False logic. Just because those governments haven’t taken over, doesn’t mean it isn’t easier for them with the populace unarmed.
I don’t think Chief James quite realized what he was saying when he said:
“A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power. Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon, to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to, to do their, uh, job in a safe and effective manner. And face any oppositions that we may come upon. If it was a defensive measure, why did we lose fifty-five officers nationwide last year to gun violence?” -Emeryville CA Police Chief Ken James
Translation: Our job to prove who’s boss. We couldn’t dare dish out the shit we do to the peasants if we weren’t armed. As it is, too many of them are shooting back.
This is why the people need to be armed.
I was just checking in to see if last week’s one-leftist-with-a-few-rifles-scares-the-shit-out-of-the-entire-LAPD episode changed anyone’s mind on the chances of armed citizens successfully revolting against their government.
There seem to be some factoids missing in this thread. We, in America, have a gun culture in our history. If you are young or from another country, you probably don’t know what it’s like and haven’t been told about it. Service men returning from war brought home their rifles and also confiscated enemy weapons and that was ok. Boys would take their rifles to school and leave them in the corner of the classroom until after school and go hunting before returning home. These things were NORMAL. People rode around with guns in their gun racks in their pickup trucks.
Guns were literally everywhere in our society.
Some other information that must be taken into account when discussing the practicality of the citizenry resisting the Federal government.
A) the states were sovereign entities. It was the states that dealt with the Federal government, not an individual citizen. The Federal government was designed to deal primarily with other governments and to make sure (with the states approval) of a level playing field between the states i.e. Georgia couldn’t charge Florida a tax to pass through Georgia to get to the Carolinas to sell oranges. The states today are but shadows of what they are supposed to be.
B) the Federal government was small and limited, not this overly intrusive monstrosity we have now.
C) the Federal government is not permitted to maintain a standing army.
D) those militias you guys keep talking about were made of the citizens of the states where they lived and those militias belonged to the states. Yes, of course, the President could call them up for a National emergency, but he damned sure couldn’t call them up to put down an overthrow of the Federal government. The militiamen would be the ones doing the overthrowing.
So, you can see that the citizens, through the states, told the Federal government what they could and could not do. The states used to have representation in Washington, they were called Senators, but they don’t anymore.
This crap about the Federal government must be powerful enough to enforce the laws blah, blah, blah is nonsense. The Federal government was created primarily to deal with other governments so the states would have one voice when dealing with other countries and all would keep a check on each other along the lines of New York couldn’t make treaties with France, etc. It was never envisioned that they should be making laws against individual citizens. Each state had it’s own laws as to how it’s citizens should behave, and um they still do I think…
Now don’t start with, well it isn’t like that now, blah, blah…If the problem is an oversized Federal government that people believe that “we the people” aren’t in charge of and can’t control, the answer isn’t give em all our guns. The answer is stop sending them money and tell them they must start downsizing. Well, it sure as hell isn’t give em all our guns anyway.
Also, some of you are trying to swap around the burden thing. If we have weapons (and a constitutional guarantee to those weapons) and the government (meaning you bunch through the government) wants to take them, the burden is on the government to justify it, not on us to prove that we have some NEED for them.
Another point is, if the law had been passed and you had taken my guns, would that have prevented any shooting? The answer is no. I know that I will be much less safe, but, you say I can’t know if it would have prevented any shootings. Actually, I can. Had the law been passed 10 years ago, no crimes would have been prevented by my not having them, however, some crimes may have occurred had I not had them.
Another little stick in the side is, tell me the plan to get the guns out of the hands of criminals when the law is passed, and then please explain to me why that plan isn’t already being executed? And when you grab their guns, grab them up too. I mean, you’re already there and everything. Cause, if you can do that, then you don’t need to outlaw the other guns that I have. And if you can’t do that, then you don’t need to outlaw the other guns that I have…
Yeah, I know, you don’t want to send anyone after the criminals. They’re the good guys. It’s those evil LEGITIMATE gun owners you want to get, huh? They might decide they don’t want to finance all of your redistribution of wealth plans. And you surely don’t want them to have guns when that day comes…
It is interesting that the gun-grabbers bring up the subject of fear. I don’t own guns because I’m afraid. I own guns because it is a man’s responsibility to be prepared to provide safety to his loved ones (and a very small part because they are a lot of fun to shoot). Do you own homeowners insurance because you are afraid of fire? No, but because it is responsible to be prepared for a possibility that could wipe you out. Same thing. I don’t believe I will ever need to shoot anyone and hope I never do, but if it comes down to me and my loved ones, OR someone threatening any of us, well, that’s a no-brainer.
On the other hand, I do get a sense of an irrational fear on the part of the grabber crowd. Rational discussion is not possible with most of you. It’s like trying to talk to the true believers. No matter how much data and evidence is produced that what you’re saying makes no sense, it makes no difference because they are not speaking from a rational standpoint. They are speaking from an emotional standpoint. So, you end up with people posting "I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I have a vote and blah, blah, blah…It isn’t possible to communicate with people who admit, or don’t, that they are not basing their arguments on reason.
A century late and a straw man too many. 
Show me a gun grabber somewhere in the 7 pages of this thread? No code words please. An honest to god poster that outright wants to grab all your guns and make all guns (or equivalent to the jackbooted tyranny that the English live under since most of their firearms are out of private hands) illegal. Thanks for playing.
Good and Evil are juvenile concepts? Are you illiterate? People have been talking about good people and bad people for, well, a long time. They even wrote it down for us to study. It’s free right here on the iterweb.
I once heard, maybe in a movie, but it is true nonetheless, everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, that is the easy part, the hard part is doing what is right.
Anyway, the good guys and the bad guys.
If you do things that are detrimental to your fellow man, we call that bad.
If you do things that are helpful to your fellow man, we call that good.
Not really all that confusing.
How to tell the difference???
Imagine if you will, you have a gun in a holster on your person and you come out of a store, turn the corner and there in the alley is a man about to rape a woman. Which one do you point your gun at? If you point your gun at the woman and assist in the rape, we would call you a bad guy. If you point your gun at the man and make him stop, we would call you a good guy. If you tuck your tail and run, we would call you a coward. Of course, for the benefit of those who can’t grasp the juvenile concepts of good and bad, we would call the innocent woman a good guy and the rapist a bad guy too.
Again, not really all that confusing.
It is only complicated because people don’t have principles to guide them. Everything is relative and all that B.S. It isn’t relative. If you are hurting people, you are ABSOLUTELY a bad guy. This stuff isn’t hard.
A lot of energy is wasted messing with people who aren’t hurting anyone. Of course it is a lot safer than messing with people who are hurting someone.
Very nice debate jujitsu. Its a pretty good rebuttal to the whole “guns don’t kill people” bumper sticker argument.
The second amendment right is no more absolute than the first amendment right to free speech, and lobbying. “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
And yet we make these sort of laws all the time. And noone questions their constitutionality.
Is it easier to engage in mass murder with guns?
Off the top of my head, I’d say Elvis would like to take away all of our guns. Are you under the impression that there aren’t people out tehre that want to not only ban the sale of new guns but want confiscate all the guns that are already out there?
I question their constitutionality.
Or are you suggesting the “2 wrongs don’t make a right” people are mistaken also? You know, if the government is violating it’s authority in this area, then we really shouldn’t say anything about them exceeding their limitation in this other area. Surely you mistake?
Of course it is easier and if that was ALL that they were good for, I suspect we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Nope, I’m looking for posters that are adamant and vocal in this thread about confiscating all firearms. The term “gun grabber” tends to be lobbed at anyone that even questions the status quo. I can’t recall anyone in this thread that outright want to confiscate all private firearms, or even at a level on par with suffering under the English tyranny.
There are probably people out there that want to ban the sale of new guns and confiscate all firearms. I have not met one in real life but I’m sure they should be some.
I consider anyone that wants to ban a particular class of guns a “gun grabber.” It’s not necessary for them to want to ban all guns in order for them to earn the title.
And you would be wrong to do so.
There are all sorts of laws regulating and restricting lobbying and lobbyists and yet lobbying is one of the very few explicitly constitutionally protected activities. No right is absolute and if that is your position, you will lose the argument every time and rightly so.
The argument for defenders of the second amendment can’t be "SEE IT SAYS “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, You speaka the english or you need me to define those words for you? It makes us more than a little bit crazy.
No I’m saying that you are wrong and the people who place reasonable limits on both the first amendment and the second amendment are correct.
Yes but you can’t just blow off concerns about the lethality of guns by saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” The bumpersticker sloganeering on our side of the debate doesn’t convince anyone but those who are already convinced. We have the facts and the law on our side, we don’t need to adopt the bullshit styles of argumentation of the right to win this argument.
We need to address the lethality of guns because the gun grabbers will never give up until they realize that until the we disarm the criminals, they are actually better off with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens than a disarmed populace.
While there IS some correlation between gun ownership and reduction of crime, it is not robust enough for us to declare victory on this alone.
What is robust is the evidence that an increase in legal gun ownership does not increase gun violence. IOW, there is no real reason to restrict legal gun ownership.
What you want to restrict, if at all possible, is the transfer of guns from legal gun owners to criminals. And the best way to do that is licensing and registration, and the best part is that we aleady know that these things are PROBABLY constitutional (or at least Scalia seems to think they are, based on his approving tone towards Washington DC’s licensing and registration requirements, he might feel differently if it was implemented at the federal level but it didn’t sound like he would).
If you don’t recognize the problem and offer solutions to those problems (aside from “don’t look at us, we have nothing to do with the problem”), they will be no more convinced of the applicability of the constitution to your rights as some conservatives are to the voting rights of minorities and poor people. It turns out that conservatives don’t have a monopoly on stupid.
The term gun grabbers applies not just to gun confiscators but to gun banners as well.
Almost all my in-laws fall into this category. They don’t even want to discuss the issue, their minds are made up and no facts or figures can convince them differently
The facts may not be extremely relevant. There’s no controlled experiment they could read up on where a statistically significant group of countries were randomly assigned to different gun laws. Instead, the evidence is subject to different reasonable interpretations.
Almost everyone’s mind is made up. It’s true that a lot of people don’t want to discuss it. That doesn’t mean their minds are more made up than the people who do want to discuss it.
Some people do change their mind on gun questions, but it rarely is because they took a college class in statistics and then spent months pouring over peer reviewed criminology journals. More often, they changed their opinion after finding themselves among a lot of people with another opinion, as when someone moves from Mississippi to Madison. Or maybe they changed their opinion simultaneous with deciding that they themselves wanted a gun. If logic was determinant, you wouldn’t find a big correlation between gun ownership and opinion on the relationship of gun laws to gun crime. When it comes to gun ownership and gun law opinions, I’m confident that correlation is because of causation.
That would be a big broad brush then, wouldn’t it?
Most people who I know who changed their opinions regarding guns changed their minds due to crime. They are the victims of crime, or their friend/friend/neighbor/relative was a victim of crime. Then they come ask the “gun guy” they know about guns.
I don’t recall anyone I know personally ever changing their mind from pro-gun to anti-gun. But the other way, more than a few.
I agree with Ditka. It’s our term, we can define it as we wish.
kinda hard to have a non-acrimonious debate then. Or does “gun grabber” make it fair game to call you a “gun nut” and throw around “gun show loophole.” Y’all can’t have it both ways…
Yeah but even the folks at the harvard gun violence research outfit agrees that more legal gun ownership does not increase gun violence. The only negative effect legal gun ownership presents is when legal gun ownership becomes an avenue for transfer to criminals.
I changed my mind on “smart guns” on a related gun thread.
Sure if someone takes extremist views on gun rights, you can call them a gun nut. For example there are some posters who really think that the right to bear arms is absolute. You can call them a gun nut. I think the phrase “gun show loophole” is at least as useful a term as “partial birth abortion”
I’ve never complained about being called a gun nut.
Well, yes. But you are mistaken if you think such transfers are easily avoided.
Some won’t sell an unneeded gun, even to a dealer, for fear it might, perhaps several sales later, wind up in the hands of a criminal or suicide. But this just delays the sale until the liquidation of the gun owner’s estate. Then his or her weapons will be sold. And, eventually, resold. The tragedy of the current boom in gun sales is that, even if the owner is highly responsible, and even if takes a couple dozen transfers, many will eventually fall into the hands of criminals. Now, the gun won’t last forever. After a crime, the gun’s usable life will often end by it being thrown into a body of water, or become states evidence and then be melted down. But this process, where guns designed for killing people eventually do, before being destroyed, will take centuries.
My advice to responsible gun owners on this board is put in your will that your guns be turned over to the police, after your death, for their disposal. There is no other way you can stop your gun from eventually be used in crime or suicide.