [that] is quite happy to trample on the rights of the minority when it suits them." Malcolm X was defending the right of minorities to defend themselves "by any means necessary" against a racist society decades ago. And where is Malcolm X today? Shot dead, assassinated by the paramilitary group he helped build.

 

I do not condemn Malcolm X's calls for self-defense. What I have a problem with is the fantasy that the militarization of society is going to lead to a free and peaceful society. Where were the Central American gangs born? In Los Angeles among militarized immigrants from the civil war in El Salvador.

 

You want to militarize society. That is what we disagree about. I am able to sympathize with helplessness. I sympathize with the Russian Revolution. I sympathize with Latin American gangs. I sympathize with the militant activism of someone like Malcolm X. What I don't do, however, is glorify the violence as a good in itself. The Russian revolution didn't lead to a peaceful Russia. Malcolm X didn't transform the ghettos of America. But violence is the only resort of the powerless, and they will always be consumed by it. The more violent the powerless are, the more it consumes them.

 

You believe that militarization empowers people. I don't. That's what we will never agree on.

Ownership of guns or other weapons for self-defense need not equal violence.

In fact, possession of guns and the ability to use them can often be (and often is) a strong deterrent to violent aggression.  

In many places with high gun-ownership, robberies and such are rare.

 

There's a difference between a person owning guns to be used against another only in self-defense, and violent thugs committing acts of violent aggression.

 

Forcibly disarming citizens, as you advocate, only renders the former helpless and at the mercy of the latter.

 

Just as a de-militarized country is vulnerable to the aggression of other countries.

 

 

 

What is the opposite of gun control? At birth, every American child should be afforded a Bible, a copy of the US Constitution, and a Glock.

That, my good sir, is a most excellent idea.

[Era Might]

Bombs are different than guns, as (if large enough) they kill large numbers of people indescriminately, whereas firearms are more precise and can be used more effectively to take out individual aggressors.

 

That's a fine argument, with distinctions found nowhere in the Second Amendment.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Era Might

[4588686]

you are a unique flower

 

In the spirit of Georgia O'Keeffe.

[4588686]

Bombs are different than guns, as (if large enough) they kill large numbers of people indescriminately, whereas firearms are more precise and can be used more effectively to take out individual aggressors.  And bombs/explosives can be easily made from easily-obtainable legal materials, and are thus hard to regulate.  But that's moving into another debate.

 

Guns can kill indiscriminately.  Bombs can be precise (Maybe you've heard of smart bombs?).   Guns are also made out of easily and legally obtainable materials.  Several men in my family make their own bullets.  And it's really not a separate debate.  At least it isn't if you actually take your own argument seriously.  In fact, if you really believe your own argument about the true function of the second amendment then it's really hard to see why bombs, tanks, fighter jets et cetera shouldn't be available to private citizens.  An AR-15 with a high capacity magazine is great for executing a lot of kids quickly but it doesn't much stand up to the army of a nation that is as technologically advanced and well funded as America's.  

Edited January 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Groo the Wanderer]

what does magazine size have to do with it?  takes less than 3 seconds to reload if you are at all competent.  10 rounds, 30 rounds...only diff is 6 seconds - you can still only pull the trigger so fast 

 

and why an ar-15?  its a semi-auto rifle just like all the other semi-autos out there commercially available.  one pull, one shot.  must be cause its usually painted black.   racist anti-gun twerds

Edited January 12, 2013 by Groo the Wanderer

[Groo the Wanderer]

Guns can kill indiscriminately.   Guns are also made out of easily and legally obtainable materials.  Several men in my family make their own bullets. 

 

No guns do not kill indiscriminately.  they only kill what people aim them at  (i dangled that participle just for you).  what does the material matter?  the avg joe can not make a reciever that will withstand the stresses of firing a gun, nor can they rifle the barrel correctly.  lame argument.

 

they do not 'make' bullets.  they assemble bullets, likely using a reloader.  i doubt they mix the powder themselves, make the primers themselves, cast the slugs themselves, nor craft the jackets themselves.

 

words matter.

[Socrates]

Guns can kill indiscriminately.  Bombs can be precise (Maybe you've heard of smart bombs?).   Guns are also made out of easily and legally obtainable materials.  Several men in my family make their own bullets.  And it's really not a separate debate.  At least it isn't if you actually take your own argument seriously.  In fact, if you really believe your own argument about the true function of the second amendment then it's really hard to see why bombs, tanks, fighter jets et cetera shouldn't be available to private citizens.  An AR-15 with a high capacity magazine is great for executing a lot of kids quickly but it doesn't much stand up to the army of a nation that is as technologically advanced and well funded as America's.  

 

I never said that bombs and such are not protected by the second amendment.  I think there may be some legitimate debate as to how far it extends (I've heard libertarians claim that the second amendment covers nukes and "biological weapons").

 

But whatever you might think about an extreme case like a guy with a nuclear warhead in his basement, I don't think there can be any serious doubt that any personal firearms  (as those being discussed in the current "gun control" debates) would be protected.  Restrictions on caliber, magazine size, and such, are completely arbitrary.

 

 

My point about people being able to easily make bombs has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are protected by the second amendment - I was simply pointing out how it is quite easy to kill a lot of people without purchasing any firearms.

 

 "Gun control" laws are no magic protection against depraved acts of mass-slaughter - you can blow up a classroom full of kids, burn an orphanage down, or drive a bus full of kids over a cliff.  The whole argument that "gun control" laws are "necessary" to protect innocent lives is utterly bogus.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Socrates

[Era Might]

 "Gun control" laws are no magic protection against depraved acts of mass-slaughter - you can blow up a classroom full of kids, burn an orphanage down, or drive a bus full of kids over a cliff.  The whole argument that "gun control" laws are "necessary" to protect innocent lives is utterly bogus.

 

No laws are magic protection against anything.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Era Might

[Socrates]

No laws are magic protection against anything.

 

In this case,  the harm (depriving citizens of constitutional rights, and the means to self-defense) outweighs the actual good.

[Era Might]

In this case,  the harm (depriving citizens of constitutional rights, and the means to self-defense) outweighs the actual good.

 

Arbitrary argument.