Guns As A " God-given Right"

[CrossCuT]

OK, so you see gun control in the context of having and wanting to remedy a high level of gun violence in the country?
 

 

I dont like gun violence whether its from cops, authority, or crazed citizens. So yes, that is my motivation on this topic. Guns are lethal weapons and they need to be handled responsibly...after all the sole purpose of its invention was to empower the user for killing ...whether it be animals or people etc. 

 

I am however, not for banning them completely. I do have a fear of them mostly because I have never been around them but I am fixing that. I talked to me dad about it (who is a very avid gunman) to teach me and it has been fun! I have been practicing so that I can feel more comfortable around them and know how to use it if the circumstances require it.

[CrossCuT]

It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of your self denial, you don't want to see that a gun ban would be an act of violence, because you don't want to see yourself as supporting acts of violence. 

 

And this is when the argument turns to derp. Sure, Im in self denial. Next.

[KnightofChrist]

And this is when the argument turns to derp. Sure, Im in self denial. Next.

 

No it hasn't, don't get mad at me for pointing out a contraction in your logic, I'm just pointing out what you refuse to admit. I'm sorry but it is the truth, if one advocates a gun ban one advocates violence. You have admitted that there would be a threat of violence and violence if one did not comply. Threatening people with force is violence, threatening people with violence is violence.

[CrossCuT]

No it hasn't, don't get mad at me for pointing out a contraction in your logic, I'm just pointing out what you refuse to admit. I'm sorry but it is the truth, if one advocates a gun ban one advocates violence. You have admitted that there would be a threat of violence and violence if one did not comply. Threatening people with force is violence, threatening people with violence is violence.

 

Im not mad bro :) are you mad? We are friends KoC! Cmon!!!

 

But, I think you are reading what you want to read. I have stated a few times that I do not support gun ban at all...bans dont actually work sooooo...trying to make me out to be a violence lover isnt going to work on that front.

 

I also dont appreciate you resorting to accusing me of self denial. Not nice, lets be the good Catholics we claim to be, no? :) I try not to resort to those things...I do when I am upset and I fully apologize afterwords. So I would appreciate ethe same respect in return. This is a friendly debate, no need to start getting upset with personal remarks. 

 

I dont know what Im refusing to admit. The logic is this: a law is not inherently violent. If someone goes against the law, and it can be ANY law not just a gun ban, then the government will have to take extra measure to enforce the law. I dont know why this is on par with delusion or denial. Can violence occur as a result? Yes. But I would not make the jump to say the law IS violence. The law is a law. Refusal to comply may result in violence.

 

 

But again, like I said, I am trying to be objective. I do not actually support a gun ban. Anything else?

Edited April 15, 2014 by CrossCuT

[CrossCuT]

If instead you wanted to argue against the law on the grounds of it being just, that would be different. 

[KnightofChrist]

Im not mad bro :) are you mad? We are friends KoC! Cmon!!!

I still heart you like Sloth loves Chunk. That will never change.
 

But, I think you are reading what you want to read. I have stated a few times that I do not support gun ban at all...bans dont actually work sooooo...trying to make me out to be a violence lover isnt going to work on that front.

Yet you have at least in part defended/supported a gun ban as non violent, which again it would be, it would be violent. This lead me to believe you may have actually supported a gun ban. Still I was unsure which is why I later used "one" and "if".
 

I also dont appreciate you resorting to accusing me of self denial. Not nice, lets be the good Catholics we claim to be, no? :) I try not to resort to those things...I do when I am upset and I fully apologize afterwords. So I would appreciate ethe same respect in return. This is a friendly debate, no need to start getting upset with personal remarks. 

I dont know what Im refusing to admit. The logic is this: a law is not inherently violent. If someone goes against the law, and it can be ANY law not just a gun ban, then the government will have to take extra measure to enforce the law. I dont know why this is on par with delusion or denial. Can violence occur as a result? Yes. But I would not make the jump to say the law IS violence. The law is a law. Refusal to comply may result in violence.

But again, like I said, I am trying to be objective. I do not actually support a gun ban. Anything else?

 
I'm sorry, but it is denial. I did not point this out as a means of being rude, or to be disrespectful, but again to point out the contradiction and lack of logic in your position. Threat of violence is violence. Threatening someone with violence for not obeying is an act of violence. Threats are acts of violence because threats harm people, threats of violence do in fact harm.
 
You're refusing to see that threats are acts of violence, that forcing someone to do something against one's will is violence.
 
If a government threaten to though in prison anyone who did not give up their belief in God could we use your logic to imply that would not be violence? No, because that too would be an act of violence. For the same or similar reasons a gun ban would be a act of violence, it would be denying innocent people a fundamental natural right, and threading them with violence if they did not comply. Edited April 15, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

If a boyfriend threatens his girlfriend to engage in sex against her will or harmed by imprisonment, death etc, is that violence? Or does it only become violence when she refuses to comply and he acts on his threat?

[CrossCuT]

Hmm, I understand your examples, but im still deciding if I think taking away a gun is the same as rape.

[Anomaly]

Hmm, I understand your examples, but im still deciding if I think taking away a gun is the same as rape.

You have to consider the inherent "wrongness" of both requests.
Is forcing someone to have sex as serious as forcing someone to give up a means of self defense?
An equivalent to preemptive protection laws would be forcing men to take take medicine that renders them impotent unless they are married.
A penis is no more a morally evil weapon than a gun. It depends upon how it is used.

The law should maybe restrict itself to dealing with those who misuse weapons.

[NotreDame]

You have to consider the inherent "wrongness" of both requests.
Is forcing someone to have sex as serious as forcing someone to give up a means of self defense?
An equivalent to preemptive protection laws would be forcing men to take take medicine that renders them impotent unless they are married.
A penis is no more a morally evil weapon than a gun. It depends upon how it is used.

The law should maybe restrict itself to dealing with those who misuse weapons.

 

Interesting... Ban penises?  And is gun control motivated by sub-conscious anti-phallic sentiments?  Hmmm....
 

[OnlySunshine]

The thing is, I've never actually heard a LOGICAL explanation for having a gun that couldn't be solved through other means.  If you have no good reason, why have the gun in the first place?  The self-defense argument is a tired one.  There are other methods of self-defense besides owning a firearm.

[KnightofChrist]

Hmm, I understand your examples, but im still deciding if I think taking away a gun is the same as rape.

You have to consider the inherent "wrongness" of both requests.
Is forcing someone to have sex as serious as forcing someone to give up a means of self defense?

 
Yes, both are inherently wrong, and undoubtedly the two are not the same. Rape is the much greater sin and crime. But the two do share various similarities. Both requests demand that a person gives up freedom and liberty or they will have it violently taken it away from them. In both one submits to threats of violence or violence is used against them, in both one gives up defending themselves or is attacked with violence for not giving up their defense of themselves.

[Anomaly]

The thing is, I've never actually heard a LOGICAL explanation for having a gun that couldn't be solved through other means. If you have no good reason, why have the gun in the first place? The self-defense argument is a tired one. There are other methods of self-defense besides owning a firearm.

Please describe the other method of self defense for the average person who is faced with someone bigger and stronger with the intent to do you harm.

[KnightofChrist]

The thing is, I've never actually heard a LOGICAL explanation for having a gun that couldn't be solved through other means.  If you have no good reason, why have the gun in the first place?  The self-defense argument is a tired one.  There are other methods of self-defense besides owning a firearm.

 

Of all the republics and all the democracies that have existed have fallen into dictatorship. This has all happened before, this will all happen again. To disarm the people now is a sure way to condemn a future generation.  

[Winchester]

If a gun ban went into law, then you are breaking the law. Dont break the law and you wont have police coming to your house. I dont know why that is so confusing.

 

And again, Im not saying that I think people should go belly up in the face of unjust laws, Im just pointing out something objective. 

 

Tell that to the people whose homes a raided because some idiot pig couldn't read an address properly.

 

 

Aside from that, the ownership of a gun banned by the government is not an act of violence. The first act of violence is not resisting the violence in the act of arrest. I was addressing your claim regarding that. You're free to have your "cops don't attack people who don't break the law" delusion, but it's not a refutation of what I said.