|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
dmaestro
29-Dec-12, 17:32
|
 If confiscation was the law of the land...
Lets say someday a President signs a bill authorizing confiscation of guns, and the Supreme Court rules it legal. This time the right has finally lost every legal avenue. You have become a permanent minority.
What do you do? Start a civil war?
|
|
We are close to that now. We know what happens to nations that have confiscated all the guns from the citizens. Look at what happened in Russia & the Soviet Union, Germany, and China as relatively recent glaring examples.
I don't think we will allow that to happen in the U.S.A.
|
|
You mean like Russia or China? Do you mean when the Constitution is finally and completely ignored like some interesting yet quaint old document? Would that happen just before or just after the 1st Amendment is gutted? I'm just trying to get a better idea of the layout of your dream, I mean hypothetical world. Is this the same world where you've fantasized about being a strong-arm door kicker, collecting peoples' guns at the point of a gun?
|
|
I suspect such a job would have a high turnover rate.
|
|
different approach
You know, Stalin supported a disarmed population as well. The difference between Stalin and those in favor of firearm confiscation is that Stalin knew that it was not weapons that made a population dangerous. It was the thoughts and ideas of human beings that were dangerous.
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We would not let our enemies (disloyal soviets) have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" -Stalin
See, after you confiscate all of the guns, you will realize what Stalin knew ahead of time: That you have solved nothing and changed nothing by confiscating firearms. Then you will create more and more control in an effort to create a population that is in line with what is best for the population and the nation.
Stalin tried to do this, and did so quite successfully. Perhaps you could take some notes from him on how to accomplish what you're trying to do.
|
dmaestro
30-Dec-12, 01:03
|
It is hypothetical. If enough people voted for aggressive gun control it could happen. But their reason for doing so would not be tyranny it would be safety. We would still have a democratic form of government like other western countries where nobody is worried about dictatorship despite severe restrictions on guns. That is different than the totalitarian states you cite. Nothing changes except there are less gun deaths.
|
|
Until the Molocks get hungry... then the Eloy are screwed.
|
|
Maestro
Think about what you are saying. "If enough people voted for aggressive gun control it would happen." Are you calling for a revolution? Because that is the only way to achieve aggressive gun control. It will not happen under our current system. You are also foolishly and naively believing that you are different from those who have come before you who have also thought that they were doing what was best for society.
I suggest that you begin reading the works of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin). Keep in mind, while reading (and you'll be reading for awhile- Lenin had plenty to say), that in the wings behind Lenin was Stalin. Who took over the foundation laid by Lenin.
Your biggest flaw is that you are naive and believe that you ever can be safe. You haven't realized that guns are not what harms people. Ideas and corrupt morality harm people. You cannot control ideas or morality, and disarming a population makes everyone a victim not only by taking away weapons, but by taking away the governmental process and relationship that allowed weapons in the first place.
Please provide historical evidence to prove that a disarmed population is a safe population.
|
|
Look at modern western-europe? Gun ownership in the United States is near three times the going rate that it is in the next highest per capita nation, handgun ownership is even higher. The only european nation whose ownership rate matches the United States is Switzerland because most swiss citizens are or have been irregulars and are issued with firearms (but not ammunition) by the government.
If you believe the extremists, Australia has been disarmed since 1997. In the 15 years since, no oppression has been felt.
Hitler was pretty liberal with gun control, was Nazi Germany oppression free?
If not, look north. Canada has been restricting sales of firearms for years. Are they a totalitarian hell hole?
Is it even possible to talk about gun control without the vast majority of gun owners jumping to the conclusion that gun control means an all-out ban?
|
|
... many people base their opinions upon fear. For them, either safety (freedom from all weapons) or protection (building one's own arsenal) seem like the only two options. Each of these two also believe they have already compromised on this issue and don't want to go further toward the other. Until reasonable compromises are possible, each side will dig in until even greater confrontations create even less-desired outcomes.
American society continues to become more and more polarized about issues like these. Is confrontation the only possibility?
|
|
The libs demand more control, more restriction, more capitulation to their desire to decide what others 'can have'. The pro-rights people respond to those demands by buying another 2 million firearms (many of those are to first time buyers). The libs say, 'I want to further restrict your gun rights, for your own good of course', and are being told, 'Bite me'. Now tell me again, who is going after who?
|
|
... for those who cannot compromise, there is only extremes to consider.
|
|
Yes, people who choose to retain their right are such uncompromising extremists. The prigs! Can't we all just give a little... more?
|
dmaestro
30-Dec-12, 12:44
|
If your rights infringe upon my rights to be safe in my community either we compromise or one of us loses. You can see from history where this is going. In other modern western democracies guns are increasingly restricted and yet dictators are not taking over. Gun extremists are on the wrong side of history and militias are obsolete. People will tire of the gun violence and demand compromise. The Supreme Court will allow reasonable restrictions on guns. Uncompromising extremists will become outlaws.
|
dmaestro
30-Dec-12, 13:00
|
Gun extremists refuse to compromise or accept legal gun restrictions. They thus violate the law and when caught become convicted criminals and lose their right to own guns. They get guns anyway and become outlaws. Better to compromise.
|
|
Could you clarify what it means, to be safe? Are you unsafe? Does someone 20 miles from you with a Glock 21 in a belt holster under her jacket make you unsafe? Please explain the chain of events that makes her unsafe to you. Where is 'to be safe' enumerated or spoken of in our constitution? Where does it say that you, "Have a right to be safe"? Is that in the preamble or a new amendment? Is 'safety' a feeling or an actual 'thing'? Are others legally, constitutionally, or morally responsible for your feelings?
|
dmaestro
30-Dec-12, 14:05
|
It is simple. Having irresponsible, criminal or dangerous people with guns results in a serious gunshot/murder rate that far exceeds other western democracies where gun safety is a higher priority. Irresponsible, criminal or dangerous people should NOT have access to guns. Merely having armed citizens everywhere to reduce the mayhem from one of the above still adds unnecessary risk. My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which is risked by the above unncessary dangers is unalienable.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Public safety promotes the general welfare.
|
|
Dmaestro
These other western nations aren't being taken over by dictators because WE built them and we are the ones with the biggest military and the most weapons. We ARE equivalent to a dictator. Id like to say were nicer than totalitarian regimes in the past, but given what we enable and do through our "charitable" foreign aid, research, and other foreign policy, I hesitate to say that we are. I'm not a fan of Vladimir Putin, but he is one of the only ones who has the balls to stand up to us, and he can in many ways because of how rich the Russian government is. I respect Putin for this. Anyway, someone always has to be in charge. It's always the person with the most weapons!
Always. Forget about firearms, the Mongols were using plague infected corpses as weapons. It's not firearms, it's people.
|
|
I have to wonder about having irresponsible, criminal or dangerous people trying to rewrite our constitution in order to make themselves FEEL safe. When they talk about, "high capacity weapons", "bullet clips", "high-powered handguns", "large caliber M16s", "silenced rifles", "exploding bullets" and other made up emotional terms, it shows they're not too bright either.
|
|
tat ...
... so ... might makes right. Those with the most weapons, make the rules. Is that more true or less true when we compare countries on one hand, with individuals on the other?
|
|
CHAZ
If you look at the entire history of civilization, "might makes right" has always been the law of the land. It has always been this way. Tat is absolutely correct.
It has only been over the course of the last 200 years or so that some nations have developed the attitude that there should be some freedoms and protections for some of the people. That view continues to be expanded, thankfully, but remains woefully incomplete.
The United States of America is the first country/nation in all the history of civilization that was founded on a written law specifying that man has inalienable rights and enumerates those rights in a constitution that spells out how the government shall operate.
This country/nation was founded on the principle that the government is subservient to the individual(s) collectively the public, not that the people are subservient to the government, whether it be a democracy, a monarchy, or a dictatorship.
To protect and preserve the rights of the individual and the minority, the Constitution provides written, enumerated rights and one of these gives "might" to the public (the 2nd Amendment).
I believe that individuals have every right to maintain equivalence to individual army regulars and I also believe that the State National Guards have every right (and obligation) to maintain equivalence to the Army with regard to major weapons. The National Guards are the "militia" of today.
What say you?
|
|
Softy ...
I repeat the preamble to the ENTIRE Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This is more important and consequential than 2-A in my opinion as it sets the stage for everything that follows.
... citizens carrying any military type weapons will not insure domestic tranquility ... nor promote general welfare ... nor secure the blessings of liberty ... for those of us who may fear these kinds of weapons in the wrong hands. Where these folks may have been willing to 'live and let live' along side hunters and target practicers, it's becoming a different issue when gun ownership is getting out of control.
|
|
Chaz
I respectfully disagree with your premise.
Most gun owners in the country are responsible citizens as envisioned by the Constitution. You have NOT seen any mass killings, or even individual killings by the "responsible" citizen. But, responsible citizens while armed will reduce gun violence, mass killings, and potentially stop a runaway despotic government from developing.
The ones you rightly fear are the mentally unstable, the gangs, and those illegal trafficking in guns, drugs, prostitutes etc... criminals.
Restrictions on "responsible" citizens will not solve your problem. Solve the problem... don't punish responsible citizens.
|
|
"...These other western nations aren't being taken over by dictators because WE built them...."
Right on girl, right on!
"...The United States of America is the first country/nation in all the history of civilization that was founded on a written law specifying that man has inalienable rights and enumerates those rights in a constitution that spells out how the government shall operate..."
Er, softy, do you actually know where some of those rights and written laws came from?
|
dmaestro
30-Dec-12, 17:24
|
There has long been a tacit compromise of tolerance for ownership of traditional weapons for ordinary hunting, marksmanship, and self defense as being an acceptable risk. But this general tolerance does not extend to other modern military style weapons suitable for mass killing. There the burden shifts to the individual to demonstrate to society why they should tolerate the increased risk to public safety. When no measure of restriction or registration and assessment is acceptable to the more extreme 2A advocates then blanket banning of certain weapons becomes the only remaining option. Compromise would be far more win win.
|
|
Softy ...
... I'm not seeking unreasonable restrictions, but unless the NRA and 2-A advocates get behind stronger, national restrictions, licensing and registrations, it seems they may be imposed by a public demanding them ... with many unintended consequences following. Do you want to be on the side that helps write the new rules? Or, do you want to be on the side that must defend itself against an incensed public who will no longer tolerate a too-narrow POV?
|
|
So, firearms owners have been 'tolerated' long enough and that tolerance is now coming to an end? Be 'reasonable' and either get on board with the 'new rules' that further restrict our rights, or suffer the consequences?
And what consequences are those?
|
|
change
I am not denying or denigrating the English contributions to "enlightenment". Much of our current Western freedoms, rights, and liberties have been taken, little by little, from despotic monarchs in England. The English started the "modern" trend with the Magna Carta in 1088. And little by little, the English have forced the monarchy to yield more and more. Agreed.
BUT, the tradition has historically been that Monarchs rule, landlords rule, and those who could afford the weapons rule over the peasants. England was not founded on our modern concepts and there is no document (that I know of) establishing the people as the rulers over any government in England.
In the U.S. those, we had to have violent revolution to break with a tyrannical government and then we formed a new government with all the safeguards and protections for the people from a tyrannical government.
I stand behind my statement that this is the first (maybe only?) nation that was formed on the basis of protections from government and freedoms, rights and liberties for the people instead of grants given to the people by government.
|
|
Chaz
Once again I will respectfully disagree with your premise.
There is not an overwhelming majority of people who want to disarm the public. (notice the large numbers buying guns and ammunition)
There is a loud, boisterous and incensed minority making as much political hay as possible on the killing of innocents by a mental deficient.
The point I made before was for you to consider solving the problems, not punishing the innocent public with loss of freedoms. The problems are the inner city poor, the mentally deficient, the gangs, the traffickers in drugs, guns, and prostitution.
|
|
Softy ...
... you keep making it into an either/or argument; it is not. Until you realize there may be a middle ground to seek, there won't be any. I certainly am not trying to disarm those who are responsible gun owners. I do not like the idea of armed guards in all schools and churches being necessary ... who's going to pay for these otherwise unnecessary protections? Many people believe they are losing their freedoms (... domestic tranquility, etc.) by those who advocate guns in all public places. Why are the gun advocates trying to arm everyone?
|
|
|
Log in 
