Guns As A " God-given Right"

[CrossCuT]

Im not sure how many PMers are for violent gun control (since thats apparently the only kind from what I have read from this thread), but if you want to hear my thoughts ND you can send me a PM. :)

Most debates on here get bogged down with side chatter and tangent conversations anyway. 

[KnightofChrist]

Im not sure how many PMers are for violent gun control (since thats apparently the only kind from what I have read from this thread), but if you want to hear my thoughts ND you can send me a PM. :)

Most debates on here get bogged down with side chatter and tangent conversations anyway. 

 

I'm sure the number is around about 0, but the use of force aka violence is the only way to enforce it, especially when we are talking about full disarmament of the people. Unless you would care to provide non-enforceable voluntary forms of 'gun control' or grand theft by government. 

[CrossCuT]

Force does not equal violence nor does gun control equal force. 

[CrossCuT]

Correction, if youre talking loosely about force, sure, a law can be "force" but not in the sense that force always equals violence. 

 

Renewing my license tabs is something I am forced to do, but I dont see it as violent.

 

If youa re going to claim that force always equals violence, then you can say gun control equals violence, but it entirely depends on what you mean by gun control. Do what degree?

Edited April 15, 2014 by CrossCuT

[NotreDame]

Yeah, I do not ascribe any ill-will towards people who think along those lines. Everyone has a bit of irrationality and cognitive dissonance somewhere in their beliefs. But that is one I am willing to challenge, because I think it is important in a truly just society.

 

Well, challenging is fine, but I guess I see this subject as a simple argument, so I'm interested in what is actually motivating people more than I am arguing with them. 

 

So let's list out what/why individuals support gun control....

 

- It's a visceral reaction to gun violence in pursuit of public safety

- It's an elitist response to egalitarianism

- It's a progressive's fear of an empowered right-wing movement

- it's a progressive's visceral opposition to anything libertarian/republican/right-wing

 

Now I can guess why politicians would support gun control (elitism, self-preservation, weaken opposition.)  And the politicians almost always sell it as a common-sense public safety measure (if anyone has examples of where it is sold differently, please comment.) 

 

I'm interested in why the individuals support it.  I'm guessing it's one or a combination of the four above, but then I'm not an unbiased observer, so I'd like to hear from those who oppose it.  Maybe it's impossible for it not to become a debate, but thought it was worth a shot.

[KnightofChrist]

Force does not equal violence nor does gun control equal force.

 
In the context of this discussion it does. 
 
Force in the context of taking away firearms from the people would be done by use of force. Force in this context is defined by Webster as "coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence". Use of force is defined by the IACP as "The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." Violence is also defined by Webster as "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse". 

[KnightofChrist]

Correction, if youre talking loosely about force, sure, a law can be "force" but not in the sense that force always equals violence. 

 

Renewing my license tabs is something I am forced to do, but I dont see it as violent.

 

If youa re going to claim that force always equals violence, then you can say gun control equals violence, but it entirely depends on what you mean by gun control. Do what degree?

 

I talking about the kind of force that will cause a policeman to point his gun at you if you do not comply, or otherwise deny you freedom if you do not comply.

Edited April 15, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

Well, challenging is fine, but I guess I see this subject as a simple argument, so I'm interested in what is actually motivating people more than I am arguing with them. 

 

So let's list out what/why individuals support gun control....

 

- It's a visceral reaction to gun violence in pursuit of public safety

- It's an elitist response to egalitarianism

- It's a progressive's fear of an empowered right-wing movement

- it's a progressive's visceral opposition to anything libertarian/republican/right-wing

 

Now I can guess why politicians would support gun control (elitism, self-preservation, weaken opposition.)  And the politicians almost always sell it as a common-sense public safety measure (if anyone has examples of where it is sold differently, please comment.) 

 

I'm interested in why the individuals support it.  I'm guessing it's one or a combination of the four above, but then I'm not an unbiased observer, so I'd like to hear from those who oppose it.  Maybe it's impossible for it not to become a debate, but thought it was worth a shot.

I think a better question for this entire topic would be "What do you propose we do about the high level of gun violence in our country?" or something similar.

 

Then you could start talking about gun regulation etc. What degree is ok/not ok and so forth. Instead it seems like we started the conversation midway or even at the end with the question "Are guns a God given right?"

 

Thats just my opinion though.

 

I am not for gun banning per say...we all know that even if something is banned doesnt mean its gone. Drugs? lol 

But I am in favor of maybe better regulation and registration.

 

 
In the context of this discussion it does. 
 
Force in the context of taking away firearms from the people would be done by use of force. Force in this context is defined by Webster as "coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence". Use of force is defined by the IACP as "The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." Violence is also defined by Webster as "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse". 

I think it can be violent if you make it violent; if you resist. That is where the violence starts. Nothing about instituting a gun ban is inherently violent...it is in the resistance and subsequent requirement for further action. Now I am not advocating for us to go belly up in the wake of unjust laws, Im just pointing out that a ban is not inherently violent.

Edited April 15, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Winchester]

Government: "You cannot buy X"

Citizen: *buys X*

Government: *sends police to home. Police cuddle offender and everyone is happy*

 

Is this the world people imagine? Because I'm pretty sure all laws are enforced through violence. I don't know of a single prohibition that does not involve the use of violence and the right to kill the offender if he resists that violence. Not one. They do attempt to start off with non-lethal methods, although SWAT raids are increasingly common. I keep coming back to the willingness of the government to commit violence over the length of shotgun barrels. I think that's enough evidence of derangement.

[NotreDame]

I think a better question for this entire topic would be "What do you propose we do about the high level of gun violence in our country?" or something similar.

 

Then you could start talking about gun regulation etc. What degree is ok/not ok and so forth. Instead it seems like we started the conversation midway or even at the end with the question "Are guns a God given right?"

 

Thats just my opinion though.

 

OK, so you see gun control in the context of having and wanting to remedy a high level of gun violence in the country?
 

[Winchester]

 

 

I think it can be violent if you make it violent; if you resist. That is where the violence starts. 

 

You don't consider putting someone under arrest (which involves search, restraint, and confinement) to be an act of violence?

[CrossCuT]

You don't consider putting someone under arrest (which involves search, restraint, and confinement) to be an act of violence?

 

If a gun ban went into law, then you are breaking the law. Dont break the law and you wont have police coming to your house. I dont know why that is so confusing.

 

And again, Im not saying that I think people should go belly up in the face of unjust laws, Im just pointing out something objective. 

[KnightofChrist]

I think it can be violent if you make it violent; if you resist. That is where the violence starts. Nothing about instituting a gun ban is inherently violent...it is in the resistance and subsequent requirement for further action. Now I am not advocating for us to go belly up in the wake of unjust laws, Im just pointing out that a ban is not inherently violent.

 

The threat of violence if one does not comply is violence. If someone threatened to imprison if you did not obey them, that would be an act of violence against you. Forcing people, forcing them against their will to do something or be harmed is an act of violence, and yes it is inherently violent.

[CrossCuT]

The threat of violence if one does not comply is violence. If someone threatened to imprison if you did not obey them, that would be an act of violence against you. Forcing people, forcing them against their will to do something or be harmed is an act of violence, and yes it is inherently violent.

 

Heh, I guess its a matter of opinion then. We are forced to do a lot of things we dont like through law but I dont ever see this violence argument unless its connected to guns which is ironic because guns are a violent weapon.

[KnightofChrist]

Heh, I guess its a matter of opinion then. We are forced to do a lot of things we dont like through law but I dont ever see this violence argument unless its connected to guns which is ironic because guns are a violent weapon.

 

It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of your self denial, you don't want to see that a gun ban would be an act of violence, because you don't want to see yourself as supporting acts of violence.