Pro/Anti gun arguement with a person I know

[Travis Lee]

Deanimator: good points, there

Playboy penguin: I'll admit to being an extremist. I know one poor sod who is technically a felon for supposedly trying to run over some cops at a DUI checkpoint. What makes me think he was basically railroaded was that he got 18 months of probation (basically for the DUI) instead of getting hammered with prison. It would be one thing if the prohibition on felons possessing firearms really meant VIOLENT felonies, but it seems there are more "paper felonies" all the time. And now MISDEMENOR "domestic abuse" convictions now result in becoming a "prohibited person". Any one of us is just ONE unsupported "domestic abuse" allegation or a restraining order away from being a "prohibited person"

Should we allow "felons" to buy and own deadly weapons? We already do! They can buy butcher knives, baseball bats, automobiles, and gasoline. And if you believe that seriously evil criminals never can obtain firearms, I have a bridge to sell you.

If we are not rehabilitating criminals and cannot trust them with deadly weapons, then we cannot trust them with FREEDOM, and we need to either dump them in a gulag in Alaska, or exterminate them expeditiously.

With every passing year, I am increasingly convinced that all the "reasonable gun laws" which we typically accept are aimed at US, and not at "criminals".

--Travis--

 

[cyco668]

"Your anti friend is an idiot. His entire argument is based on hear-say, hypothetical situation, and 'what-if' statements. No points he brought up could be defended with numerical, factual evidence." I'm using this as an example, not criticizing the anyone..
This statement holds true to PRO also. We (I'm basically pro) say "what if... a rapist, a burglar, a PCP addict..." all the time to justify firearms. What actions do we take in the hypothetical situation of a home invasion or a car-jacking? Where are our stats to show how firearms lowered crime? If we can show stats and numbers where crime has gone down when the citizens have arms, an Anti can pull up stats to show where crime went down due to firearms restrictions. How does anyone know what will happen if DC allows guns again? Can anyone prove that DC would have less crime if the gun ban never took place?
A Pro has no more proof than an Anti. We just take whatever information we have available, and then form a personal opinion. One of the great things about our country (those of us in the US) is that we can freely discuss and argue topics like this. Hopefully a few Anti's might be converted. A few Pros may convert also. One last thing, Antis usually acknowledge that some people still need to hunt to put food on the table.

 

[billybob]

Simply refer the opponent to some fairly recent history. That of a country of moms who cared for kids and the home and DADS who had actual productive JOBS.

A time when guns were a prominently displayed fixture in a GLASS gun case in the den and were not even given a second thought.

And how that was the status quo for TWO HUNDRED YEARS ....before irresponsible liberal social RE-engineering of a system that WAS WORKING became the cause of politicians who cater to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR in the country to pander votes.

In short: in a country rapidly declining both morally and economically that a GUN is the only real protection against even MORE losses.

Even for the anti.



(A few ounces of gold are also not a bad idea)

 

[Werewolf]

RE: Post #50 by Euclidian...

Well said Euclidian - very well said!

 

[billybob]

Well said Euclidian - very well said!

Hear, hear. VERY nice.

And the reason for Clinton's ELECTION is to be found in post 53.

I hope someone listens someday.

 

[Zen21Tao]

The only reason you'd want to treat them any differently is the emotion of fear. Either you see all other people as a liability to you, or you are afraid of firearms. If you don't think all people are a liability and there's no reason to be inherently afraid of inanimate objects, why would you not agree with me?

I agree but I see two additional reasons:

1. Guilt. Much of what lefties strive to do socially is driven by an inner feeling of guilt for what they do individually. A major motivator of the left is the desire to have freedom of action while the same time, not to have to take personal reasonability for their actions. This naturally instills a level cognitive dissonance. To reduce this cognitive dissonance they adopt ideas to save society. That way they can feel as though they are doing their part to make the world a better place.

2. Control. Those that obtain power have to have a way to maintain it. One technique to limit the populace’s ability to regain power is to limit THE MEANS by which they could (at least hope) to regain power. In other words, an unarmed populace is an obedient populace. The very reason for the 2nd Amendment isn’t just freedom from the tyranny of other citizens it is to protect against tyranny from the government as well.

 

[Euclidean]

True, the late great Cooper, God rest his soul, spoke of the "copers" and the "non-copers". The non-coper is threatened by the coper, but imho that's just another dimension of fear. I think the desire for the control of other people is about seeing all of the other people in society as liabilities, something to be afraid of.

I will admit there are a fair number of people out there who are liabilities, but we can't create a whole society based on the fear of these people.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Euclidean,

First off, sorry I did not respond sooner but it was a friday night.

It is absolutely silly to treat them any differently. After all you could choke somebody with a donut. It could make you become overweight if you eat the donut. I'm sure if I sat here I could waste more time coming up with ideas for "Assault Donuts" with choke inducing tactical chocolate coatings which need to be banned. After all who needs a donut anyway, it's not for hunting...

You can't possibly really believe this? If two men of equal size came at you...one with a croissant and one with a butcher knife... and you only had one round in your SD pistol you would have a hard time deciding which one to take down?

Straw man argument. The statement that "All change is not bad" is true but that statement proves nothing.

It is no more a straw man argument than the statement you made attempting to invalidate new gun laws by saying we did not have them until the 1960's.

No, rather that our laws preserve individual freedom first and foremost.

Laws are restrictive by nature. Even if they are restricting how someone can impose their wills on others thereby limiting your freedom. Even laws that say "a person may" are really saying "someone may not stop someone from". If you say laws should just preserve personal freedoms...how about a person who feels they should be free to marry a child, or have sex with animals, or shoot illegal aliens, or drive wrecklessly, or any other absurd notion. Those notions would not seem absurd to them at all. All laws cannot be reactionary. There is some prevention needed to protect the population. To say differently boarders on anarchist beliefs.

My personal feeling on gun control are basically...
* No violent offenders (for at least a certain amount of time after their offense, not a forever deal since people do change)
* No minors buying deadly weapons since they do not possess the faculties to understand the ramifications of the misuse of said weapon (most angry 13 yr olds these days could afford a $100 used Hi-point). Parents can buy a minor a weapon for all I care.

Then I do feel that people who want a concealed carry permit should have to show some safety training and pass a background check. Mainly to just show they have put a little effort into it. You have to get a license for a car too.

Those are my beliefs as of now. Who knows...they may change in the future depending on what I see and experience. I definately have a more relaxed view of gun control now than I did a year ago. According to polls on this very board I am in the majority. The polls I was able to find show that only around 20% or so of people on this board (which would definately tend to be more pro-gun than the general gun owning population that do not visit gun boards) tend to feel there should be no gun sale restrictions.

 

[Euclidean]

PPenguin: I honestly did used to be where you are now. I was there a few years ago.

I was wrong and I admit it. But I wasn't stupid. And I don't think you or even most people in general are.

Being human, we can't help but be wrong and ignorant at times. I have to accept I may be wrong or ignorant about any thing at any time. **** happens. I look at things I did and said in the past and slap myself for being such a dumbass. I'm sure 10 years from now I'll be embarassed about things I'm doing now.

But this time, I think I'm getting closer to the truth. The more I look at this, the more I think about it, and the more I try to take my emotions out of it, the more I realize that the complete freedom model is the only viable alternative.

I admit maybe my parameters of what is freedom may not be well defined enough. I'm working on it.

FWIW I don't think there's ever truly been a free society in history. The early U.S. was a pretty damn good try though. We have the benefits of over 2 centuries of screwing it up to draw on now, I think it can be fixed if we only tried.

I'll shut up now, or try to. I don't think anything productive will come out of going point for point any more. At a certain point I find it's just best to let it go, leave the discussion out there in cyberspace for everyone's consideration, and let the readers decide what they think about it based on the evidence presented.

If worse comes to worse, there must be some extremists if only to help counteract other extremists whose stance is far more dangerous.

 

[javacodeman]

Laws are restrictive by nature. Even if they are restricting how someone can impose their wills on others thereby limiting your freedom. Even laws that say "a person may" are really saying "someone may not stop someone from". If you say laws should just preserve personal freedoms...how about a person who feels they should be free to marry a child, or have sex with animals, or shoot illegal aliens, or drive wrecklessly, or any other absurd notion. Those notions would not seem absurd to them at all. All laws cannot be reactionary. There is some prevention needed to protect the population. To say differently boarders on anarchist beliefs.

PlayboyPenguin,

If I may, I'll state my opinions which I believe to be what Euclidean was trying to express. Euclidean, reply if this isn't what your were trying to convey.

Government should function to protect

1) Our country from other countries
2) Individuals from other individuals
3) Individuals from our government

Personal freedoms should be maximized where ever possible. The only time personal freedoms should be limited are cases where those freedoms would limit others' freedoms:

how about a person who feels they should be free to marry a child, or have sex with animals, or shoot illegal aliens, or drive wrecklessly

Another example is the draft. Here we are sacrificing an indiviual's freedom (#3) to support the protection of our country (#1). Everytime a sacrifice like this is made (sacrificing #3 for the sake of #1 or #2), it should be a last resort (and should a viable solution).

All that the "pro's" are saying is that taking gun freedom away is not in anyway a last resort for crime/violence at this point and furthermore it would never work anyway. So, we fall back on the mantra of maximizing personal freedom.

In the end, a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. He/she will have a weapon. Allow as many citizens to also have weapons as possible so as to deter the 1 out of every 1000 citizens that is a criminal. This is accomplished through relaxing gun laws.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Government should function to protect

1) Our country from other countries
2) Individuals from other individuals
3) Individuals from our government

Sounds good to me. I would argue that not allowing children and violent offenders to purchase weapons falls right under rule #2. How is your freedom impaired by simple rules like no violent felons and no children? It has already been established throughout history that both of these classes experience reduced or suspended rights and priveldges.

That is why I do support some gun laws and enforcement of the good ones we have now and do not feel new ones are needed.

I also think that the laws should not be any more complex than...
*Must be 18
*Must not have been convicted of a violent crime for xxx amount of time.
*Must take a CCW safety course and pass a background check to prove citizenship and criminal history to receive a CCW permit (not a violent felon...none of this you have unpaid parking tickets or once got arrested for jaywalking crap).

I might even add that you cannot currently be under a restraining order.

Beyond that I do not think there should be limits on types of firearms, types of ammo, how many you can own, where you can carry (with CCW permit...if you have a permit and are a teacher taking it to school is fine with me), etc.

 

[javacodeman]

I also think that the laws should not be any more complex than...
*Must be 18
*Must not have been convicted of a violent crime for xxx amount of time.
*Must take a CCW safety course and pass a background check to prove citizenship and criminal history (not a violent felon...none of this you have unpaid parking tickets or once got arrested for jaywalking crap).

I think that this is reasonable. We just have to make sure that the wackos out there don't start redefining what is "criminal."

He demonstrated treason and non-patriotism by not supporting the new laws on gun control. By his actions, he is a felon and should lose all rights to guns.
--future communist liberal

That would make me want to :banghead: