All of you know what side of the fence I am on by now, so in all honesty answer me this. Do it without throwing a lot of “what if’s” that have not happened. Do not use lots of “say nothing” big words to hijack. Do not use any metaphysical bullshit. Abswer honestly.
The question is (drumroll)
With various states and cities already having gun laws and registration, have any of them really made any of you safer?
Then why are government workers called “civil servants”? Sorry, but the government is my servant. It’s just too bad I can’t fire it and hire a more competent servant.
No, the government is not society. Society is society. And people are people.
First of all, I never agreed to abide by all laws. If I don’t like a law, I simply ignore it. Secondly, I will never, ever, voluntarily give up any of my inalienable rights. Ever.
Congratulations on ducking answering the most fascinating question MaxTheVoll asked.
You’ve already said that you think private citizens should be able to own
-Artillery pieces with live ammo :eek:
-Flamethrowers :eek:
-Anti-aircraft missiles :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
-Tanks with live ammo :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
But what about Max’s question about:
-Plastic explosives
-Stealth fighters
and, what the heck
-Nuclear weapons
What about biological weapons? Or, as I suspect, are you simply enamoured of cool gadgets that you can use to make a big bang?
Well, I think it’s closer to being society than it is to either being your master or your servant. After all, if it’s your servant, it’s also everyone else’s servant, and that’s just a mess.
Debatable. One might argue that by choosing not to leave upon turning 18, paying taxes (assuming you do), driving on public roads, etc., you are implicitly agreeing to the social compact which makes up our society
Which ones are inalienable?
To me, the absolutely positively primo numero uno important right is freedom of expression. I value that above EVERYTHING. I will not tolerate governmental censorship ever. Period. Period. Period. BUT, despite how important I find that right to be, it’s far from absolute. For instance:
-libel and slander
-invasion of privacy
-fighting words
-yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre
-advertisement of illegal services
-revealing troop movements during wartime
etc.
I see no contradiction there.
None have me me significantly safer.
But i do admit that the very idea of private nukes makes me so uneasy that I am glad that the Government does have controls on WMD & such.
Plastic explosives? Sure, why not. A stealth fighter? I’d buy an F-117 in a heartbeat if I could afford it. Nuclear weapon? Sure. Though I suspect only a tiny fraction of the populous could afford one. Besides, nukes are overrated. Bioweapons? Same thing.
Outrageous? Perhaps. But I’m trying to make a point: all rights belong to the people, not the government. The government cannot, does not, and should not have any rights.
Unfortunately, it’s a mess by design. In an ideal system we would have multiple governments, and each would compete for our business. Just as cell phone companies compete for our business. That way, if there comes a time when your government no longer respects your sovereignty, you can fire the government and seek out one that does respect your rights. Inefficient? Perhaps. But I’ll take inefficiency over tyranny any day.
And one might argue that you’re wrong. Like me.
To each his own. Just keep in mind that, under a tyrannical government, you’ll be “expressing yourself” all the way to the gas chamber. IMO rights are meaningless unless you have the means and courage to defend them. And by force, if necessary.
OK, so you’ve pointed out some differences between the way cars and guns are regulated. I maintain that they are still largely similar approaches. No matter. The message I keep seeing is that until cars, or baseball, or soccer, are banned, then no single type of firearm should be banned. Maybe I’m niave, but I keep thinking that guns are primarily designed to kill something, and maybe a little bit of regulating is a good thing. As soon as Easton introduces the Deathbat 2000, with laser guided curare darts, I’ll agree that these analogies are well crafted.
Mind if I answer it?
Why not?
If they were legal I still wouldn’t buy any of them, because I’d have a really hard time explaining to a certain someone (and myself) why I plunked down, say, thirty grand for something I’d never use. Even if I could afford NBC stuff I’d give it a miss, because not only would I never use it, I don’t want the responsibility of storing it. On the other hand, if my next door neighbor feels that he absolutely has to add a 155mm howitzer to his collection, I’d have no problem with that.
I’m not going to pay three grand for a Barrett either, because I’m not a long range target shooter and that’s a big chunk of change for a wall hanger. I know of a couple of people who do have them, though, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.
On the other hand, if I could get the guys to chip in about a hundred bucks each for ammo I think that a gravel pit + an old beater car + a Ma Deuce on a pintle mount in my pickup = FUN.
Yes, quite small, and if I remember my 8th grade Alaskan Culture Biology class, and the City Zoo specs and various other info I’ve read over the years, their main mode of “aggression” is to form a circle with the males facing horns out on the outside and the females and young’n’s on the inside.
Unless of course you’re talking mating season, and the aggression they show against each other.
There is quite a musk ox goods tourist industry (sweaters, mittens) up here and enough musk ox farms to support it, so, they’re not all that hard to domesticate. (don’t worry, they just use the hair, much like sheep are shorn, they don’t kill the cute little critters).
The sad thing about it, Waverly, is that cars, baseball and soccer are not inalienable rights guaranteed us by the constitution of the United States of America. Gun ownership is. As much as it is a right, that right is being eroded by state, local, and federal governments all the time.
As soon as any of the above are guaranteed me by my government, I suppose I’ll feel less strongly about gun rights.
Sam
So, Crafter_Man, and Exgineer too I guess…
Is thereanything that you think the government (i.e. society) should be able to regulate ownership of?
**Exgineer[/ib]… you say you wouldn’t mind if your neighbor had a Howitzer. Fair enough. But I’d be incredulous if you said Timothy McVeigh should have had easy access to the same. Or high explosives. Or WMD.
Seriously though. Is there anywhere you would draw a line? Are you afraid of a slippery slope from WMD to pistols?
Because it really made a difference to the people in the Murrow Federal Building that he didn’t have easy access to a howitzer, or high explosives, or WMD, didn’t it? Thank God those the government regulates those items.
(It’s not the items, it’s the people)
McVeigh didn’t need a howitzer to murder all those people, did he? You can buy a hell of a lot of fertilizer and diesel fuel for the price of a piece of field artillery. The problem isn’t guns, flamethrowers, knives, swords, or AC-130 gunships; the problem is people like Timothy McVeigh.
In other words, what WeirdDave said.
It’s not a slippery slope problem for me either. I just happen to believe that gun control laws are illogical. They don’t solve the problems they purport to, and only end up disarming honest people.
You have it backwards. It is not the job of the government to regulate the people. It is the job of the people to regulate the government. The government must be restricted, not the people. The government must be regulated, not the people. The government must be monitored, not the people. The government must be put under a microscope, not the people. And if the government fails in its duty to help safeguard our inalienable rights, we have the right to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government (and one that will hopefully respect our sovereignty).
You forgot to add that even if gun control did solve crime problems, it would still be wrong.
The first step to getting rid of assault weapons in CA, was to register them. It will be interesting to see if the same happens to the .50.
While I agree with much of what Crafter_Man and Exgineer have posted in this thread, I do think that the idea of a government allowing private citizens to own artillery, tanks, stealth fighters and nuclear weapons is crossing the line. Basically, I think that a private citizen should be able to own any sort of arm that a soldier can carry and deploy on his own in a combat situation (so some anti-aircraft missiles would be restricted as well).
My reasoning behind this is that the Second Amendment is in place to allow us to defend ourselves against a government turned tyrannical. Artillery, nuclear weapons, etc. are weapons that are not necessary for guerilla warfare or overthrowing a government. These sorts of weapons should only be used against legitimate military targets and I would hope that anyone in possession of such thing would have the good sense never to use it in a civil war scenario. I would also argue that weapons such as the atom bomb should never have been invented, but that’s besides the point.
Private citizens should never be forced to register their arms, either. We have the Second Amendment precisely because the framers of the Constitution knew that a government is never to be trusted. Registration of arms leads to confiscation, period. Neither would registration help solve crime. To illustrate this, there is a program in Maryland which requires that all handguns sold in the state be fired and the casing recovered to store its ballistic data. They are currently considering abolishing the program as it has not aided the least in solving crimes involving a pistol. This is much more extreme than registration, IMHO. Cite.
This .50 BMG ban in California is completely ridiculous, as is the 1986 import ban and the 1934 machine gun ban.
This is my take on the CA .50 ban too. If a weapon exists out there that is truly an imminent threat, it needs to be regulated/removed nationwide, perhaps even to the point of being illegal to own period. No grandfather clauses, no legal in one state but not another, etc.
As written all the new restriction does is place an imposition on law abiding citizens. Those that would commit mayhem with it can still obtain it from elsewhere so nothing to deter them has been accomplished.
The bad guys weren’t stopped but the good guys are deprived. That’s stupid.
I would also like to add that this shows the utter lack of sense that the legislature in California exhibits. Did they simply not see those Korean shop owners defending their store with an AK-47 clone during the LA riots? There was a reason that their business wasn’t being looted.
Anyone who says that we don’t need “assault weapons” for self-defense is out of his mind.