Number of anti's on THR?

[RPCVYemen]

If guns are banned, what will be next? Knives, screwdrivers, hammers, motorized vehicles, water, pipes, hands and feet, teeth, dogs, glass, wood? All of these and soooooo many more items have been used to cause death or serious injury.

Assuming that you intend your comments to be taken seriously, antis argue that none of the other devices you mention possess the combination of lethality and portability of handguns.

Are you disagreeing? I would have a hard time buying the notion that teeth - to use one of your examples - are the equivalent of handguns in lethality (though they are more portable).

Mike

 

[omahanew]

"Our friends, the Canadians, Britons, and Aussies will have tyranny and eventually genocide. That much has been historically proven. "

That's nonsense. There's as much chance of that happening as the same happening in the United States. If you want tyranny see the "Patriot" Act.

 

[Alphazulu6]

Yeah... Seems to me that many people are called "anti-gun" "anti freedom" because they do not feel as liberal or conservative as the posters. For instance I have been called Un High Road because I don't believe that a crack head should own a firearm, or that people shouldnt break the law with their CCW. Obviously it boils down to a person's integrity as it does with anything.

So far I find it very amusing the opinions of many members vary so widely. I think that is what makes The High Road a great place to discuss articles and topics. It gives the reader and the poster a full spectrum view of what others think.

 

[omahanew]

...are like most other liberals....

they want to gain power and wealth by playing on other peoples fears and greed.

they promise the world and deliver more taxes and onerous inefficient government waste in return.

they run and hide from logic, choosing rather mindless rhetoric.

they always tell their audience that someone else is going to pay for the goodies they are promising.

biologist have a name for this type of critter.....parasite.

You seem to be calling the Bush Administration both liberal and parasitic.

 

[RPCVYemen]

While the Constitution can be amended, the SCT has never held that the core rights in the BOR and 14th can be undone by amendment.

I had forgotten this earlier statement. Is there a source for this claim. As I read the Constitution, what we call the Bill of Rights is legally just a set of Amendments. I don't know why a subsequent Amendment couldn't rescind one of those Amendments. There doesn't seem to be anything in the Constitution that prohibits that.

I would actually be very interested in reading what the Supreme Court has said about that issue.

Mike

 

[omahanew]

Thank you all for your contributions, and especially omahanew for offering his conceptions.

Jeez. All I was saying (originally) was that I was pro-gun, just not pro-ALL-guns...

 

[mmafan]

The "government" in this country is nothing more than the people speaking in concert and if the people, through their representative, decide that one of their "rights" should be abolished then it happens. If you've got a line on any other "rights" then please let me know where they come from...

Sadly this is the truth.

I give you this quote:


What I say is that 'just' or 'right' means nothing but what is in the interest of the stronger party. - Thrasymachus 338 BC

 

[skinnyguy]

Motorized vehicles are designed for portability, if not carrying. Ask Evander Holyfield if teeth are not capable of inflicting damage. Mike Tyson's teeth in particular. Teeth can, and have been used to cause extreme damage as documented here http://www.bcm.edu/oto/grand/062499.html from the Baylor College of Medicine. PDF link on referred page has graphic b&w photos.

 

[omahanew]

The other end of the spectrum : Switzerland = assault rifle in every home, shooting events every weekend, children are taught firearms safety at a young age. They don't have school shootings and their overall crime rate is very low. I wonder why.

Not quite in every home but pretty close. It's a remarkably homogeneous country despite there being four official languages and most Swiss TRUST their fellow Swiss. In order to buy a firearm in Switzerland (not issued to you as a member of the Army) you have to get a permit.

 

[mmafan]

Teeth can, and have been used to cause extreme damage as documented here

Marv Albert agrees.

 

[BHPshooter]

Omahanew,

How about putting all of those one-liners together in a post and constructing an argument? It would be much more cohesive and have less of the "hit-and-run" feel that your most recent posts have had. Just a pointer.

"Our friends, the Canadians, Britons, and Aussies will have tyranny and eventually genocide. That much has been historically proven. "

That's nonsense. There's as much chance of that happening as the same happening in the United States.

Again with the "Nuh-uh!" argument. :banghead:

You're right, sort of -- there is as much chance of that happening everywhere. It just so happens that the aforementioned countries are further along the tyrant's path, and are thus more in jeopardy of that happening.

We've been saying that... well, forever. It CAN happen here. If we allow ourselves to be roped into a gun registration scheme, confiscation WILL happen. If we are stupid enough to give them up, genocide WILL follow. It's not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

If you want tyranny see the "Patriot" Act.

Non-sequiturs are wonderful diversionary tactics. The Patriot Act is not what we're talking about here, but I'll play your game.
This may be a big newsflash, but the stuff in the Patriot Act is just a drop in the bucket compared to the stuff that goes on in those other "civilized" countries with regard to civil rights. I'm absolutely NO FAN of that law, BTW, but I find it very interesting -- even telling -- that you bring that up to compare tyranny here to in Europe, yet you don't see the analogous relationship between Europe's more "enlightened" gun prohibition laws and ours. Look this one up: doublethink.

Wes

 

[ConfuseUs]

Ya know, in the 1940s the U.S. government came awful close to committing a genocide. Suppose that the Japanese had invaded the mainland U.S. and airdropped small detachments to harass and interdict U.S. forces behind the lines. Think that maybe all the Nisei in the camps would have started to find their way into mass graves?

So I am not going to blindly agree that our fellow English speaking countries with less freedom to own firearms and total surveillance are immune.

 

[evan price]

Getting a late re-entry here but....

The debate over "natural" or "God Given" rights will continue to spiral because there is nothing one can point to that clarifies or generates these rights.
Perhaps the best way to discover the root of those rights is to examine the rise of man.

If you look at an animal, let's say, a monkey. The monkey is born into the world in an uncertain position. It is large enough to prey on smaller creatures. It is small enough to be prey for larger creatures. In the grand scheme of nature, nobody has any rights. Not even basic survival. You have to fight for every breath you take against mammals, reptiles, insects, environmental issues, lack of food, breeding competitors, etc.
So when Mankind develops self-awareness what do we see? We feel the need to raise ourselves above the level of the animals. What differentiates ourselves from animals is our ability to manipulate our environment to our benefit. We can exclude predators. Make our dwellings more habitable. More efficiently locate food sources.
It is this that we create that makes us above the level of animals. Got that?

In order that we are to maintain the level of separation from man to animal we focus on that which separates us. We have the concept of Rights.
By granting these as moral imperatives we create the building blocks that form society, which is our system of interaction between each other.

Cardinal among those is the right to exist.
Just because Joe is bigger than Stanley he does not have the right to kill him and eat him.
So we arrive at the first natural right: Life.

Now that you have a right to live, what do you do with it? The idea of self-determination has arisen. Is it right that Big Joe can capture and enslave Stanley for his entire life? You are granted your life, and the ability to do what you will with it, the second natural right: Liberty

So if you are granted your life and the freedom to do what you want, what if that means you work to improve your life? Again, we have strong Joe wanting to take what Stanley has created. What is the point of creating or improving something if you can't keep it to use the benefit you created? Thus we have the right of security of property.

To a certain extent I agree that all "rights" are somewhat arbitrary to the will of the majority. If enough people agree with Joe, then Stanley is getting his stuff taken, his person enslaved, and then cooked and fed to the masses.
It's called Mob Mentality. It has over-run entire nations. and it is basically immoral regardless of how many approve based upon the requirements of human civilization.

Common morality is what arose from those three basic rights. That is the lynchpin of civilization. The idea of morality arises not necessarily from religion but as how humans interact with each other to ensure the maximum of peace.
Without morality, we have no standing as superior creatures. Civilization crumbles. Witness the fall of the Roman Empire and any other great civilization throughout history.
Morals are imperative to survival of Malum In Se law, common law, Romanic law, and the modern civilization.

If you strip away the basic Rights, you have a bunch of monkeys screeching in the treetops waiting to be eaten by the leopards.
You cease to be human.

 

[Titan6]

There are many, especially on the left who would argue that we already have had one genocide:

http://www.aigenom.com/

Certainly the government did everything they could to keep ''them'' from getting weapons. To say it can't happen here is a dishonest argument and ignores history.

It is interesting in post #251 you say that a right can be done away with through a law and then in post #253 bring up the PA. Like others I am surprised you don't see the parallel because if anything the Patriot Act has been shown to be a violation of rights over and over in argument before the SCOTUS. Many provisions of it have been struck down and will likely continue to be struck down by the courts as the Fed attempts to continue this abuse of power.

Since you believe that governments exist to grant you rights then the Patriot Act should be fair in your mind and you should have no complaint. This is a fundamental difference in mind set between those who feel that they are responsible for themselves and those who think that someone else is responsible for them. I think we can fully agree on that anyway.

On the Swiss question you do realize that there are other countries in the world with higher levels of gun ownership and less crime than the US then Switzerland right? People most often bring up the Swiss when they want automatic weapons back. Finland is another example of more guns and less crime.

But let us take a look at France which up until 1995 had what some might consider reasonable gun laws. Crime is lower then the US, gun ownership is high (about the same as Canada) people have moderately easy access to firearms. In pattern that GB followed they passed a series of laws making gun ownership difficult or impossible. Being a betting man I figured crime would rise. And how. Since the first acts were passed violent crime in the country is up 50% and rising. In fact crime is up all over Europe since the imposition of heavy handed gun laws in 1995.

www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf

Look at Brazil. Firearm ownership not allowed until age 25. Carrying of weapons outside the home not generally allowed. One of the highest crime rates in the world.

In fact I would challenege you to show me a country where hand guns were banned and crime subsequently dropped. If you find one let me know.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I'll let another anti speak for himself:

from Tampa news paper columnist Daniel Ruth:


THEY'RE ARMED, DANGEROUS AND NEXT DOOR

By DANIEL RUTH

Some years ago, long after a co-worker had left the Ministry of
Truth, a number of us learned that, during this person's tenure
among us, the individual frequently was armed and dangerous in
the workplace.

If there is such a thing as a retroactive, post-traumatic, primal
scream/crawling into a fetal position/whimpering with delayed
fear syndrome -- the idea that many of us once worked alongside
not only a complete crazy nut job, but a complete crazy nut job
with a GUN certainly qualifies.

Or, put another way, if you ever needed a reason to install the
mother of all panic rooms, consider this certifiably insane
statistic: At the moment, across our fair beloved state, there
are 354,552 Floridians with concealed weapons permits walking
among us.

Let's face it, you just know at least a couple thousand of those
folks running around with their hidden weapons are probably more
unhinged than Edgar Allen Poe meets Rudolf Hess.

A SIMPLE TEST

Or perhaps they are directly behind you in traffic. Brrrrrrr.

Which brings us rather neatly to state Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Tea
Cup Poodle, the legislative supernumerary of the National Rifle
Association, who is the leading lotion boy on behalf of the gun
lobby to deny employers the right to bar workers from keeping
their weapons in their car while on company property.

How deranged is this?

TAKE THIS SIMPLE TEST.

Look around your workplace. Chances are there are one, or two, or
three, or more co-workers you and your colleagues have often
joked about as being the leading candidate to bring an AK-47 to
the office someday.

Or maybe that Dilbert from Hell is -- you!

And now Dennis Baxley, R-You Talkin' To Me?, wants to make it
just that much easier for your resident lunatic in the next
cubicle to turn Amalgamated Widgets into a killing field.

We live in an imperfect world -- filled with very, very strange
people who hear voices; who have issues; who really don't like
you just ... because.

And many of these people are down the hall -- seething,
fulminating, over in personnel -- filling out a job application.

PERFECT WORLD

Purely, as a general principle, can you make some kind of
abstract Second Amendment argument that law-abiding citizens
ought to be able to take their bazookas, their Uzis, their
50-caliber armor-piercing rocket launchers with them wherever
they go, including onto the grounds of Acme Nose Tweezer
International?

Well ... OK, whatever.

To be sure, in a perfect world where there was no workplace
violence, where some employees weren't more unhinged than Son of
Sam meets Lex Luthor, it would be fine if people drove into the
company parking lot with their NRA-approved death ray, or their
surface-to-air missile, or their Gatling Gun in the trunk. Who
would care?

However, if the private sector can regulate other forms of
employee behavior, such as smoking in the workplace, why can't
employers also establish rules governing the presence of lethal
weapons on private property?

There's no question the Florida Legislature, a subsidiary of the
National Rifle Association, will pass Baxley's Fortune 500 meets
"Six Feet Under" bill.

One question for Baxley, who does happen to have a conflict of
interest in his legislation since he is an Ocala funeral
director:

If as a result of the representative's legislative actions an act
of workplace violence leads to the murders of workers, would
Dennis Baxley also be willing to create a NRA-funded compensation
account for the surviving families?

Didn't think so.

CNB: I cannot avoid a snarky comment or two on this one:

Edgar Poe's foster family were named Allan with two a's not
Allen with an e. It's Edgar Allan Poe, not Edgar Allen Poe.
That is symptomatic of this whole diatribe.

Since so far the massacres Daniel Ruth had anxiety attacks over,
all occur in publicized "gun free zones" would Daniel Ruth also
be willing to create a Brady-funded compensation account for the
surviving families? Didn't think so.

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

In fact I would challenege you to show me a country where hand guns were banned and crime subsequently dropped. If you find one let me know.

A case, of sorts, could be made for totalitarian societies that ban weapons ownership (and lots of other things besides).

 

[buzz_knox]

A case, of sorts, could be made for totalitarian societies that ban weapons ownership (and lots of other things besides).

Crime didn't drop in those instances, which was the heart of the matter. It just went from crime alone to crime and state sponsored terror.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Motorized vehicles are designed for portability, if not carrying. Ask Evander Holyfield if teeth are not capable of inflicting damage. Mike Tyson's teeth in particular. Teeth can, and have been used to cause extreme damage as documented here http://www.bcm.edu/oto/grand/062499.html from the Baylor College of Medicine. PDF link on referred page has graphic b&w photos

So, if I take your comments seriously, there is no reason to equip solders and policeman with rifles, and or pistols - their teeth will be effective as those weapons?

Do you really want to make that case?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Perhaps the best way to discover the root of those rights is to examine the rise of man.

If you assume that such rights exist, and want to make a plausible set of statements about those rights - but I am not sure that your post does muc to argue that such rights in fact exist.

One of the criticism of the form of your arguments is roughly contemporaneous with the American Revolution - David Hume calls it the "is ought" fallacy. Here's the article from wikepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

Here's the summary:

In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was raised by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. But there seems to be a big difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive statements (about what ought to be).

I take a darker view. I suspect that Joe doesn't eat Stanley if/when Stanley had banded together with enough other Stanleys to prevent Joe from eating any one of them.

I think that the development of weapons was important as an equalizer in the struggle. A bigger faster man would almost always win a direct physical contest against a slower weaker man. But with the development of weapons, differences in size/strength/speed became less important. Give the slower weaker man a sword, and things changed. The mass manufacture of handguns was another step forward. There is that old saw, "G-d made men. Sam Colt made them equal."

I suspect that guns are not the most important element in that equalization - it's probably our ability to form packs that is the most important element.

But I am very pessimistic about uncovering an absolute moral imperative here.

Don't get me wrong - I am very happy and grateful to live in a society which awards me such rights (particularly as I am clearly not among the biggest and strongest of men ).

Mike

 

[Titan6]

I refuse to bite any Iraqi's. They carry all kinds of disease and don't shower much.

 

[Fosbery]

In order to buy a firearm in Switzerland (not issued to you as a member of the Army) you have to get a permit.

Not so. Rifles, muzzle loaders and shotguns can be bought without a permit anywhere, provided the purchaser is over 18. All guns* can be bought privately without a permit. Permits are issued for handguns to be bought at retail outlets or for people under 18 to buy guns from retail outlets, or for foreigners to buy from retail outlets. These permits are basically the same as passing a NICS check in the USA, which apply to all firearms, not just specific types. In truth, it is a lot easier to buy guns in Switzerland than in the US.

*except machineguns, which are illegal for most civillians to transfer, though ownership is legal.

 

[BHPshooter]

A case, of sorts, could be made for totalitarian societies that ban weapons ownership (and lots of other things besides).

Crime didn't drop in those instances, which was the heart of the matter. It just went from crime alone to crime and state sponsored terror.

We can make that argument? Really? That's kinda funny, since it was these totalitarian regimes who were the ones responsible for the government-sanctioned murder of over 100 million in the 20th Century.

Crime isn't exclusively defined as "when one breaks the law." The government essentially makes the laws, but that doesn't mean what they did isn't a crime. Even government-sanctioned murder is a crime -- a crime against humanity, and likewise, against those inalienable rights that we just can't seem to nail down (in this thread, at least).

So, if I take your comments seriously, there is no reason to equip solders and policeman with rifles, and or pistols - their teeth will be effective as those weapons?

Do you really want to make that case?

Yemen, you and skinnyguy are both trying to make different points. Both points are valid in their own context, but there is hardly any point to arguing incongruent stances.

Skinnyguy is saying that if we're going to ban guns because they can be used to commit crime and inflict harm on others, then we may as well ban anything sharp, pointy, fast, or massive. A valid point.

You're saying (basically) that guns are highly portable and effective, which is why they draw the attention that they do. Also a very valid point, and one that I'd like to expound on.

Doing so, we really see gun control for the fallacy that it is:

A) Guns ARE highly portable, and are the most effective weapon/defensive tool that has yet to be developed. As such, we like to ensure that these stay in the proper hands, yes?

B) So we try to keep them out of the hands of "bad guys" by making it harder to buy and carry a gun. This, despite our best-laid plans, can be counted as a complete failure. Does anyone dispute this? If you do, then:

1) why can we not point to any hard data that shows that gun control has had ANY effect on crime whatsoever, and
2) why would we be pushing for MORE gun control, when we cannot show that earlier gun control initiatives were effective?​

C) Since all of our efforts to keep guns out of the "wrong hands" have failed, and have only been successful in making it harder for good people to get guns, who does this affect, exactly? The good people, who are willing to follow laws? Or bad people, who are willing to break gun laws, to rob, and to murder?

D) We can't keep guns OUT of the wrong hands, therefore we need to keep guns IN THE RIGHT HANDS! The only way to do this is to stop making it a royal pain in the posterior for good people to buy and carry a gun. ANY gun. Ergo, we need to repeal gun control laws. Things will fix themselves in short order at that point.

But you say, "But then the Bad Guys could buy guns!" Newsflash: they already can, and they already do. Except when they buy them from the local crackhouse, or out of the trunk of a car, they're not filling out a 4473 and completing a background check, are they? Do they do that when they steal them, too?

What do we lose by making it easier to buy a gun, then? The BGs already have guns if they want them. Letting them buy them legally won't change that. What it WILL change is the reluctance of the GGs to buy a gun, because where there was a mountain of paperwork before, now they can buy a gun just like buying a book or CD or Reese's peanut butter cups.​

E) As gun control has had no documented effect on crime, no empirical evidence to show that it works, why do people like Sarah Brady and her ilk continue to push the gun-ban agenda? The only logical argument that follows is that they don't CARE if guns cause OR prevent crime, and that they simply want them gone. Why won't they tell us so, then?

Oh wait, they have:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy D-NY, CBS' 60-Minutes
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

The only remaining reasons that they would continue to push their agenda are all civilly malicious at best, sinister at worst.
​

There is actually one effect that we can contribute to gun control -- and that is the wholesale loss of Liberty for exactly zero gain.

Wes

 

[Titan6]

Omhanew's point is that if we pass an ammendment to the constitution that says all brown colored people have to die and have no rights to life than that is okay because the people have agreed that brown colored people have no rights. After all the people spoke in concert....

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy D-NY, CBS' 60-Minutes
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

I believe you mean Dianne Feinstein on AWB 94.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Yemen, you and skinnyguy are both trying to make different points. Both points are valid in their own context, but there is hardly any point to arguing incongruent stances.

Skinnyguy is saying that if we're going to ban guns because they can be used to commit crime and inflict harm on others, then we may as well ban anything sharp, pointy, fast, or massive. A valid point.

You're saying (basically) that guns are highly portable and effective, which is why they draw the attention that they do. Also a very valid point, and one that I'd like to expound on.

I have never heard an anti say that any object that can be used to kill a human being should be regulated/banned. I have heard pro gun folks say that antis say that any object that can be used to kill a human being should be regulated/banned. When we attribute arguments to antis that they don't make, we are defested with a simple (and true) statement, "I never said that."

The reductio ad absurdum that Skinnyguy proposes argues that cannot reasonably distinguish between teeth and a handguns as instruments of lethality. My point is that it is not only possible to distinguish between the two, but that we do in fact distinguish between the two when we arm soldies and police. What else could be the point of his post?

Mike