Another gun thread...

[popeyespappy]

So to condense down what you said, and remove the talk about constitution, which for the third time I'll say isn't what I'm interested in; you equate the freedom to own a gun, as being on the same level as the freedom of religion, or speech.

Am I right?

Legally speaking, yes. Those rights are on equal footing according to our laws. I don't personally place as high a value on the right to bear arms as I do on free speech and assembly. Or even rights that are a lessor legal footing such as equality. Equal treatment of all citizens by the government is generally recognized as a right by law, but it isn't guaranteed in the Constitution as is the right to bear arms. Like I said, it isn't perfect.

But to answer your question in short I believe I have the right to keep and bear arms because it is the law. The only way that it can be changed is by amending the Constitution. To do so by any other method would be circumventing the law, and I for one don't want the government to do that. The people are not exempt from the law. Why should we allow the government to be?

[Napoléon]

So, if the government were to 'amend' the constitution, you'd not be in favour?

What I'm really trying to get to is why the right to bear arms is of such an importance anyway. I get that American culture places high value on this as a right due to its history, but does that really make it on par with equality, freedom of speech etc as you mentioned?

You said you don't place as high a value on the right to bear arms, may I ask why?

[popeyespappy]

How about this? People (all creatures really) have a right to defend themselves against aggression. That includes the right to take another life if it is threatening yours. This is a right that has generally been recognized for a very long time, and I place the right to self-defense even higher than I do freedom of speech. I recognize the government's limited authority to limit the types of firearms I have access to now. Just not to remove that right completely without going through the proper procedures.

I would not be in favor of an amendment that removed the people's right to bear arms. It would severely limit our ability for self-defense both as individuals and as a society. Firearms are a tool that put weak on more equal terms with the strong. I don't want to lose that tool. But I wouldn't be joining any revolt against the government if such a thing were to happen legally. I might rethink that position if the government tried to do it illegally or in combination with the loss of other rights such as free speech and assembly. An additional amendment guaranteeing equal treatment by the government for all citizens at the same time might go a long way in removing any fears I have of removing the right to bear arms though.

[Brian37]

I think everyone should be allowed the option of gun ownership. But! I think there are limits. I think ex-cons shouldnt be allowed guns (certain crimes, not petty crimes), people with history of mental illnesses (only certain illnesses). I'd also ban auto's rifles and have a limit on how many guns. Also - all guns and bullets regisetered to the owner.

That is all.

We have worse than this. We have them sold like candy. We have too much easy access for thieves, and they get used even by the people who don't have criminal records who commit suicide, or accidentally shoot themselves, or someone they know. They get into the hands of people with no record, but have alcohol addiction, or have someone in the household who might have an addiction or mental illness.

Not to mention gang violence.

The tactic is to blame everyone but guns. Guns are a big business, gun manufacturers have no interest in reducing societal ills that cause everything form of gun death.

And this goes in hand with the right wing blame that any spending on investment on middle class and poor to reduce stress and depression in society, to reduce crime and increase financial stability, increase livable wages and investment back into this country.

Keep people desperate, keep them in fear, keep the crime rate up, sell more guns, keep people dependent on slave wages.

[Brian37]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca...le-667321/

No, we don't need more threads about guns. We need to send all the stories about gun death to washington.

[Shell B]

Wait, why would the, "So you can protect yourself from the government 'crap" be your government telling you so? Just because the law also happens to say that doesn't make it crap or less valid of a reason. When was the last time England had to arm itself against the ruling class? Well, the answer to that question may be why you feel so compliant. As for the U.S., the country is only old enough that you could virtually be the great granddaughter of someone who was alive during the American Revolution. That is not a long time. During that time, we have had to fight Britain twice with militia, fight a faction of the government that went rogue, almost had to deal with an army an ex Vice President was planning, etc. It is a valid and logical reason, no matter how you look at it. So is gun regulation. Not elimination. Regulation.

---

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loca...le-667321/

No, we don't need more threads about guns. We need to send all the stories about gun death to washington.

Yes, that is exactly how to change the world -- send information to random politicians that they are already have.

---

I haven't seen anyone give a real reason as to why they think they should be entitled to bear arms, as was asked in the OP. Just plenty of people saying they 'think' they should be.

Well, I'll ask again. Why do people think that?

Why do you think they shouldn't be? If it is death and violence, then why do you think sharp objects, chemicals, etc. should be legal and not guns?

[Napoléon]

Wait, why would the, "So you can protect yourself from the government 'crap" be your government telling you so?

I'm not sure what you're insinuating here. Maybe it's the way you phrased the question, but I'm not under the impression I claimed the government tells us to do anything.

The reason I don't want to go into the whole constitution thing is because it doesn't get at the issue I want to address. Whether owning a gun is a moral right. What the government has to say about it isn't really what I want to listen to.

Just because the law also happens to say that doesn't make it crap or less valid of a reason.

To say what? Can you be more specific? I'm not being pedantic but I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

If you're referring to me calling the 'constitution crap' crap, it's not that I don't see it as an invalid reason, rather I'm asking for another reason, mainly because I'm not interested in hearing that as a reason. I've heard it enough times now, the point of this thread was to get an idea of why people think they're entitled to guns, from another angle other than 'because my constitution says so', or 'because we have to fight oppressive governments'.

I GET IT.

If you disagree with the fact that I'm interested in hearing other arguments, don't respond at all.

When was the last time England had to arm itself against the ruling class? Well, the answer to that question may be why you feel so compliant. As for the U.S., the country is only old enough that you could virtually be the great granddaughter of someone who was alive during the American Revolution. That is not a long time. During that time, we have had to fight Britain twice with militia, fight a faction of the government that went rogue, almost had to deal with an army an ex Vice President was planning, etc. It is a valid and logical reason, no matter how you look at it. So is gun regulation. Not elimination. Regulation.

Blah blah blah, exactly the talk I really am not interested in.

You feel that your history grants you the specific rights to bear arms. Now again, I'm not dismissing it as a valid argument and if you think it is, then fair enough, I'm just asking for another argument. I don't personally think what you're saying is a compelling enough reason myself, but as I've said, that's not the issue I would like to discuss in this thread.

I haven't seen anyone give a real reason as to why they think they should be entitled to bear arms, as was asked in the OP. Just plenty of people saying they 'think' they should be.

Well, I'll ask again. Why do people think that?

Why do you think they shouldn't be? If it is death and violence, then why do you think sharp objects, chemicals, etc. should be legal and not guns?

This is not an argument nor an answer to my question. Your response is simply a loaded question that deflects from my original post.

If you want to answer my question answer it.

[jonb]

The American male's fixation with guns is not just a cultural phenomena, but is also to do with genetics. We people of the old world have been for a long time too polite to mention it, but now is the time to open the issue up. The main reason why men emigrated to the states was to avoid daily humiliation. the american male is the descendant of refugees from the old world who could not cut it in normal societies. The reason for this was it became known these men had ridiculously small genitalia.
Although these men managed to find a place where the insignificant size of their genitals was not pointed out by normally endowed males, by running away from normal men in the old world, and killing most native americans they still could not hide the horror of their predicament.
This is why american male culture is centred around Symbols that seem to exaggerate their feeble masculinity; big cars, tall buildings, and being able to handle massive weapons, it is because they are such little dicks.

[LastPoet]

Jonb, are you going for a Freudian approach?

[Shell B]

I'm not sure what you're insinuating here. Maybe it's the way you phrased the question, but I'm not under the impression I claimed the government tells us to do anything.

Yes, you said somewhere in this thread that so you can protect yourself from the government is basically saying you think we should be allowed to have guns because the government says so. Since when is agreeing with a law not an opinion?

The reason I don't want to go into the whole constitution thing is because it doesn't get at the issue I want to address. Whether owning a gun is a moral right. What the government has to say about it isn't really what I want to listen to.

If someone thinks it is moral for the same reasons it is in the Constitution, then the document is a valid argument.

To say what? Can you be more specific? I'm not being pedantic but I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

Agreeing with the Constitution doesn't make it less valid an argument or crap. Therefore, it is a logical and valid answer to your query. That you are dismissive of it is telling.

I've heard it enough times now, the point of this thread was to get an idea of why people think they're entitled to guns, from another angle other than 'because my constitution says so', or 'because we have to fight oppressive governments'.

You asked people their opinions. You are only looking for specific opinions. That's fucking odd.

If you disagree with the fact that I'm interested in hearing other arguments, don't respond at all.

Oh, Napo, you know better than to think you can tell people where to respond and where not to respond, just as you should know you cannot tell people who to respond. This is not a puppet show.

Blah blah blah, exactly the talk I really am not interested in.

Well, good then. Now I know that you are not interested in hearing anything that you do not feel like arguing. Your attitude is not conducive to the type of discussion you are looking for. If I gave, "So that spoiled bitches like you do not move here" as a reason, would that be good enough for you? Again, if you are not interested in discussing it at all, why start your masturbatory thread?

I'm just asking for another argument.

Tough. Some people do not have another argument.

I don't personally think what you're saying is a compelling enough reason myself, but as I've said, that's not the issue I would like to discuss in this thread.

Well, since we are talking about rights, you do not have the right to be exclusionary.

This is not an argument nor an answer to my question. Your response is simply a loaded question that deflects from my original post.

I answered your question. Your original post is an exclusionary piece of shit. So, again, why don't you think people should be allowed to have guns? Oh, and, "Because they might shoot people" is not good enough for me. You will have to think of something else.

If you want to answer my question answer it.

I did, but you only want to hear "other" answers, which is ludicrous and dismissive of answers many would give. Another answer from me would be so that I can shoot things if I so wish it. Those things include people who may try to hurt me. Yes, if someone tries to hurt me, I should be allowed to have a gun so I can shoot them. I assure you that I have very little hope against most attackers without a gun. Therefore, I would need a gun if I were interested in successful self defense.