Where is the evidence that banning firearms would’ve prevented any of those murders?
Guns also aren’t necessary to kill people.
The golden rule defends gun ownership, the same way it defends sword ownership, dildo ownership and marijuana ownership.
The golden rule prevents using a gun to shoot someone, a sword to stab someone, a dildo to sodomize someone or pot to get someone stoned without their express consent (on all accounts, actually).
Well, I reckon you just went to a different Sunday School than I did.
Huh…I always thought the golden rule went something like ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’. 
Which, come to think of it, is one of the reasons that some gun owners would really prefer to keep their guns…so no one else can dictate the rules to them, without them having some kind of say in the process.
-XT
That argument doesn’t work, since the vast majority of people DO believe in restricting what people can own. Unless you are the sort of rabid libertarian who supports the private ownership of nuclear weapons, all we are arguing over is where the line is drawn; not whether the government should be allowed to impose restrictions at all.
They make it far easier; both on purpose and by accident.
While in fact, if anything they are doing the opposite. They sell their rights and those of others, just so they can hold onto their guns. Gun owners on the whole have been an enemy of freedom and rights in this country. And in many others.
Sure, we are arguing where to set the bar. I never said that the government can’t impose restrictions…obviously they have in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The argument still holds though, since it all depends on ones perspective as to what constitutes ‘need’. The OP is asking whether or not people ‘need’ guns…not whether or not the government can step in and restrict people from having nuclear weapons (or guns), ehe?
ETA:
Well, that’s your opinion. Personally, I don’t see how any rational person can (with a straight face) state that gun owners are the enemies of freedom and rights in this country, but then I know YOU can do so, and with great conviction. FWIW, my own comment that you are quoting there was mostly tongue in cheek, and wasn’t really the point I was arguing.
-XT
Oh, well, if you’re talking about resisting the Man, that’s a whole different thing. We Waco boys have a tradition of defiant resistance to government intrusion on our rights. Especially if we’re nuts.
Glad we cleared that up then, 'luci.
-XT
You are wrong. They are exactly the same thing in one important sense–they are all rights protected by the constitution. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that your opinion on this issue is exactly like a pro-lifer’s opinion on abortion.
This argument is idiotic. If guns are illegal, then they are completely unavailable to those who follow the law, by definition. But they are not unavailable to those who break the law.
This is ridiculous on its face.
So? What do you think this proves?
So let me get this straight.
You are wrong. I abhor *unjustified *coercion and force. If someone tries to harm me or my family, then I am justified in killing him/her.
I consider it a perfectly reasonable position. Even on this relatively moderate board, I saw people talking about how they’d vote against Obama despite opposing pretty much everything the GOP stood for - because Obama would take their guns. Again and again, I see these people vote away the rights of others, in return for promises that they can keep their stupid guns. I see them as people who are willing to sacrifice anything and everyone just so they can clutch their guns and feel like that makes them free. The only part of the Constitution they seem to care about is the Second Amendment.
I “know” nothing of the kind; the analogy just doesn’t work.
And where do you think criminals get those guns? The Gun Fairy?
But apparently not so ridiculous that you can actually argue against it.
Sort of like any single issue voter, right? I don’t see how someone who is focused on a single issue that is important to them threatens the Republic, but I don’t think there is going to be any debating with you on this subject…you aren’t going to be moved by argument or logic.
-XT
When they are willing to sacrifice everything else for that one issue. When they are willing to sacrifice the very rights they say are much of the point of defending gun ownership in the first place. And when there are so many of them.
Lots of different ways, including buying from unscrupulous dealers and stealing from law-abiding citizens. What do you think would happen if guns were suddenly outlawed? Do you think they would all just go “poof”?
Right, your idea that criminals are all like gunslingers from the movies is ridiculous on its face. There’s no way to argue against it, it just doesn’t make any sense in the first place. It simply is not true that my ownership of a gun means that any criminal that breaks into my house is now just going to have two guns instead of one.
Yes.
I can appreciate your self proclaimed bias. I have 35+ years of experience with firearms, all of it as a means to provide recreation or safety. I teach safety classes, shoot competitively, and hunt when I have the time. In my world view, firearms are tools that I use to achieve goals attached to the pursuits previously mentioned.
There are 250,000,000+ guns in the United States, In my lifetime, less than a percent or three of those guns will likely ever be used for nefarious purposes. While it is hard to deny that the typical modern handgun was designed for anti personnel roles, in reality, they are not being used as such in any numbers worth even considering their banishment. YMMV
Where do druggies get drugs?
You think it’s harder to make a firearm than it is crack? It’s far, far easier, in fact.
Here’s another analogy for you Der Trihs–your opinion on guns is like many of the opinions of the anti-SSM folks. You just think guns are “icky.” You have no real arguments and don’t use logic to formulate your position, guns are just gross to you. You just want them to disappear, and you want that so bad that you think making private ownership of guns illegal will make them disappear.
No; over time they would be confiscated and destroyed, lowering the supply. And most guns owned by criminals ultimately come from legal buyers; eliminate the legal market and you starve the illegal one.
I’m saying the exact opposite. The criminal will win, because he’ll have the gun out and be more willing to shoot; it’s the pro-gun people who think they are gunslingers who can magically draw and fire faster than a guy with a gun already out can kill them.
Don’t be silly. Guns kill people; homosexual marriages don’t. Another false analogy.
That totally worked for Alcohol and Narcotics.
And do you have any evidence that there are a large number of people who are willing to sacrifice everything for the single, vertical issue of keeping their right to own a gun? A few people saying this on a message board doesn’t exactly constitute hard evidence. There are always going to be some people who vote narrowly on a single issue that is important to them…nuclear energy and abortion spring to mind, for instance…but by and large people vote for a variety of reasons. People who voted against Obama (or for him) didn’t do so, by and large, strictly because of his stance on gun control, IMHO, but because of a spectrum of reasons, one of which might have been his stance on this one issue.
And I’d counter that there are people, on this very message board, who are equally willing to sacrifice our core principals and ALSO the (current) will of the people in order to get guns banned, strictly because they think it’s the right thing to do, or they think they know better than others what is best for them. If people REALLY want to ban personal ownership, then the proper way to do that is through the process…amend or remove the Amendment. We have a process for doing so, and it’s sort of telling that most gun control people don’t want to attempt to actually use that process, and instead try and circumvent it by doing an end around. Which, to my mind illustrates who exactly is on a slippery slope here, and who is not.
Personally, I have no great stake in all this. I don’t actually own a gun, nor do I intend to own one any time in the foreseeable future. However, the right to keep and bear arms IS a right, as of this moment, and the proper way to go about changing that is to use the freaking system we have that allows for changes to the Constitution. Any other action, any weasely end around methods ARE, IMHO, a threat to the Republic, as, to my mind, it sets a bad precedence. YMMV, but that’s how I sees it…
-XT