DFIB Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 But where is the fun in absence of hyperbole? On a serious note the discussion will be had by radicals on both sides of the argument. The results will be interesting and conflictive no matter what they are. This is a discussion where people are insatiably passionate and many are not willing to give at all. I think an interesting development has arisen that continues to widen the riff between the fed and the states. The worst part is that in the end, it will be decided by individuals who are appointed and not elected representatives of the people.
DwayneEMTP Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Whenever this debate pops up, people bring up other objects that can be used as deadly weapons such as the ones Mike mentioned. The difference is these other objects have nonlethal purposes. The only purpose of a gun is to kill, whether it be for hunting, personal protection or a killing spree. One argument that I find laughable in these debates is the one that a person should be able to protect themselves from the government. First, the government can't pull off something as simple as breaking into a hotel room to spy on someone. There is no way they are ever going to be competent enough take control over an entire country. This plan also depends on the members of the military to be conspirators in the whole thing. There is no way you would every get that many soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to turn against their own countrymen. The final thing, if this take over ever did get successfully organized, the battle was lost years ago. A person's AK-47 or whatever semi-automatic they prefer is no match for tanks, bombers, fighters, submarines, etc. The government had you outgunned decades ago and if they really wanted to kill you, they could have done so already. I actually find the fact that we may need to defend ourselves from our government the least laughable of all of the arguments. I would hold out Waco, TX as a perfect example of that. That slaughter had a mish-mash of nearly every law enforcement agency in the U.S. involved in killing men, women and children accused of no crimes. Not only did they all participate in attacking American citizens, they did so with zeal, and in the end were ok with the fact that they murdered them all in cold blood. Can there be a clearer example that our government can't be trusted to protect us when they believe that we're unable to protect ourselves? (Before making the argument that the government believed they were going there to confescate illegal firearms, reference the question asked by Sonny Bono during the congressional hearings, "Do you normally approach a compound that you believe houses illegal .50cal weapons hiding inside a horse trailer covered with a plastic tarp?") All of those people killed illegally and, to the best of my knoweldge, not a single person went to jail, or even lost their jobs. I'm truly surprised that these killings continue to be part of the anti-gun debate. These crimes are being committed using guns because guns are the golden ticket to the lead story in the news, in my opinion. Take way my guns (I'm not a gun fan, though I own two handguns), and instead I'll simply drive my truck down the school sidewalk as children are waiting to be let into school. Instead of shooting a theater full of people I'll throw a five gallon pail of gasoline over them followed by a zippo. My body count will likely be much higher. Plus, what do you suppose the odds are that the next hundred people needlessly killed will be killed with vehicles/gasoline instead of firearms once I've made front page news? I saw a poster on FB recently, one of those with Willie Wanka (The real one) that said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the streets? How is that working for Marijuana, Crack and prostitution?" Though you may label me as a fanatic, I do truly believe that within the spirit of the Second Amendment is an ability to protect ourselves against our own government, and that need is as relevant today, again in my opinion, as it was then, perhaps more so.
craig Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) I actually find the fact that we may need to defend ourselves from our government the least laughable of all of the arguments. I would hold out Waco, TX as a perfect example of that. That slaughter had a mish-mash of nearly every law enforcement agency in the U.S. involved in killing men, women and children accused of no crimes. gy Not only did they all participate in attacking American citizens, they did so with zeal, and in the end were ok with the fact that they murdered them all in cold blood. Can there be a clearer example that our government can't be trusted to protect us when they believe that we're unable to protect ourselves? (Before making the argument that the government believed they were going there to confescate illegal firearms, reference the question asked by Sonny Bono during the congressional hearings, "Do you normally approach a compound that you believe houses illegal .50cal weapons hiding inside a horse trailer covered with a plastic tarp?") All of those people killed illegally and, to the best of my knoweldge, not a single person went to jail, or even lost their jobs. I'm truly surprised that these killings continue to be part of the anti-gun debate. These crimes are being committed using guns because guns are the golden ticket to the lead story in the news, in my opinion. Take way my guns (I'm not a gun fan, though I own two handguns), and instead I'll simply drive my truck down the school sidewalk as children are waiting to be let into school. Instead of shooting a theater full of people I'll throw a five gallon pail of gasoline over them followed by a zippo. My body count will likely be much higher. Plus, what do you suppose the odds are that the next hundred people needlessly killed will be killed with vehicles/gasoline instead of firearms once I've made front page news? I saw a poster on FB recently, one of those with Willie Wanka (The real one) that said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the streets? How is that working for Marijuana, Crack and prostitution?" Though you may label me as a fanatic, I do truly believe that within the spirit of the Second Amendment is an ability to protect ourselves against our own government, and that need is as relevant today, again in my opinion, as it was then, perhaps more so. Seems to me, an outsider that is not an American citizen and lives in a country where gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.......... To have to own a gun to have the ability to protect your self from YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT....makes a mockery out of being a resident in the land of the free...............and that's my opinion as a Gun owner and Aussie citizen. Edited January 14, 2013 by craig
chbare Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 It's reasonable to believe our founding fathers, who had just finished a war against their own government were in fact fearful of governmental tyranny and did want citizens to be able to rise up against said tyranny. However, as stated earlier the complexity of the weapons that are currently available may not have been anticipated at that time. Then again, some of our founders were well ahead of their time in some ways.
DwayneEMTP Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 I'm not sure why you consider that a mockery? Our country was founded specifically because our forefathers felt the need to run from a repressive government in a country that was careful to keep them powerless, and then had the wisdom to try and create a new society where they had learned from that and attempted to disallow themselves from ending up in the same situation again. That just seems prudent and intelligent, doesn't it? Also, not having been raised in that culture I can understand where you're feelings come from. I have just as hard a time imagining living in a place where I'd ever be comfortable trusting in the good will of my government to always "do the right thing." Though, I've heard that your government might have one or two issues of your own.. :-) In my country being a resident of the Land of the Free comes with a responsibility to be prepared to defend those rights. I can no more imagine putting myself in a position to need to beg my government to preserve my rights than you can imagine having to defend yourself against yours...maybe it's a gap we'll never really be able to bridge.
Asysin2leads Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Dwayne, I understand your opinion, and Waco was a clusterfuck, but then again, you did have a cult leader inside keeping people prisoner and marrying underage girls. Its not like Janet Reno drove a tank through a church pot-luck. This is the way I look at it. The federal government has had very little to do with my life. Pretty much the only thing they've asked of me is to register for selective service when I turned 18, pay my taxes, and use proper postage. The Federal Government has never cut me off in traffic. The Federal Government has never kept me up at night with their loud parties. I've never seen the Federal Government instigate a fist fight at a ball game. I've never seen them trample someone at Wal-Mart. Law abiding citizens, on the other hand, I've seen much of that. Those people are the ones that have the most influence in my life. Those are the ones that pose the biggest threat to my safety. People complain about the government, but its my firm belief that the most plentiful and worst abuses of governmental authority don't come at the federal level, they come at the local level. How much corruption has to exist in a police force for the federal government to actually step in? The answer is quite an astounding level, because the Department of Justice is limited into what they can investigate, and in my experience you are far more likely to have your rights abused by some redneck sheriff than you are by a member of the FBI.
chbare Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Dwayne, can you agree that perhaps our current system and culture could use some sort of changing? I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, but I think reasonable interventions such as mandatory background checks and comprehensive training requirements can probably be agreed upon? Clearly, an outright ban will have people drawing lines, but I would like to see some sort of common ground.
DwayneEMTP Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Actually, I was injured/unemployed during the entirety of the congressional hearings of the Waco mess, and there was never any evidence that anyone was held against their will, as testified to by the undercover FBI agent that had been living with them for the previous 6 months and more.... But, maybe that's beside the point. I'm not clear on why the Fed Govt having little to do with you has bearing on whether or not we'll someday need to defend ourselves against a corrupt govt, either local or federal? Or how it applies to gun control issues? And to Chbare, though the drafters of the constitution may not have seen assault weapons, they would likely have drafted their documents with the idea that the people would have weapons in line with those possessed by the govt, right? And in that regards it seems the relativity hasn't changed much, except that the govt has weapons much more sophisticated now...
chbare Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Asys, the actions of the federal government regarding guns has led to a complete disaster where I live. The cartels are even better armed, the people of Mexico have suffered even more and a border patrol agent's family is devastated. I cannot help but be very skeptical about our government regulating new laws when they have made grave errors using current policies. Actually, I was injured/unemployed during the entirety of the congressional hearings of the Waco mess, and there was never any evidence that anyone was held against their will, as testified to by the undercover FBI agent that had been living with them for the previous 6 months and more.... But, maybe that's beside the point. I'm not clear on why the Fed Govt having little to do with you has bearing on whether or not we'll someday need to defend ourselves against a corrupt govt, either local or federal? Or how it applies to gun control issues? And to Chbare, though the drafters of the constitution may not have seen assault weapons, they would likely have drafted their documents with the idea that the people would have weapons in line with those possessed by the govt, right? And in that regards it seems the relativity hasn't changed much, except that the govt has weapons much more sophisticated now... I don't know brother. Unfortunately, we simply cannot say definitely, therefore I foresee our nation defining the second amendment and perhaps additional Supreme Court decisions occurring over the next several years. I'm keen to interpret as broadly as possible, but I have to admit a certain amount of ignorance in the constitutional scholar department. Edited January 14, 2013 by chbare
DwayneEMTP Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Dwayne, can you agree that perhaps our current system and culture could use some sort of changing? I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, but I think reasonable interventions such as mandatory background checks and comprehensive training requirements can probably be agreed upon? Clearly, an outright ban will have people drawing lines, but I would like to see some sort of common ground. This is such a slippery slope for me... I would love to say, "of course manditory background checks and training make sense..." But those would be managed by the government of course. In the same breath I would love to say, "Of course a woman has the right to make choices about her own body without govt censur...who could question that?" (Edit: Or, "of course a same sex couple in a committed relationship should enjoy the same rights and protections as any other couple.") And yet questions, and laws, and restrictions there are, right? Nothing would make me happier than to implement background checks and manditory training requirements for a right to own firearms and be confident that it would stop at reasonable limits, but how can a reasonable person have faith that that is where it will end, instead of being simply a foothold for the govts next 'minor' change? I think the vast majority of gun owners and second ammendment supporters feel the same.. I would be curious to know though, and this isn't my argument, but my cynical side showing is all...how many of the attacks that have happened would have been prevented with those measures in place? (I've no idea of the answer.) Edit: Sorry for the redundancies...we've been posting at the same time... Also, my opinion on the intentions of the 2nd Amendment are my own based on very limited readings on the subject. They seem to make sense to me based on my understanding of the reasons for founding our country and what seems to be logical precautions coming from a group of very logical men.
Recommended Posts