Guns As A " God-given Right"

[blazeingstar]

the question i have is if you believe you require them for self protection, then are there any restrictions on this idea?  Realistically if your needing guns to defend yourself against a corupt government, guns ain't doing squat.  Your going to need missle launchers, bazooka's, surface to air missles, tanks, gernades and in some cases weapons of mass destruction.  So should citizens all over be allowed these things?  Any weapon they deem they need for self defense?

 

Really?  Because revolutions don't happen in the macro, they happen in the micro.  It's a matter of cheques and balances.

 

And self-protection dosn't always mean the government.  For everyone it's against other robbers.  Remember when their was looting in Brittian and no one could do anything?  My cousin had a phone stolen right out of her hands and there was nothing that could be done because it wasn't done "violently". 

 

For those who don't live within 30 feet of their neighbor, we have wildlife fears like fishercats, moose, cougar, bear.  Rabies is still a thing....and even a feral domestic dog is pretty dangerous.

[blazeingstar]

I guess you have some belief that administrators in schools can never make a mistake when people in the real world do it all the time.  I guess they are magically immune to mistakes.  

 

You have no logic.  You're saying that unless security is a person's prime focus then they will make a mistake with a gun.  That is a horrible premise as it indicates that security cannot make any mistakes (they still can).  Heck, a seasoned security officer at my college left the keys on the desk during an evacuation.

 

The fact is that if it matters enough, then it is reasonable to expect a person with a normal IQ to be able to carry a weapon without anything accidentally happening to it.

[Winchester]

so your saying that throughout all the public, private and charter schools in america no one will ever make a mistake?  Yet, people make mistakes at home and leave guns unattended and children die or people mistake things as agression and shot innocent people.  Although by some magic, teachers and administrators are immune to making mistakes and no one will ever leave a gun unattended or shot the wrong person?  

Nope. Reread what I said. You made a claim that's not supported by reality. I didn't say anything about people never making mistakes. You'll note when you reread my post that I used "most likely". 

 

You don't seem familiar with weapons. I carry, and have for years. I don't set my weapon down when I'm carrying. It's in a holster, or my pocket, concealed. It's of no use if I leave it lying around.

 

 

I personally don't think that ending the gun free zone for public schools will ensure a death-free campus. I just don't see the need to treat people like criminals for peaceful behavior. I think it's barbaric to threaten someone with a felony because they carry a means of self-defense. If public schools wish to ban firearms, then those who choose to carry firearms should be exempted from paying school taxes. Like when a business chooses to ban firearms, the people can choose to not do business with it, anymore. 

Edited April 11, 2014 by Winchester

[havok579257]

This was covered above.

 

You seem so concerned about the theoretical atrocities Mundanes will commit if prohibitions are removed, but remarkably tolerant of the millions of innocents killed by government owned weapons. It's almost like it doesn't matter how many people government employees kill in the name of political ends. Incinerate cities filled with non-combatants? No evidence that perhaps government shouldn't have bombs, or even a limit on its power to force people to participate in war in some way (whether by the draft or by taxation). But some private individual kills people and then himself? Well this means all private individuals should be subject to the power that incinerates non-combatants in order to test weapons systems. If you were trying to support mass murder, you couldn't pick a better position to take.

 

 

and when was i ok with millions of innocents killed by the government?  are we now just saying stuff just because we can when there is no truth to it?  its always funny to listen to outlandish claims with absolutely no point to them.

 

Let's see

 

1. not for murder of innocents by government

2. not for governments having WMD's

3. for reduction in military arms for all governments

4. just because one supports the notion that government is not 100% evil does not mean they condone all government actions

5. believe in the right to bear arms but that does not mean i believe you or any other citizen should have access to WMD's because they claim they need WMD's for self defense

[Lilllabettt]

the question i have is if you believe you require them for self protection, then are there any restrictions on this idea?  Realistically if your needing guns to defend yourself against a corupt government, guns ain't doing squat.  Your going to need missle launchers, bazooka's, surface to air missles, tanks, gernades and in some cases weapons of mass destruction.  So should citizens all over be allowed these things?  Any weapon they deem they need for self defense?

 

I think you are underestimating the power of a hostile insurgency. 

Unless you go scorched earth, there is no bomb big enough to put one of those down.

Attrition warfare requires the means to harass, not defeat.

[havok579257]

You have no logic.  You're saying that unless security is a person's prime focus then they will make a mistake with a gun.  That is a horrible premise as it indicates that security cannot make any mistakes (they still can).  Heck, a seasoned security officer at my college left the keys on the desk during an evacuation.

 

The fact is that if it matters enough, then it is reasonable to expect a person with a normal IQ to be able to carry a weapon without anything accidentally happening to it.

 

 

NO my logic says the more the person has to do, they are bound to make a mistake more often then someone who has one job.  If your sole job is to carry a weapon and secure the perimiter your less likely to make a mistake than someone who literally has 50 different things to do in a day.  When you're multi tasking your more prone to make mistakes.  Just like at your job, if your 100% focused on one task it will more than likely turn out better than someone who is focused on 10 tasks at the same time.  They are more prone to mistakes.

 

also if its so reasonable for a person with a normal IQ to carry a gun without making a mistake how come history disagree's with you?  How many people are shot(not even fatally) in their own homes because someone was careless with a gun or how many people are shot because they miss took something as aggression?  

 

there are many more problems with administartors having guns anyway.  what if none feel comfortable being responsible for a gun?  do you make them carry one anyways?  this is just asking for an accident here.  do you then hire someone who is less qualified just because they are comfortable carrying a gun?  so your childs education then suffers instead of just hiring a security guard and taking common sense measures for safety.   

[blazeingstar]

and when was i ok with millions of innocents killed by the government?  are we now just saying stuff just because we can when there is no truth to it?  its always funny to listen to outlandish claims with absolutely no point to them.

 

Let's see

 

1. not for murder of innocents by government

2. not for governments having WMD's

3. for reduction in military arms for all governments

4. just because one supports the notion that government is not 100% evil does not mean they condone all government actions

5. believe in the right to bear arms but that does not mean i believe you or any other citizen should have access to WMD's because they claim they need WMD's for self defense

 

This is getting loony.  Weapons of Mass destruction are Weapons of Mass distruction....read MASS.  In no way could a private citizen validate his or her need for a bomb.  However, if one believes that magazines should have capacity limits they may classify a gun as a weapon of mass destruction.

 

Guns aren't just about protecting oneself from the government.  It's a big reason.  But in America the police aren't everywhere.  We don't all live in the East End in NYC where police can be there in a heartbeat.

 

We live in rural places where there are threatening animals and people and help isn't that close.  And we're all one natural disaster away from people going nutty...New Orleans anyone?  You can't predict the behavior of other humans.

[havok579257]

I think you are underestimating the power of a hostile insurgency. 

Unless you go scorched earth, there is no bomb big enough to put one of those down.

Attrition warfare requires the means to harass, not defeat.

 

 

that really doesn't answer my question.  should a citizen be allowed any weapon they want if they claim they need it for self defense.  cause as we have seen throughout history, some governments have no problem destroying property and innocents to get at who they view as the enemy.

[havok579257]

This is getting loony.  Weapons of Mass destruction are Weapons of Mass distruction....read MASS.  In no way could a private citizen validate his or her need for a bomb.  However, if one believes that magazines should have capacity limits they may classify a gun as a weapon of mass destruction.

 

Guns aren't just about protecting oneself from the government.  It's a big reason.  But in America the police aren't everywhere.  We don't all live in the East End in NYC where police can be there in a heartbeat.

 

We live in rural places where there are threatening animals and people and help isn't that close.  And we're all one natural disaster away from people going nutty...New Orleans anyone?  You can't predict the behavior of other humans.

 

 

a private citizen could easily justify needing weapons of mass destruction for self protection.  did you not see what happened in syria?  if the american government wanted to it could nuke half this country.  so please tell me what a few guns are going to do against WMD's?

 

but let's not even go to WMD's, what about other conventional warfare like surface to air missles, tanks, rocket launchers.  if your going against the US government you would need surface to air missles, rocket launchers and the such.  should any citizen be allowed these things for self defense?

[KnightofChrist]

It is immoral for any one or group to have Weapons of Mass Destruction like Nukes, or bio-chemical weapons.

[blazeingstar]

NO my logic says the more the person has to do, they are bound to make a mistake more often then someone who has one job.  If your sole job is to carry a weapon and secure the perimiter your less likely to make a mistake than someone who literally has 50 different things to do in a day.  When you're multi tasking your more prone to make mistakes.  Just like at your job, if your 100% focused on one task it will more than likely turn out better than someone who is focused on 10 tasks at the same time.  They are more prone to mistakes.

 

also if its so reasonable for a person with a normal IQ to carry a gun without making a mistake how come history disagree's with you?  How many people are shot(not even fatally) in their own homes because someone was careless with a gun or how many people are shot because they miss took something as aggression?  

 

there are many more problems with administartors having guns anyway.  what if none feel comfortable being responsible for a gun?  do you make them carry one anyways?  this is just asking for an accident here.  do you then hire someone who is less qualified just because they are comfortable carrying a gun?  so your childs education then suffers instead of just hiring a security guard and taking common sense measures for safety.   

 

You have many of what my instructor would call "unsubstantiated articles"

 

I don't think ANYONE is "bound" to make a mistake more than anyone else.  Yes, those who are multitasking are more prone to mistakes, but what are we talking about.  Again, I gave you the example of what is industry standard in a bank.  A bank associate is expected to run their drawer to the 1 cent place perfectly, help all customers, give lollies to children and bones to doggies in the drivethru, step back to an office when someone needs a mortgage, or to open an account or to pay off a car loan.  In thousands of banks in America, these men and woman manage to do all of this and still perfectly manage change.

 

If one can manage change, one can certainly manage a gun. 

 

Every job as qualifications.  Most of these admins now have to speak Spanish.  What happens if they aren't comfortable speaking Spanish...well then there's the door.  There is no reason they can't be trained to carry a gun and learn the responsibility.  I was a cashiere at a gas station.  I'd of been very happy to carry a gun, and I would of used it responsibly and not left it around all willy nilly.

 

Not every school can afford a guard, and if they can afford a guard, thats what?  One guard to 500-2000 people?  I'd raise my odds.  Janitors, secretaries, principal.  Now there's several guns in the school.

 

Accidents happen at home because of carelessness or stupidity.  However, there is no evidence that the accidents with guns take more lives than accidents of tripping, slipping, drowning, electrocution, furniture falling on a child, etc.  One should not take guns away from the general public anymore than they should take away the backyard pool.  Statistically, a child is hundreds of times more likely to die in the pool than by a gun.  Both because of carelessness.  Yet no one is questioning people's right to own pools.

 

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

It is immoral for any one or group to have Weapons of Mass Destruction like Nukes, or bio-chemical weapons.

I don't think it's moral for governments or civilians to have them. No one should have the power to wipe out entire countries.

[blazeingstar]

a private citizen could easily justify needing weapons of mass destruction for self protection.  did you not see what happened in syria?  if the american government wanted to it could nuke half this country.  so please tell me what a few guns are going to do against WMD's?

 

but let's not even go to WMD's, what about other conventional warfare like surface to air missles, tanks, rocket launchers.  if your going against the US government you would need surface to air missles, rocket launchers and the such.  should any citizen be allowed these things for self defense?

 

First of all you are operating under the sole premise that the ONLY reason to have a gun is to keep the government in line and that it would be an all out war with nuclear power if they did.  The USA is not just going to nuke California (though that would be a step up)

 

People would have to operate all that equipment.  You would attack the people with the equipment with your gun.

 

Duh.

[havok579257]

Nope. Reread what I said. You made a claim that's not supported by reality. I didn't say anything about people never making mistakes. You'll note when you reread my post that I used "most likely". 

 

You don't seem familiar with weapons. I carry, and have for years. I don't set my weapon down when I'm carrying. It's in a holster, or my pocket, concealed. It's of no use if I leave it lying around.

 

 

I personally don't think that ending the gun free zone for public schools will ensure a death-free campus. I just don't see the need to treat people like criminals for peaceful behavior. I think it's barbaric to threaten someone with a felony because they carry a means of self-defense. If public schools wish to ban firearms, then those who choose to carry firearms should be exempted from paying school taxes. Like when a business chooses to ban firearms, the people can choose to not do business with it, anymore. 

 

No I am familiar with weapons and you carry your gun properly.  Not saying the vast majority don't.  What I am saying is not everyone does and that's when mistakes happen and given how many people would needed to be armed just across america, its bound to happen that someone will make a mistake.  All I advocate for is that we hire security guards instead of arm adminstrators.  I am not against guns for safety, I would just rather have common sense measures for safety and someone who's entire job is security of staff and students as opposed to someone running around all day and multi tasking 50 different things.

 

Although shouldn't the school have the right to ban firearms if they want to?  Should they be forced to hire someone who carries a gun?  Should they be allowed to hire someone who adheres to what the employer wants?  Would it be any different if they were forced to hire someone who refused to ever dress professional for the job even though it was a requirement?

[havok579257]

First of all you are operating under the sole premise that the ONLY reason to have a gun is to keep the government in line and that it would be an all out war with nuclear power if they did.  The USA is not just going to nuke California (though that would be a step up)

 

People would have to operate all that equipment.  You would attack the people with the equipment with your gun.

 

Duh.

 

 

and no one though Germany was going to try to exterminate the Jewish people, yet that happened.  Its kind of dumb to just assume the US government or any government for that matter will not be willing to do something to stay in power.  We have seen it throughout history that some governments are willing to do anything to stay in power and stop an uprising.  To assume that now all governments or even just the US government would never do anything like this is a fantasy world.

 

Well you use a gun against a guy in a tank and tell me how that works out for you.