In an America with strict gun control....

[blankslate]

....the U.S. would have about as many firearms related deaths as Switzerland or Australia per capita. However, we also probably all recognize that won't happen so the point is rather moot.


....

 

[glenn1]

I love the Police are going to confiscate guns and we're all going to revolt fantasies.
First if they know you have one they'll give you a ton of warnings, then some kind of fine if its not paid they put a lean on your house or shut off the water, have fun explaining that to your wife & kids.
They will also outlaw bullets/shells/ammunition
If they decide to arrest you it won't happen at home, they'll enter your plate into a database and you'll be apprehended in you car and impound it for the unpaid fine or they could choose to arrest you at work have fun with that.
Point is this talk about Police being afraid to confront a gun owner is crazy.

Ahh yes, the corollary fantasy that not only will the 2nd Amendment be repealed, that everyone will be completely cooperative about it. Heck, why stop there since it's your fantasy, just imagine unanimous Senate votes to raise the top tax rate to 99% and outlaw all carbon emissions while you're at it. Knock yourself out creating your own personal utopia.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Ahh yes, the corollary fantasy that not only will the 2nd Amendment be repealed, that everyone will be completely cooperative about it. Heck, why stop there since it's your fantasy, just imagine unanimous Senate votes to raise the top tax rate to 99% and outlaw all carbon emissions while you're at it. Knock yourself out creating your own personal utopia.

Nothing was mentioned from me about confiscating guns, you are the one who brought it up.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh yes, the corollary fantasy that not only will the 2nd Amendment be repealed, that everyone will be completely cooperative about it. Heck, why stop there since it's your fantasy, just imagine unanimous Senate votes to raise the top tax rate to 99% and outlaw all carbon emissions while you're at it. Knock yourself out creating your own personal utopia.

I for one am really enjoying your gun control race war fanfic. When's the next episode?

 

[momeNt]

Repeal 2nd amendment.

Alcohol related driving deaths becomes undisputed #1 way that we kill one another.

Maybe the government won't have to pry our guns from our cold dead hands, but they certainly will have to do so with alcohol.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Ohhh they're coming to take my guns....oh yeah I'll stand up and they'll run in fear....oh others will join me.....yeah I'll be the gun poobah....yeah....2nd amendment...mmm....

All to this sound track (not work appropriate)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BYBzl5OCXjE

 

[Ertaz]

Ohhh they're coming to take my guns....oh yeah I'll stand up and they'll run in fear....oh others will join me.....yeah I'll be the gun poobah....yeah....2nd amendment...mmm....

All to this sound track (not work appropriate)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BYBzl5OCXjE

 

[fskimospy]

Uhmm, the indians had tons of guns and fought for years. They were mercilessly slaughtered.

You might want to think through your examples better.

 

[Ertaz]

Uhmm, the indians had tons of guns and fought for years. They were mercilessly slaughtered.

You might want to think through your examples better.

The government broke treaty after treaty with the Native American people. The purpose is to show that too much trust in the government is unfounded. Your analysis game is weak.

 

[momeNt]

The government broke treaty after treaty with the Native American people. The purpose is to show that too much trust in the government is unfounded. Your analysis game is weak.

While that point in itself may be true....

We are not the enemy to America or the American Government. The Indians were the enemy.

Look at it this way, while the gun toting revolutionist is an endearing symbol, it is not at all what it means to be American anymore. To be American is to be above revolution, to understand law and order, to allow democracy to take its natural course in preserving the wealth of our nation.

Guns don't help us accomplish any of that, guns only helped us establish a democracy, not to preserve one.

Get rid of the guns and let freedom ring, I think we've earned that much as Americans.

 

[glenn1]

Uhmm, the indians had tons of guns and fought for years. They were mercilessly slaughtered.

You might want to think through your examples better.

Fine if you don't like that example of merciless slaughtering. Then use the Ottoman disarmament of Armenians and their subsequent genocide. Or the Soviets disarmament and subsequent genocide of the Kulaks. Or Uaganda. Or Cuba. Or Darfur. Feel free to ignore more examples. But of course you're the kinder and gentler sort of disarmer, aren't you?

 

[Ertaz]

While that point in itself may be true....

We are not the enemy to America or the American Government. The Indians were the enemy.

Look at it this way, while the gun toting revolutionist is an endearing symbol, it is not at all what it means to be American anymore. To be American is to be above revolution, to understand law and order, to allow democracy to take its natural course in preserving the wealth of our nation.

Guns don't help us accomplish any of that, guns only helped us establish a democracy, not to preserve one.

Get rid of the guns and let freedom ring, I think we've earned that much as Americans.

I wholeheartedly disagree. To be American is to stand up for what is crucial and right against all odds and even popular opinion. It's an act of patriotism to accomplish that through our democratically elected process and, whenever that process fails, to do so by whatever means necessary.

 

[jackstar7]

People need to stop drinking and posting.

 

[MagickMan]

Fine if you don't like that example of merciless slaughtering. Then use the Ottoman disarmament of Armenians and their subsequent genocide. Or the Soviets disarmament and subsequent genocide of the Kulaks. Or Uaganda. Or Cuba. Or Darfur. Feel free to ignore more examples. But of course you're the kinder and gentler sort of disarmer, aren't you?

Of course they are, it's for "everyone's well-being". They're peaceful authoritarians. :\

 

[werepossum]

I wholeheartedly disagree. To be American is to stand up for what is crucial and right against all odds and even popular opinion. It's an act of patriotism to accomplish that through our democratically elected process and, whenever that process fails, to do so by whatever means necessary.

Well said.

 

[momeNt]

I wholeheartedly disagree. To be American is to stand up for what is crucial and right against all odds and even popular opinion. It's an act of patriotism to accomplish that through our democratically elected process and, whenever that process fails, to do so by whatever means necessary.

What's the measure of "whenever that process fails"?

 

[ivwshane]

I wholeheartedly disagree. To be American is to stand up for what is crucial and right against all odds and even popular opinion. It's an act of patriotism to accomplish that through our democratically elected process and, whenever that process fails, to do so by whatever means necessary.

Let me guess, the ones with the guns get to determine what's right?

I'm curious what you think your comment means when, through the democratic process, our elected leaders enact laws you disagree with? Or are you of the opinion that popular opinion means something other than enacting laws based on the will of the majority? Or are you saying that the process can only fail when our elected leaders do the opposite of what it's electorate want?

 

[Knowing]

Let me guess, the ones with the guns get to determine what's right?

Those who convert their swords to plowshares will plow for those who don't.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

It's like you don't even realize why the government claims a monopoly on violence.


No one has answered my question, I'm desperate to know why people are still entertaining this fantasy.

 

[ivwshane]

Those who convert their swords to plowshares will plow for those who don't.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

It's like you don't even realize why the government claims a monopoly on violence.


No one has answered my question, I'm desperate to know why people are still entertaining this fantasy.

Do you think quoting from an 18th century Italian philosopher makes your point valid or factually correct?

If catch phrases are all you need to be persuaded, let me know, I'm sure I could find some good ones for you.

 

[Knowing]

Do you think quoting from an 18th century Italian philosopher makes your point valid or factually correct?

If catch phrases are all you need to be persuaded, let me know, I'm sure I could find some good ones for you.

Actually I do think they're factually correct. If an armed man could be attacked with the same confidence as an unarmed one, then why hasn't there been a spree killing at a gun show? Also, historically I'm fairly certain that the ruling class has generally been armed, and the plowing class not.

If you've got some clever phrases in favor of gun control I'd love to read them. I'd even give you props if you could find one that wasn't trivial to defeat and that I hadn't heard before.

 

[MagickMan]

Do you think quoting from an 18th century Italian philosopher makes your point valid or factually correct?

Beats you quoting Miley Cyrus. :whiste:

 

[glenn1]

Let me guess, the ones with the guns get to determine what's right?

I'm curious what you think your comment means when, through the democratic process, our elected leaders enact laws you disagree with? Or are you of the opinion that popular opinion means something other than enacting laws based on the will of the majority? Or are you saying that the process can only fail when our elected leaders do the opposite of what it's electorate want?

Since we're discussing fantasy scenarios anyway, would you passively accept things if the electorate threw out the 1st Amendment instead? Imposition of sharia law by popular vote could be a real hoot - gays could be thrown from rooftops, women not allowed in public without permission from a male, the banning of arts and music. But you'd be perfectly OK with that since it was the "majority's will" correct?

Heck, how about if we just repealed the 13th and 14th Amendments and brought back slavery? Would that be enough to stir you to action, or would you stand idly by as people got sold into bondage so long as the "democratic process" was followed? Hell, is there any possible situation where you'd actually fight for something, anything you believed in beyond so long as 50% plus one person thinks is a good idea?

 

[ivwshane]

Actually I do think they're factually correct. If an armed man could be attacked with the same confidence as an unarmed one, then why hasn't there been a spree killing at a gun show? Also, historically I'm fairly certain that the ruling class has generally been armed, and the plowing class not.

If you've got some clever phrases in favor of gun control I'd love to read them. I'd even give you props if you could find one that wasn't trivial to defeat and that I hadn't heard before.

If an armed man could so easily defeat an unarmed man then why do we not have more violent crime than we currently do? Why is violent crime declining (or crime in general) despite there being less households with guns?

You are parroting gun advocate talking points that's been debunked:

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/
Feel free to check out his sources.


With regards to this thread, here is a quote I'm sure you'll love

The disinclination of the individual States to yield competent powers to Congress for the Federal Government—their unreasonable jealousy of that body & of one another—& the disposition which seems to pervade each, of being all-wise & all-powerful within itself, will, if there is not a change in the system, be our downfall as a Nation. This is as clear to me as the A. B. C.

 

[ivwshane]

Would I accept it? No, but that's not the premise of this thread. So if we assume that some how the repealing of the first happened (unlike with guns, there is no movement to end the freedom of speech which makes this exercise harder to fathom), I'd be a non violent revolutionist writing or making videos to reverse the popular decision. But honestly who knows what I would do, I certainly can't imagine myself killing people over it.

Since we're discussing fantasy scenarios anyway, would you passively accept things if the electorate threw out the 1st Amendment instead? Imposition of sharia law by popular vote could be a real hoot - gays could be thrown from rooftops, women not allowed in public without permission from a male, the banning of arts and music. But you'd be perfectly OK with that since it was the "majority's will" correct?

Heck, how about if we just repealed the 13th and 14th Amendments and brought back slavery? Would that be enough to stir you to action, or would you stand idly by as people got sold into bondage so long as the "democratic process" was followed? Hell, is there any possible situation where you'd actually fight for something, anything you believed in beyond so long as 50% plus one person thinks is a good idea?

 

[Knowing]

If an armed man could so easily defeat an unarmed man then why do we not have more violent crime than we currently do? Why is violent crime declining (or crime in general) despite there being less households with guns?

You are parroting gun advocate talking points that's been debunked:

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/
Feel free to check out his sources.


With regards to this thread, here is a quote I'm sure you'll love

"If"

Are you actually saying that an unarmed person is harder on balance to defeat than an armed person? Is disarming the police part of your plan? The military? Is this real life?

I'm not going to a website to find your argument, present it or don't.

Your quote implies that our federal government is competent, yet you made another thread this very night lamenting the activity of a federal actor. I wasn't here for Bush's tenure but I'd imagine it was much like every other political board on the internet, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Since we're doing this whole quote thing, I bring you this from the father of the United States is:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
Abraham Lincoln