Ummm....terrorists are people.
You're missing the point. Suppose we use "nerve gas" instead of gun. "Nerve gas doesn't kill people, people do." Do you really think that's a good argument for allowing nerve gas into the market?
How about guns on plains? I mean afterall guns don't hijack....people do.
A gun left alone has never killed anyone.
Straw man. Anyone actually say that?
"Well nerve gas left alone has never killed anyone, a gun left alone on a plane never hijacked it."
Guns are a very convenient way to kill people. So are cars. So are javelins used at track meets. So are tent stakes. So are kitchen skillets.
Yes but cars, and javelins are a lot harder. Given what you are implying, that for lack of gun people will use things like "cars and javelines" to murder, we should see a rise of such murders in countries with no guns. We don't.
Most gun related murders are caused in the heat of the moment. Such is easy with a gun, harder with a knife or javeline. The latter usually gives the person more time to cool down.
In any event I cannot imagine "drive by shootings" being replaced by "drive by javelines."
BS. Murder was not invented in the U.S.
Attacking straw men like the above proves nothing. You talk a lot about "anti-gun rhetoric" but what the heck is the above?
Maybe now you'll utilize the "You too" fallacy?
Gun murders are relatively rare outside the U.S., but outside the U.S. persons simply find other means for accomplishing the same.
You really need some proof for this, as stats indicates the US has more murders then any other industralized nation.
Humans, like most other predatory and territorial animals, are violent creatures by nature, under the right circumstances.
And so you wish to give them more efficient means to kill eachother, not less? If that's an argument for gun proliferation, it's a non sequitur.
Civilization will never remove certain natural impulses from humans, despite the silly hopeful wishes of so many idealists and peaceniks.
Did anyone say remove or reduce?
Human beings are likewise always ignorant and stupid at some level, that doesn't mean we remove education.
We'll never know unless the U.S. exeriences a huge invasion from a foreign invader, or the Government begins attacking its citizens on a wide scale, or factions of the U.S. military attempt a coup, will we? Perhaps the armed portions of the citizenry might play a substantial role in repelling the attack.
We'll never know for sure, but we can infer what is likely from history. And history shows us that barring extraordinary circumstance, militias tend to play little or no role constructive role. Especially now at days. In fact, what role they do play tends to do more harm then good, as it usually involves the "threatened" government commencing some sort of slaughter.
We also have no evidence at all our own government would ever be involved with the above.
Are we really to allow for gun proliferation based on the far off, hypothetical chance of not only the government becoming tyrranical, but also of some rag-tag militia saving the day? That to me sounds like a right-wing fantasy, not reality.
Also isn't what you suggest above, basically terrorist action? I ask because a lot of right-wing pro-gun advocates tend to be absolutists. And they say "terrorism is always wrong" but I guess if it comes to the supposed Second American Revolution that rule goes right out of the window. Absolutists my foot.
BTW, I would like you to know that Marxist revolutionary groups also agree with gun proliferation, groups like the Sparticus League, as they believe that an armed working class will play a key role in their upcoming revolution.
Now let me ask you two things: 1) What are the chances of this revolution happening in the US? 2) What are the chances that it will ever succeed?
The answer to both is very, very, very low. So low that it seems ridiculous that people would spend a good portion of their lives preparing for it. But is this not essentially what the pro-gun lobby is doing? Except that their "Revolution" would be more right-wing, not left?
My main point is that the Second Amendment was enacted precisely to provide the citizenry a means of protecting the basic liberties and rights guaranteed by the constitution and upon which this nation was founded. Three main threats to such liberties were recognized at the time: 1) foreign invasion; 2) insurrection; and 3) tyrannical use of force against the citizenry by the government (or its military).
Those three threats remain today, just as they have to other societies throughout the history of human civilization. To contend that somehow modern civilization has advanced to the degree that all modern democracies are now benevolent and would never attempt to do its own citizens harm is to be completely ignorant of both ancient and modern history, and/or utterly foolish.
Yes, but you miss the point. My point is not that such threats no longer exists (though they are far fetched), my point is that if they even came, it is unlikely a militia would be worth it weight in salt in turning the tide of anything.
All military information and events in history seem to indicate as much. Did the Kurds overthrow Saddam? Did the Branch Davidians do anything to hurt the feds? Are the Marxist groups in south america, which are both fanatical, ruthless, organized and in a rural area doing much at all?
If they all fail so miserably what makes you think you will succeed? If anything, I would say the Marxists and Kurds would have an even better chance then an american militia, as their government and militaries were not nearly as strong and their areas were far less developed (giving them more places to hide) and not only do they fail, they fail miserably. And not only that, they needlessly get people killed and have usually invoked more hatred from the common people then anything.
Dare I do it? Mention Nazis or fascists? How do you think they came to power? They did it with the willing cooperation of their countries' citizens, who had been democratically governed immediately before their seizing power.
I know this. In fact Hitler was the most popular leader of Europe during his time. Given that, do you think a "insurrection" would have really been so popular? Or do you think it would have simply met with fierce hatred?
Also the Nazis were not in a country with a democratic tradition, it had only recently been given a propped up version. Democracy there was thus hardly as established as it is in the US. Not only that but Germany had just lost a war and been in a major depression. Given that, I doubt gun rights would have done a damn thing. People liked Hitler, they liked the Nazis, and so would have willingly given their guns away at Hitler's request. So much for rebelion.
Think that none of those things could ever happen in modern America?
1) Unlikely.
2) Even more unlikely that a militia would play a serious role in changing the course of events.
Hmmmm.... Who predicted Hitler's phenomenal rise to power and near total domination of continental Europe, both east and west? Who predicted Stalin's suppression of all his opposition by mass murder and exile?
Did any of the above countries have a democratic tradition, or were they used to tyranny? Of course nobody predicted the above, but even a blind man can see that it was far more likely there, then here.
Today America faces the ever-present threat to civil liberties of its own citizens willingly trading them for a sense of greater security. One of the liberties so many of its citizens so often and so passionately argue should be abolished is the right to bear arms. It is perhaps the most important one, however, as an unarmed citizenry is literally defenseless from the three threats enumerated above. Once the citizenry is rendered defenseless, all liberties may be taken away, with or without force.
That sounds like paranoid hyperbole. Freedoms in America are stronger then ever, as is our democracy. You are exagerating both the extent and effect of certain new laws. Now at days we can show damn near anything on TV, even a woman with a fetus growing out of her head and cartoon characters taking dumps, we have a president mocked 24/7 everywhere, and book stores containing literature entitled "Communism and Terrorism" by Leon Trotsky. Does it really seem that given that, it is likely at all that we are sinking into dictatorship?
Are you really getting ready to got out and fight soon?
Because if so, I must say you worry me. And that paranoi alone is reason to take guns out of the hands of certain dangerous and radical people.
Nevertheless, our nation was founded by extremists and radicals. They were rebels.
No, compared to most revolutionary movements our American Revolution was pretty damn calm and moderate. We kept most of the people in power in power, changed very little of the social fabric and faught a government not yet established. That is one reason why it did so well.
Now at days, no revolution would be the same. And one must remember they fought not taxation but taxation
without representation. You have representation, utilize that, not violence. Otherwise you are just fighting against the will of the majority, rule of law and democracy, and why should I agree with some radical who fights against that, just because he doesn't like how it turned out? Just because he did not get his way in the elections?
Yes the above does sound extremist and dangerous, and if that is your argument against gun control, I must say it does far more to convince me to side for then against.
They had every right to be paranoid. They understood far better than we do today why trust in the benevolence of government can be so dangerous and misplaced. Health skepticism and wariness is utterly American and utterly justified after even a cursory look at history.
Is this why Wahsington lead an army to the Northern Colonies to squash the whiskey rebelion?
No they did not preach that government was inherently bad, well not all. What was mainly preached was that tyrannical government was bad. Our government is democratic, so your argument does not hold.
I'm all for keeping the Second Amendment. Yes, we have to put up with "gun nuts" and extremist private militia groups. Yes, we have to accept that many guns end up in the hands of those who would misuse them for crime. Yes, we have to put up with accidental shootings. You take the good with the bad.
In this day and age, I'm sorry but I think that criminals, reckless ill-tempered people, psychotics, gun nuts, radical right/left wing groups and private militia nuts who think they are going to play a key in some upcoming Second American Revolution constitute more of a danger to my life, liberty and happiness then some hypothetical government threat that may arise in the future. To me, risking all that is not worth the cost in lives or security. Nor the supposed benefit of having a militia, that in times of crisis, will likely do more harm then good.
You wouldn't seriously argue that those blights mean we should scrap that part of the First Amendment, would you?
False analogy. Freedom of the press is essential for a democracy. Gun rights are not. We consider many nations democratic that have a free press, but no gun rights. But would you consider a nation democratic that had gun rights and no free press?
Why then, should gun crime and violence be used as justifications for disarming the populace who chooses to be armed? Why should it be used to eviscerate much of the intent of the Second Amendment in the first place, which was to place military weapons in the hands of the citizenry (in the form of federal bans on "assault rifles" and machine guns without special and highly restricted licenses)?
Because gun rights are not essential for a democracy. This makes it then a question of values, not democratic norms. And I see much more value in the security which comes from gun control, especially when I look at some of those scary gun nuts and phenomenons like an ex-boyfriend that stalked one of my high school teachers with a gun, then I see in arming ourselves for some upcoming rebelion. And actually, the fact that so many americans see such a rebelion as inevitable or necessary is actually what makes me want to outlaw or at least control the proliferation of guns most of all.
Even if the majority of Americans ever decides to scrap the right to bear arms, it will be the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons.
Ok given the above, Japan, Birtain, Frances and I believe even Israel's decision to outlaw guns was a wrong choice that weakened their democracy, do you really believe that? Would you really be more scared of the government there, then here?
Secondly, your points seem to contradict eachother. On the one hand, you imply that getting rid of guns would do little to curb violence and murder in the US. Or threat of gun nuts. Because people can just as well use cars and javelines and human nature is violent ( the human nature part argues more for gun control then against imo). But at the same time maintain that gun ownership is essential to preserving our freedom, by allowing us to fight off the government.
Essentially then, outlawing guns does little to curb murder, because it does not hamper an individual's power to kill much. But it does hinder our ability to fight off the government i.e. kill.
But why can't we just fight off the government then with "javelines" and "cars"? Obviously because those things are not as powerful or lethal as guns. You know this. You whole talk of necessary rebelion assumes this. Yet when it comes to crime and militia threats you go to great lengths to deny this.
To me one can only get around that by positing the most superfluous, ad hoc rationals.
I ask myself now though, what am I more afraid of: radical militias, ruthless criminals and unstable people in my daily life, or the federal government? The answer is by far the former not the latter. And until that changes, I support gun control.
[/B]
