i have never heard an anti spout BS like this before


PDA






buy guns
September 22, 2004, 12:03 PM
Cars do indeed kill. There’s no denying that. BUT, our society has realized that the BENEFITS of the automobile outweigh the consequences of crazy drivers or 550hp modded street machines.

On the other hand, assault rifles have in no way shown MODERN society that they outweigh the negative consequences that they inflict. The key here is MODERN society and not the era in which our forefathers demanded our right to bear arms.

It is for this reason that over the last 20-30 years, lawyers, politicians, etc., have so diligently been fighting the prevalence of guns in our society. The reason that they picked assault rifles is ONLY because that was an easy target. I understand that statistically assault rifles are insignificant. THAT’S NOT THE POINT. The point is that this was an effort to retard the prevalence of guns in our society. And it’s not just one or two individuals who are anti-guns. It is a holistic movement by our nation in which we are beginning to recognize that the benefits once offered by these weapons are NO longer needed(if you don’t believe me then just look at a historical chart of the percentage of the population that bears arms). It is nothing to be ashamed or scared of…if anything, it is something to be proud of…it can be seen as an evolutionary step that our country is taking.

Times change people and so does the INTENT OF THE LAW.


this is part of a long post on a car message board about the AWB. right now it is just on guns in general. luckily there are other sane minded gun owners there to help me out.

If you enjoyed reading about "i have never heard an anti spout BS like this before" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GEM
September 22, 2004, 12:15 PM
The argument is one based on morality heuristics. The car doesn't have an intentionality of being an instrument of lethal force and does have perceived positive benefit. Some philosophers and social scientistis argue that the intentionality of lethal force is the moral problem with firearms. Having an instrument whose purpose is lethal is not acceptable. Car deaths are not planned but unfortunate consequences of a nonharmful use. Gun deaths are because of their lethality.

Gun folks try to avoid this by saying that guns are tools but that is BS. The right to to have them is predicated on their lethal nature as that is what will give you personal protection and the ability to resist tyranny.

The latter purpose is the moral basis to compensate for the potential harm that guns do to society. If you don't buy that argument, then you don't buy the RKBA.

It's the footbridge and trolley problem discussion from moral philosophy. Intentional death is worse than nonintentional death. Guns are intentional, cars are not. Thus, guns are bad according to this moral heuristic. The countervailing arguments are:

1. The moral nature of self-defense and defense against tyranny from a theoretic and philsophical base
2. The utlitarian argument that society is better with self-defense and defense against tyranny.

There will be a test and an essay.

reagansquad
September 22, 2004, 12:43 PM
What about people who live in the country and want to keep coyotes from eating their toy poodles?

flatrock
September 22, 2004, 12:48 PM
The latter purpose is the moral basis to compensate for the potential harm that guns do to society.

Guns do not harm society. Guns are inanimate objects, they are incapable of harming society, or even an individual person.

People can harm other people with guns.

They can also harm them with automobiles, baseball bast, golf clubs, knives, bricks, and all kinds of things.

A gun is particularly good at inflicting harm. Criminals use them because they are effective. However, they are also very effective when used for defense.

If you took away all guns, you wouldn't stop violent crime. You just make it harder for the weak to defend themselves from the strong.

Criminals by definition don't follow laws. Much of the violent crime is committed by felons that are already banned from owning guns.

Gun control laws don't work. Reducing the availability of guns might reduce the amount of violent crimes committed with guns, but it doesn't reduce the rate of violent crimes. Criminals just make use of other weapons.

R.H. Lee
September 22, 2004, 12:50 PM
Round all these blissninnies up, strip 'em naked and put 'em in rubber rooms with no sharp or hard objects so they can never hurt themselves.

El Tejon
September 22, 2004, 12:51 PM
Quite an admission from the other side! It's not about crime, it's about control!

mnrivrat
September 22, 2004, 12:51 PM
Qoute : "Gun folks try to avoid this by saying that guns are tools but that is BS. The right to to have them is predicated on their lethal nature as that is what will give you personal protection and the ability to resist tyranny."


And then some of us think that the benifits of individual rights , and freedoms is what this country was founded on . No matter what the intent of that feedom of choice is, it is the feedom to choose that is most important.
A need to justify reasons for the rights given in the constitution was never intended , simply stated or implied.

Even so , my right to personal protection does not come from society or the government . Not if I am a free man .

If need be , I am the lethal part of the equation and not my firearm. It ,in fact , IS just a tool.

Bubbles
September 22, 2004, 01:07 PM
The reason that they picked assault rifles is ONLY because that was an easy target.

Wow - even a blind pig finds an acorn periodically.

It's for this same reason that the anti's are going after .50-cal rifles. They figure that very few people can afford to own and shoot them, so most gun owners won't fight this battle.

Fortunately, most of us have wised up during the ten years of the AWB, and we know that the blissninnies won't stop at AW's and .50-cal rifles.

Justin
September 22, 2004, 01:30 PM
*snort*

Ambrose Bierce was right. Leftists are indeed the sort of people who think that a fair and egalitarian society can be brought about through threats of violence and censorship.

Ask this person just how they would enforce such a law.

In order for them to get this so-called modern society free of the scourge of guns, they have to admit that the only way it works is by threatening the use of force against those gun owners who disobey such a stupid and silly law.

mountain_cowboy
September 22, 2004, 01:33 PM
Excellent reply, GEM.

Cacique500
September 22, 2004, 01:53 PM
Tell him that you don't support his 1st Amendment right to free speech. How could our forefathers have forseen internet forums? Tell him if he wants to spout his bs he can go hunt down a printing press and mail you a copy.

strambo
September 22, 2004, 02:13 PM
Tell him if he wants to spout his bs he can go hunt down a printing press and mail you a copy.
Bwahahahaha! ROLMAO!:p :neener:

Harry Tuttle
September 22, 2004, 02:28 PM
We ran into this variety of kool aid drinking utopia-ist at the National Tribute to Jim & Sarah Brady in 2001.

They really believe that if they could banish firearms from this existence we would all happily take our government cheese and be safe, productive members of society.

ALS
September 22, 2004, 03:36 PM
One answer usually shuts them up. Ask the Korean Shop keepers in south central Los Angeles whether or not they would have their business with out their Guns. During the Rodney King riots in the early 1990's I seem to remember the news brodcasts showing the shop keepers on the sidewalk or on the roofs with Ar-15's and shotguns defending their businesses. Those that stood their ground lost nothing those who relied on the LAPD to protect their property lost everything.

MP5
September 22, 2004, 03:54 PM
we are beginning to recognize that the benefits once offered by these weapons are NO longer needed

Try casually arguing that to the guy who's just invaded your home and is about to butcher you and your family. Murder and treachery have been around since Cain and Abel. Banning certain weapons won't erase what's evil in human nature. Allow the weak and innocent, the brave and virtuous to arm themselves. They deserve a chance at survival, and they have the moral duty to resist evil--within and without.

fistful
September 22, 2004, 04:51 PM
just look at a historical chart of the percentage of the population that bears arms
Yeah, guys, just go and look at one of those charts! If you can find one. If we had such a chart, it would probably bear an inverse relationship to the crime rate. Hello?

So if the gun-toters are a minority then they must conform? How much conformity and elitism do we have to see from these people before we all realize that they are the conservatives.

Of course, the chart would also show the effect of teaching children that they are animals that evolved through random processes and therefore have no real value.:banghead:

Deavis
September 22, 2004, 04:52 PM
we are beginning to recognize that the benefits once offered by these weapons are NO longer needed

I guess if you live in a neighborhood with a police response time of 1 minute. It must be nice to live in a place where nobody gets robbed or mugged. Have a friend who was anti-gun, "no need for guns we have cops" until she got mugged. Funny how that works.

OF
September 22, 2004, 05:08 PM
i have never heard an anti spout BS like this before You need to get out more. ;)

- Gabe

oldfart
September 22, 2004, 05:11 PM
While I agree that guns were and are designed as lethal weapons, I generally use mine as a toy, shooting targets. There are reports from time to time of people using baseball bats to kill or harm other people, i.e., using a toy as a weapon. Which is worse? I think I know, but does the blissninny?

ZeroX
September 22, 2004, 05:17 PM
The better parallel to use when debating is cigarettes. They kill way more people than guns and everyone knows it.

Foreign Devil
September 22, 2004, 05:30 PM
Going with the car example, tell him that his logic demands that we put governors in cars restricting their speed to around the national speed limit. After all, the benefits of being able to drive that fast are outweighed by the negative consequences of permitting people to own these kinds of vehicles.

Russ
September 22, 2004, 05:38 PM
At the very least the "anti" is being honest in that AW's are not the ultimate goal but all guns. They should blow their smoke up someone else's because I don't care what they have to say.

Demon440
September 22, 2004, 05:55 PM
lol I am in that thread, under the same screen name. Can I say what forum that is? Also by far most people on there are pro RKBA.

rbrowning
September 22, 2004, 06:05 PM
"Round all these blissninnies up, strip 'em naked and put 'em in rubber rooms with no sharp or hard objects so they can never hurt themselves."

NO! Put them rubber room with LOTS of sharp and hard objects, lets get it over with quickly.

Standing Wolf
September 22, 2004, 06:27 PM
Times change people and so does the INTENT OF THE LAW.

Human nature doesn't change. Law can be rewritten, but the intent remains the intent—except, of course, in leftist extremist never-never land.

Sam Adams
September 22, 2004, 08:18 PM
The key here is MODERN society and not the era in which our forefathers demanded our right to bear arms.

This guy is startlingly ignorant. Our forefathers (politically speaking, of course) did not "demand" the right to bear arms. Rights can't be demanded - you either have them or you don't. The key question is whether those rights can be exercised without the interference of either the government or other individuals, i.e. whether they are being (unjustly and/or illegally) infringed upon or not. The 2nd Amendment created NOTHING - it merely put a specific prohibition against government infringement of our right to keep and bear arms ("RKBA") into the most basic document of our government.

Oh, and the arrogance of speaking of the "modern" era is stunning. As if somehow the attitude that "this time it is different" means something - just like it has meant NOTHING in the past, simply because human nature is the only constant in this world. We are no better at controlling our baser instincts and our general nature than those who lived in the late 18th Century, merely because we have better technology. In fact, I'd argue that the great mass of people is actually LESS in control of themselves than the average person who lived then, simply because we've largely disposed of the religion-based morality which was taught and respected to a far greater degree back then. Moron. Stupid. Ignorant. Naive. Moron.

The reason that they picked assault rifles is ONLY because that was an easy target. I understand that statistically assault rifles are insignificant. THAT’S NOT THE POINT. The point is that this was an effort to retard the prevalence of guns in our society.

Well, I'll give him an "A" for honesty. However, in being honest he defeats his own cause. Stating (in somewhat different words) that the real reason for the AWB was as a first step toward the ultimate disarmament of civilians is confirmation of the worst fears of gun owners about governmental power and the purpose of "gun control." I just wish that Feinstein, Schumer, Brady, Kennedy, etc. would say similar things in public, as it would put a stake in the heart of gun control. Unfortunately, the last time that happened was when Feinswine slipped on 60 Forgeries with her famous "...Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" quote.

we are beginning to recognize that the benefits once offered by these weapons are NO longer needed

He must obviously be talking about hunting or defense against Indians, because he cannot possibly be addressing the issue of crime or the big cahuna, deterring and/or fighting a domestic tyranny. I'll concede the first 2 - there aren't that many people who would starve without hunting, and there have been what, 1 or 2 Indian attacks in the last century? In that sense, times have certainly changed.

However, violent crime is not about to disappear. More to the point, the existence of guns (mostly handguns, I'll concede, as those are the easiest to carry and/or conceal) has deterred or defeated attempts at crime millions of times per year. Where there is "shall issue" legislation, crime has actually dropped faster than the national average.

Finally, this guy has completely ignored the issue of a domestic tyranny. The fact that we haven't had one imposed (i.e. a Nazi-style one, not the creeping Socialist one that we ARE experiencing) is both a result of and a tribute to the existence of guns - LOTS of guns - in the hands of civilians. Here, however, this guy is dead wrong - rifles are of critical importance. Handguns are generally of little utility against the forces of an occupying army (be it domestic or foreign) and, instead, the kudos have to go to rifles. Rifles can effectively reach out and wound or kill enemy soldiers or tyrants at ranges of several hundred yards (or far more in the hands of an expert armed with a precision piece of equipment), and are far more lethal than most handguns at the shorter ranges where handguns offer a higher probability of hitting the target. The rifle is the queen of the battlefield - according to no less an authority on guns than Col. Jeff Cooper - and the semi-automatic is the only generally available type of rifle which offers the volume of controlled fire that a true militia would need to fight an army of occupation. Among those, the military look-alike semi-autos are generally more rugged than the "hunting" type semi-autos, plus having the advantage of large magazines and plentiful spare parts availability. In 1776 the militia had the Kentucky Rifle, and in the modern era the equivalent is the military look-alike semi-auto rifle.

Times change people and so does the INTENT OF THE LAW.

If all that were important were the "intent" of the law, then why even bother with the Constitution? Seriously - why bother with a cumbersome written document setting forth a myriad of rules, when all it takes (according to this warped philosophy) is 5 black-robed justices to determine the content of the law? http://wavcentral.com/cgi-bin/log/log.cgi?id=2902&sound=/sounds/movies/AFishCalledWanda/a_hole.mp3

What this guy fails to state, probably because it is VERY "inconvenient" to his point of view, is that the very Constitution that he so obviously has no use for does, in fact, provide a well-known instrument for adjusting the law to changed times - amendment. Unfortunately for him, and very fortunately for the liberty-minded among us, it is very difficult to pass an amendment through Congress, and far more difficult to get 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote for it...which is precisely why this ignoramous doesn't mention it. Calling a Constitutional Convention, the only other means of amendment, is universally feared because of the possibility that many of the protections for our rights would be seriously eroded or completely stripped out of the document. No one sane wishes to take that gamble.

My attitude can be summed up by a quote from A.E. van Vogt's "The Weapon Shops of Isher"

The right to buy weapons is the right to be free

Sheslinger
September 22, 2004, 09:39 PM
(if you don’t believe me then just look at a historical chart of the percentage of the population that bears arms)

Am I wrong or are there not 80 million people owning guns in the US?

Sheslinger
September 22, 2004, 09:42 PM
(if you don’t believe me then just look at a historical chart of the percentage of the population that bears arms)

Am I wrong or are there not 80 million people owning guns in the US?

Kenneth Lew
September 23, 2004, 12:32 AM
The point is that this was an effort to retard the prevalence of guns in our society. And it’s not just one or two individuals who are anti-guns. It is a holistic movement by our nation in which we are beginning to recognize that the benefits once offered by these weapons are NO longer needed(if you don’t believe me then just look at a historical chart of the percentage of the population that bears arms). It is nothing to be ashamed or scared of…if anything, it is something to be proud of…it can be seen as an evolutionary step that our country is taking.

Times change people and so does the INTENT OF THE LAW.

This guy is an idiot. This country is taking an evolutionary step downward. Come to my side of town at night. He will believe in the right to pack in after seeing first hand people getting robbed 1 block from a police station!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/22/elderly.assault.ap/index.html

Kenneth Lew

fistful
September 23, 2004, 12:33 AM
We are no better at controlling our baser instincts and our general nature than those who lived in the late 18th Century, merely because we have better technology. In fact, I'd argue that the great mass of people is actually LESS in control of themselves than the average person who lived then Sam, you forget that, to the hoplophobe, owning or carrying weapons is evidence of moral deficiency. Therefore, if fewer people do so, as he/she argues, we are clearly progressing toward a more just society. :rolleyes:

Great point about the "semi-automatic assault weapons." If the second amendment doesn't cover such, then what does it apply to? But no need to go into such detail. Military rifles are designed to fill a military role; hunting rifles are designed to fire just a few rounds under less demanding conditions. Therefore, military pattern rifles are obviously to be preferred. The hard part is selling people on the very idea of a militia or an armed populace. Of course, if someone tells you privately owned weapons would be useless against an invading army or tyrannical government, just ask them what is going on in Iraq, or ask them what Vietnam was all about. We can still win in Iraq, though. [Rifles] are far more lethal than most handguns at the shorter ranges where handguns offer a higher probability of hitting the target. Not sure what you mean about handguns having a higher probability of hitting the target. Anyway, wouldn't the lethality of a rifle or pistol bullet at close range depend on the bullet used? What if the rifle bullet just goes clear through?

sawhitt
September 23, 2004, 01:04 AM
This is reminiscent of the posts by the rabid anti-gunners on the liberal boards. Luckily, there a others on those same boards that argue well against the nannys. I wonder how long it will be before I'm caught as one of the level-headed 2A supporters on some of those boards. Until then, I'll keep fighting the good fight.

Travis McGee
September 23, 2004, 02:51 AM
Yes, modern progressive societies demonstrate conclusively that only the police and military need high powered "assault rifles."

Civilians don't need them.
The government will protect them.

http://www.jpfo.org/7.jpg

Tharg
September 23, 2004, 07:22 AM
MOST people against the right to own guns never owned one/fired one (in my experience)

MOST people who are anti's have never been "violated" or had someone so close to them violated that they FELT it. (in my experience)

MOST people who are anti's FEEL rather than THINK - and since the feeling is "he/she won't hurt me" are the first to go ... since they have effectively put themselves in the position to be ruled/judged by the bad guy/bully/whatever's whims long before ANYTHING happens to them.

Thank god the government doesn't think this way - its amazing the difference force of any kind can make. W/o fireing a shot, one can disarm a situation just by showing the resolve to act. Something sheeple who think the police will be there instantly, and or the "fact" that if you co-operate you won't get hurt, don't get.

Bleh - does me no good to talk to the kettles here tho - we are (most of us) pots =)

heh

J/Tharg!

MP5
September 23, 2004, 08:18 AM
Finally, this guy has completely ignored the issue of a domestic tyranny. The fact that we haven't had one imposed

Yes we have: slavery, segregation at the end of a police baton, extermination or forced relocation of millions of Native Americans, internment of Japanese-Americans, McCarthyism and the Red Scare....

SunBear
September 23, 2004, 09:38 AM
Fear of INANIMATE OBJECTS is a MENTAL ILLNESS! :neener:

Y'all are so right. The Constitution merely protects Rights which precede and supercede any government. No legislation or document can take away my rights. They can, however, remove the protection from those who exercise those rights. Only armed men are free!

Sam Adams
September 23, 2004, 01:19 PM
I said, "Finally, this guy has completely ignored the issue of a domestic tyranny. The fact that we haven't had one imposed"

You said: Yes we have: slavery, segregation at the end of a police baton, extermination or forced relocation of millions of Native Americans, internment of Japanese-Americans, McCarthyism and the Red Scare....

First, I was speaking of a generalized tyranny where EVERYONE would be victimized. Second, McCarthyism and the Red Scare were hardly episodes of tyranny. They are not to be admired, but they weren't tyrannies. Third, if the slaves, victims of segregation, the Indians and the Japanese-Americans had been better armed, maybe the results would have been different - which was, after all, the point of my statement (even if these specific incidents were no mentioned).

R.H. Lee
September 23, 2004, 01:26 PM
McCarthyism and the Red Scare.... heh. Not only was McCarthy right, he was a patriot. We could use another Joe McCarthy right about now to ferret out and shed the light of day on our domestic enemies.

Mr. James
September 23, 2004, 04:08 PM
Thank you, RileyMc,

To compare "McCarthyism" with tyranny is risible. What? A few Hollywood writers had to let thier nannies go? (Confession: I cribbed that from Coulter). He WAS right. Gub'mint at the time was riven with unrepentent Stalinists, fellow-travelers, and useful idiots.

Tyranny means bodies piled like cord word. It means basements full of skulls. It means greasy secret policemen skulking about turning your neighbors into informants against you. It means the Gulag and the laogai. It doesn't mean a few traitorous bureaucrats losing their security clearances.

If you enjoyed reading about "i have never heard an anti spout BS like this before" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!