Gun control thread #4387

[Four Suited Jack]

I am opposed to allowing civilians to carry firearms.

They have no need for them. not only does it make it easier to acquire them for illegal uses, it just increases the odds of people getting shot in general.

You know why it's illegal to carry knives in The Republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom (I'm unaware of such laws elsewhere)? If you're carrying a weapon or have access to one you are likely to use it when you "need" it, self defense can and has been a convenient excuse to commit murder.

In Ireland, An Gardaí Síochána (The Guardians of the peace - Our police force) don't even carry firearms, the regular ones anyway, only the plain clothed Gardaí and the Emergency Response Units carry them and we manage to police our nation just fine.

Increasing the circulation of firearms among the civilian population is not a good thing, firearms should be under the control of only the state.

 

[Courier]

The whole right to firearms thing in America was only put in place to convince the anti-federalists to adopt the Constitution. The anti-federalists were worried that the Constitution would allow the federal level of government to become too powerful, and wouldn't agree to adopt it until the Bill of Rights was added.

Literally the only reason that Americans have the right to bear arms is to allow the citizens to protect themselves in the event that the government tries to infringe on their other rights.

They have no need for them.

Hunting and self-defense aren't "needs"?

 

[Four Suited Jack]

The whole right to firearms thing in America was only put in place to convince the anti-federalists to adopt the Constitution. The anti-federalists were worried that the Constitution would allow the federal level of government to become too powerful, and wouldn't agree to adopt it until the Bill of Rights was added.

Literally the only reason that Americans have the right to bear arms is to allow the citizens to protect themselves in the event that the government tries to infringe on their other rights.

Which implies the United States military wouldn't defeat such a movement with ease.

An underground organization and Guerrilla tactics could be used but in general....

They have no need for them.

Hunting and self-defense aren't "needs"?

The police should be enough.

However, I am partial to hunting and I advocate it, I forgot about that.

Alright, so I have some exceptions for farmers and hunters but that's a very limited circulation.

 

[Sabirah]

Which implies the United States military wouldn't defeat such a movement with ease.

I wouldn't say that. Afghanistan is still going on after all

 

[Courier]

Which implies the United States military wouldn't defeat such a movement with ease.

An underground organization and Guerrilla tactics could be used but in general....

Most people in the military wouldn't fire on an American citizen. That just wouldn't happen.

The police should be enough.

Yeah, in America the police don't arrive until after a crime has been committed. If you don't have something to defend yourself with then you're out of luck.

However, I am partial to hunting and I advocate it, I forgot about that.

Alright, so I have some exceptions for farmers and hunters but that's a very limited circulation.

That's not limited, it's about 70% of people in the South-East.

Edit: Also yes, hunting is a necessity. Without controlled hunting you see an overpopulation (of deer especially). In the warm months the animals will feed themselves with farmer's crops, in the cold months there isn't enough food to support the larger population and they starve to death. Animal right's groups always seem to forget that.

I wouldn't say that. Afghanistan is still going on after all

There's a reason they call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires.

 

[Four Suited Jack]

Which implies the United States military wouldn't defeat such a movement with ease.

An underground organization and Guerrilla tactics could be used but in general....

Most people in the military wouldn't fire on an American citizen. That just wouldn't happen.

You'd be surprised but you're generally correct, however, a....let's say a police state wouldn't just declare war on the populace would it? The only way an armed conflict would occur is if there's a civilian uprising or some-such, where the rebels would be considered armed combatants.

However, this is mostly hypothetical at this stage.

The police should be enough.

Yeah, in America the police don't arrive until after a crime has been committed. If you don't have something to defend yourself with then you're out of luck.

As an example, if a criminal was trying to rob you and they know you have a gun I'd imagine they are more likely to kill you than if you didn't, also, see my convenient excuse statement above.

However, I am partial to hunting and I advocate it, I forgot about that.

Alright, so I have some exceptions for farmers and hunters but that's a very limited circulation.

That's not limited, it's about 70% of people in the South-East.

That's a cultural difference then, Ireland the the United States are two very different nations.

Edit: Also yes, hunting is a necessity. Without controlled hunting you see an overpopulation (of deer especially). In the warm months the animals will feed themselves with farmer's crops, in the cold months there isn't enough food to support the larger population and they starve to death. Animal right's groups always seem to forget that.

Agreed.

I wouldn't say that. Afghanistan is still going on after all

That's different.

The Taliban are trained in Guerrilla warfare, the average citizen wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Crni Vuk]

and #3 was mentioned above. And sometimes a peaceful protest doesn't work. Sometimes violent, bloody struggle is what it takes.

And how many of those did take place in the last 60 years in our "western" society (like the USA, Germany, France etc.) ? I am not going to argue that sometimes force is needed to fight for your freedom. But com on. How likely are such cases really in our political system right now ? There have to happen many very drastic changes before it requires from us to get weapons to defend our freedom.

I would say that we face a much different kind of danger right now where guns have no place in nor can they do any good or help. And that is the way how the mass media is threated and the way how the politicians act for the least 100 years - though today more then in the past with the manipulation and covering up informations just compare how the mass media acts before any "war" (regardless which one). This can be only changed by free education for example and people which rather distrust their government and the media. And that is the kind of right people have to fight for free access to informations there is at the moment way to much secrecy and people get way to easily manipulated believing their governments to easily when it goes in to a war (see the Iraq and the "smoking gun", Vietnam with the "Tonkin resolution" and there are still many open questions regading 9/11).

As said. Guns do not lead to inherently more "free" or "liberal" societies. They can be a tool to achieve those. But they are not a tool to keep those. Our brains are still the most important weapons.

They have no need for them. not only does it make it easier to acquire them for illegal uses, it just increases the odds of people getting shot in general

It is not so much about the "need" but the "right" to have those. I don't see any problem with granting your citizens the right to own some firearms. I am just saying.

Literally the only reason that Americans have the right to bear arms is to allow the citizens to protect themselves in the event that the government tries to infringe on their other rights.

Which has happened quite often even in the US. Yet people still never took their "arms" to fight against their "government".

And I assume even if people/civilians would start such "riots" they would get crushed rather easily. Civilians simply don't have much of a chance even with good arms against well trained military personal. Otherwise all of oppressive systems would be already gone by now.

I mean I see all the reasons behind it. I just fail to understand how weapons = freedom. I mean that sounds a we bit to simple.

 

[Courier]

Which has happened quite often even in the US. Yet people still never took their "arms" to fight against their "government".

*Ahem* Civil War *ahem* Whiskey Rebellion *ahem*

 

[Four Suited Jack]

Which has happened quite often even in the US. Yet people still never took their "arms" to fight against their "government".

*Ahem* Civil War *ahem* Whiskey Rebellion *ahem*

The civil war was two military forces.

Don't know about the Whiskey rebellion though.

They have no need for them. not only does it make it easier to acquire them for illegal uses, it just increases the odds of people getting shot in general

It is not so much about the "need" but the "right" to have those. I don't see any problem with granting your citizens the right to own some firearms. I am just saying.

I disagree, what gives people the inherent right to carry weapons? What gives anyone the right to do anything?

The state, that's what.

Rights are just privileges, if they were granted, they can be taken away just the same.

 

[Four Suited Jack]

Double post.

 

[Courier]

The civil war was two military forces.

The confederacy was a military force formed out of people using their "arms" to fight against their "government" like he said.

Edit: And like I always say, the Civil war was the logical conclusion of problems that were never entirely resolved in the early years of our country, namely Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism. America was on the verge of Civil War in 1788 but a compromise between the two factions managed to delay the fighting for a few decades.

 

[Four Suited Jack]

The civil war was two military forces.

The confederacy was a military force formed out of people using their "arms" to fight against their "government" like he said.

They seem a bit too well equipped and structured to be just run-of-the-mill rebels, don't you think?

 

[Crni Vuk]

yes but it is a very very "gray" area to say that.

We have to be carefull that our state/government isnt infantilizing us as citizens.

I see the need for restrictions.

A citizen is allowed to drive a car. But he is not allowed to drive a tank or other very valuable/dangerous military equipment.

You can get most medications in stores. But you are not allowd to own illegal drugs. And for many medications you need a doctor.

The same is true for weapons in my eyes. They CAN be potentialy dangerous. But as "sane" citizen you should have no problem to own a gun just as you can own a driving licence.

The civil war was two military forces.

The confederacy was a military force formed out of people using their "arms" to fight against their "government" like he said.

Edit: And like I always say, the Civil war was the logical conclusion of problems that were never entirely resolved in the early years of our country, namely Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism. America was on the verge of Civil War in 1788 but a compromise between the two factions managed to delay the fighting for a few decades.

Depends from which angle you see it. As the Confederate States of America saw them self as own nation with their own president and military. For the Union it was of course different. But the civil war is not something which happend in our timeline. And it is quite unlikely that we will have a same situation in the near future. Hence why I said. The dangers we face in our western societies can probably not be solved by weapons.

 

[Courier]

They seem a bit too well equipped and structured to be just run-of-the-mill rebels, don't you think?

The thing is that they weren't well equipped or structured, that's why they lost. The goal of the Confederacy was never to win the war, they knew that was impossible, rather they wanted to defend their land long enough that the Union would decide that it just wasn't worth it anymore and give up.

A citizen is allowed to drive a car. But he is not allowed to drive a tank or other very valuable/dangerous military equipment.
.

That's not entirely true:

http://www.milweb.net/

 

[Four Suited Jack]

They seem a bit too well equipped and structured to be just run-of-the-mill rebels, don't you think?

The thing is that they weren't well equipped or structured, that's why they lost. The goal of the Confederacy was never to win the war, they knew that was impossible, rather they wanted to defend their land long enough that the Union would decide that it just wasn't worth it anymore and give up.

I see, excuse my mistake.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Courier you need to read more about the Confederate States of America. It is much more complex then just what you wrotte now. - but as said. This is not a part of the issues we face today. Not to mention the civil war and the motivations and reasons behind it would deserve its own topic.

 

[Courier]

Courier you need to read more about the Confederate States of America. It is much more complex then just what you wrotte now. - but as said. This is not a part of the issues we face today. Not to mention the civil war and the motivations and reasons behind it would deserve its own topic.

How so? Are you trying to tell me that the Confederates actually had a chance of winning, or are you talking about what I said earlier about why it started?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Courier you need to read more about the Confederate States of America. It is much more complex then just what you wrotte now. - but as said. This is not a part of the issues we face today. Not to mention the civil war and the motivations and reasons behind it would deserve its own topic.

How so? Are you trying to tell me that the Confederates actually had a chance of winning, or are you talking about what I said earlier about why it started?

I am far from being a "professional" regarding the history of the US. But yes. Off the top of my head the Confederate had at least 2 times a reasonable chance of "wining" though before that one would have to know what a "win" in the eyes of the confederate meant. Though I am not going to discuss that here to much in detail. - it is rather complex from what I can read.

I am just naming the target of the Confederate state to be a "independent" nation (they had their own president after all). And as such it hoped eventually for recognition of their status (by France, Britain etc.) and as such a hope for aid and support. They had already here plans and it was only one key victory on the battlefield away to get those acceptance and eventually support. Particularly Britain had a very high interest in two separate states (North and South). A strong and united US would have meant a dangerous force for the British foreign policy. Not to mention to the cheap supplies of cotton.

The other part is Lincolns reelection. There is a debate about it from a historical point of view if Lincolns defeat for presidency would have eventually lead to negotiations and the end of the war which was at that point very unpopular because of the high loses in men. Principally McClellan Lincolns competition for the presidency was ready to bring an end to the war. Even Lincoln didn't believed in his victory. - But to say that. Even if he would have lost it is still a point to debate if that would have meant an end to the war but the war was continuing to take a very high toll. The prospect of a long and bloody war started to make the idea of "peace at all cost" offered by the Copperheads look more desirable.

So yes. Even when the North had many advantages on his hand particularly with the industry and the man power a "win" by the South was not unrealistic. If we see their independence as target.

But as said. That is just what I know off the top of my head. And to get deeper in detail would probably explode the topic. Not to mention the situation of the 18 century cant be compared with the situation today. The south and north have been basically two completely different cultures. With the South seeing themself as the true holders of the Victorian era and the North with the heavy industrialisation. They even saw the Mason-Dixon line culturally like a "frontier". A conflict was just a matter of time.

 

[Courier]

I am far from being a "professional" regarding the history of the US. But yes. Off the top of my head the Confederate had at least 2 times a reasonable chance of "wining" though before that one would have to know what a "win" in the eyes of the confederate meant. Though I am not going to discuss that here to much in detail. - it is rather complex from what I can read.

That depends on your definition of "winning" a war. If you define it as "Destroying, conquering, or otherwise militarily defeating your opponent" then no, the Confederacy never had a chance of winning. They had neither the manpower nor economy to do that. The Confederate's goal was not to destroy the Union, it was to hold them off long enough that they'd give up and recognize them as a separate country - so if you describe "winning" a war as "Not being completely conquered by invading forces" then yes, they could have won.

My comment about the Confederate's not being able to "Win" the war meant only that they could never actually "defeat" the North, they could only hope to continue the fighting long enough that the North would decide the whole thing wasn't worth it and allow them to secede.

I am just naming the target of the Confederate state to be a "independent" nation (they had their own president after all). And as such it hoped eventually for recognition of their status (by France, Britain etc.) and as such a hope for aid and support. They had already here plans and it was only one key victory on the battlefield away to get those acceptance and eventually support. Particularly Britain had a very high interest in two separate states (North and South). A strong and united US would have meant a dangerous force for the British foreign policy. Not to mention to the cheap supplies of cotton.

France and Britain both eventually started to distance themselves from the Confederacy once the Union started to make a bigger issue out of slavery. Had the Confederate's gained Europe's support then, yes, they had a chance of "winning".

The other part is Lincolns reelection. There is a debate about it from a historical point of view if Lincolns defeat for presidency would have eventually lead to negotiations and the end of the war which was at that point very unpopular because of the high loses in men. Principally McClellan Lincolns competition for the presidency was ready to bring an end to the war. Even Lincoln didn't believed in his victory because.

Yes, and had Lincoln been assassinated earlier or if McClellan had won then the South would have been able to survive without being re-absorbed into the Union, although for semantic reasons I stated above I still hardly consider this a "victory" in the military sense of the term.

But as said. That is just what I know off the top of my head. And to get deeper in detail would probably explode the topic. Not to mention the situation of the 18 century cant be compared with the situation today. The south and north have been basically two completely different cultures. With the South seeing themself as the true holders of the Victorian era and the North with the heavy industrialisation. A conflict was just a matter of time.

It was cultural differences and ideological differences that caused the war, and while the cultural differences might be a thing of the past the ideological differences among American citizenry is still very much relevant today. Like I said, until the problems left over from America's foundations are completely resolved there will be war. Another Civil War in America (or revolution if you prefer) is only a matter of time.

I'm not saying that this is relevant to other places such as Europe, but Americans need their guns in order to prevent the Feds from becoming to powerful. There will come a time in the future in which the Federalists and Anti-Federalists will bear arms against each other, it's only a matter of time (especially with all that's been going on recently). America right now is a barrel of gunpowder with the fuse slowly burning.

 

[TheWesDude]

some of you people fail to understand.

you may dismiss #2 and #3, but that is what americas "founding fathers" believed.

most people do not fully understand our "checks and balances" system.

they knew the common man was stupid and could never fully understand the choices and consequences of laws and such that were being passed.

to protect our highest office ( the president ), he/she/it is not elected by the people, but rather by the peoples representatives. ( the electoral college )

to protect the 2nd highest office(s) of the US, our supreme court justices are also not voted by the people, they are nominated by the president, then confirmed by the senate.


there were 2 key ideas the founding fathers understood.

1) absolute power corrupts absolutely.

2) the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots from time to time.


1 they tried to curtail by term limits after the fact.

2 they tried to reinforce by allowing its citizens to own guns. of course nowadays we have a lot more advanced weaponry.

my point still stands, we have the RIGHT to own guns because our founding fathers understood my original points #2 and #3, even if YOU do not.

the founding fathers made sure to insulate those positions in government from the common man.

the founding fathers also made sure to include protection against the government to the common man. and while being able to own a gun is very important, the right to free speech and other rights enumerated in the bill of rights are important as well, such as due process, innocent until proven guilty, protections against illegal search and siezure...

etc, etc.