Guns, Guns Guns

[stevil]

I have no problem with this. I have a problem with your sort advocating cage time for those who own property you think they shouldn't own.

By property you mean weapons, right? By people, you mean everyone, ex criminals, ex violent offenders, rapists, mentally ill, everyone, right?

[Winchester]

By property you mean weapons, right? By people, you mean everyone, ex criminals, ex violent offenders, rapists, mentally ill, everyone, right?

 

I mean what I said. If you have a clarification of your position, then share.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i heard that 90% of ppl think there should be background checks. most of the nays just seem to thinkk control isnt effective.... that dont seem to be an issue w him. if winchester really believes what he is saying here he's gotta be a small fraction of those left. maybe 1 or a few percent of the population at best?
not that it necessarily makes him wrong... but

Edited February 21, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

i heard that 90% of ppl think there should be background checks. most of the nays just seem to thinkk control isnt effective.... that dont seem to be an issue w him. if winchester really believes what he is saying here he's gotta be a small fraction of those left. maybe 1 or a few percent of the population at best?
not that it necessarily makes him wrong... but

 

It means I'm outnumbered. I don't care to be in the majority. It's not a thing, for me.
 

It's not that I personally think background checks are a bad idea. It's about the non-aggression principle. And the Constitution, which denies the Federal government any authority to abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[dairygirl4u2c]

are you against the estabished free speech exceptions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

despste the "clear' 'laguage of he first amendment/

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances

Edited February 21, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[stevil]

I mean what I said. If you have a clarification of your position, then share.

Not being an American I have no affinity for the USA constitution.

With regards to society, I want to live within one that is relatively safe.
I generally don’t get involved with thugs so they tend to have no beef with me, I have no worries going for a run by myself in the dark at 5am in the morning, although I would recommend that a woman ought run in daylight or at least with a running partner.
If someone mugs me or tries to steal my car, then I think best to give them my wallet and/or car. Let them take it and then leave me be. If I try to be a hero then my chances of getting seriously hurt go up.
Can I justify killing someone over $50? Maybe they have a drug addiction, maybe they are starving, maybe their kid is gonna die unless they can raise some funds for a medical procedure IDK, but what I do know is that I am not judge, jury and executioner.

If I had a gun, what is more likely?
A) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I pull a gun and save our lives
B) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I pull a gun a conflict occurs and at least one of my family dies
C) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I conform, they take some stuff and my family remain unharmed
D) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I conform, they take some stuff and seriously hurt or kill at least one of my family
E) One of my family finds the gun, plays with it and one of my family gets killed
F) I hear a noise late at night, pull my gun and kill one of my family.
G) I hear a noise late at night, pull my gun and kill a drunk person whom entered the wrong house by mistake

I happen to think that I am (and my family) safer without a gun in my house.
If me having guns aren’t going to make me safer then I also don’t want others to have guns.
Yeah, farmers want guns to kill rabbits, possums, magpies etc but to do that generally a shot gun or a single shot rifle is sufficient.
Who needs pistols and automatic machine guns? Handy for gangsters and depressed psychos, handy for fighting wars.
There are many people in society whom would steal and fight because they have tough times or are immature or don’t give a rats about themselves or others. Most of these people are unorganised opportunists. If guns are easy to get then they will have guns, if guns are difficult then they won’t be bothered.
I don’t see any reason to make guns (especially pistols and machine guns) available. I am not in a war torn country, my government is reasonable. I don’t need guns and I want it to be difficult for potential attackers to have guns.

Certainly when we hear that there has been yet another shooting in USA, many people in my country roll our eyes and say USA and their love of guns, gonna happen, inevitable. But at last a president has woken up, will be interesting to see what Obama can do with regards to gun laws. It’s gotta be difficult with USA because lots of people already have these war styled guns.

[Winchester]

It might help you if you realized I reject the incorporation myth.
 
In addition, the regulation of the airwaves by the government, and all its bullshit obscenity laws are unconstitutional.
 
Child pornography need not be handled on a Federal level, and is an issue of the violation of the rights of the children involved, not of free speech.
 
Fraud is likewise an act against the rights of a person. If I tell you something will cure cancer, but it's in fact just water, with no cancer curing properties, then I've taken money from you under false pretenses. This isn't mere "speech".
 
I refer you to Murray Rothbard: http://mises.org/daily/2569
 
 
See, the Second Amendment, without the incorporation myth, permits places like Chicago to violate human rights (insofar as the Constitution is concerned). But everyone is so married to nationalism that they're unwilling to sacrifice the powers arrogated by the Federal government in order to permit the diversity that would permit them to live under a localized police state, instead of inflicting it on all the states.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Winchester

[Winchester]

Not being an American I have no affinity for the USA constitution.

Me either. I see its only real purpose as possibly useful to restrain the actions of the things running the Federal government. It's been a little successful, maybe.

With regards to society, I want to live within one that is relatively safe.
I generally don’t get involved with thugs so they tend to have no beef with me, I have no worries going for a run by myself in the dark at 5am in the morning, although I would recommend that a woman ought run in daylight or at least with a running partner.
If someone mugs me or tries to steal my car, then I think best to give them my wallet and/or car. Let them take it and then leave me be. If I try to be a hero then my chances of getting seriously hurt go up.
Can I justify killing someone over $50? Maybe they have a drug addiction, maybe they are starving, maybe their kid is gonna die unless they can raise some funds for a medical procedure IDK, but what I do know is that I am not judge, jury and executioner.

There are far more scenarios than this. I have spent the majority of my life not armed with a firearm. I've never been mugged. But I don't look like a target. I know plenty of people who have been assaulted in various ways. I know people who went along with the demands of their attacker and were severely assaulted. I know people who did not resist their attackers and were killed (witness testimony). I have stopped attackers. I have the option, physically.

If I had a gun, what is more likely?
A) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I pull a gun and save our lives
B) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I pull a gun a conflict occurs and at least one of my family dies
C) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I conform, they take some stuff and my family remain unharmed
D) that my home is invaded, my life or my family’s life is threatened and I conform, they take some stuff and seriously hurt or kill at least one of my family
E) One of my family finds the gun, plays with it and one of my family gets killed
F) I hear a noise late at night, pull my gun and kill one of my family.
G) I hear a noise late at night, pull my gun and kill a drunk person whom entered the wrong house by mistake

That's you. Fine. You have no right to project your personal beliefs about your lack of control in emergency situations on me. I have a proven track record under threat.

I happen to think that I am (and my family) safer without a gun in my house.
If me having guns aren’t going to make me safer then I also don’t want others to have guns.

It's not the 'want' I have a problem with. Feel free to want and much as you want. It's the aggression that I oppose.

I don’t see any reason to make guns (especially pistols and machine guns) available. I am not in a war torn country, my government is reasonable. I don’t need guns and I want it to be difficult for potential attackers to have guns.

Well, my government oversaw the Wounded Knee Massacre, shot students at Kent State, and threw the Japanese in camps, and shot those who tried to escape. They also shot a woman armed with an infant because someone cut a shotgun barrel too short. They incinerated Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki as experiments in firebombing, and nuclear weapons, respectively. They are lunatics. I have no illusions about opposing them if they choose such methods, I just hate to pass up a chance to call them out for the psychotic murdering scum they've been through history.

Certainly when we hear that there has been yet another shooting in USA, many people in my country roll our eyes and say USA and their love of guns, gonna happen, inevitable. But at last a president has woken up, will be interesting to see what Obama can do with regards to gun laws. It’s gotta be difficult with USA because lots of people already have these war styled guns.

I've never done these things, and don't put any serious measure of my identity in political boundaries.

[stevil]

I know people who went along with the demands of their attacker and were severely assaulted. I know people who did not resist their attackers and were killed (witness testimony).

I can’t deny that this happens, sometimes.

You have no right to project your personal beliefs about your lack of control in emergency situations on me

Depends how you define “rights”.
I am concerned for my own safety. I want a government whom represents me and my concerns for safety. Being fortunate enough to live in a democratic country, I vote for a government whom I deem will improve my life, my safety. A government that wants to make any type of gun available to anyone in society would never get my vote.
If a referendum were made, I would vote for gun control, registration and restriction of certain guns.
Because government must enforce laws, I give my government my permission to use force on all transgressors, be it a person whom steals a 10 cent lolly, a person whom refuses to pay taxes or refuses to turn down their stereo late at night when neighbors are trying to sleep.
I would hope that the police ask politely for a person to conform and only use direct force if the person refuses to comply or becomes threatening and aggressive.
For example, I would hope that a police officer would ask a machine gun owner to peacefully hand over the weapon rather than to storm into the house with SWAT gear, shooting rubber bullets and using tear gas.

and threw the Japanese in camps, and shot those who tried to escape. They incinerated Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki as experiments in firebombing, and nuclear weapons, respectively.

There was a war on, right, where the Germans and the Japanese were attacking countries and killing people. You seem to be an advocate for ordinary citizens to defend themselves with weaponry but not for a country’s government/army to defend themselves from aggressors looking to take over the entire world.

They also shot a woman armed with an infant because someone cut a shotgun barrel too short.

Did they ask her nicely first? Was she resisting, did she become dangerous?

[Winchester]

I can’t deny that this happens, sometimes.Depends how you define “rights”.
I am concerned for my own safety. I want a government whom represents me and my concerns for safety. Being fortunate enough to live in a democratic country, I vote for a government whom I deem will improve my life, my safety. A government that wants to make any type of gun available to anyone in society would never get my vote.
If a referendum were made, I would vote for gun control, registration and restriction of certain guns.
Because government must enforce laws, I give my government my permission to use force on all transgressors, be it a person whom steals a 10 cent lolly, a person whom refuses to pay taxes or refuses to turn down their stereo late at night when neighbors are trying to sleep.
I would hope that the police ask politely for a person to conform and only use direct force if the person refuses to comply or becomes threatening and aggressive.

I get it. You support aggression. It's not aggression to own a machine gun. It is aggression to take it away using force. If you're advocating for laws that stop at asking nicely for compliance, I think that's swell. I refuse to comply.

I don't want government to make guns available.

There was a war on, right, where the Germans and the Japanese were attacking countries and killing people. You seem to be an advocate for ordinary citizens to defend themselves with weaponry but not for a country’s government/army to defend themselves from aggressors looking to take over the entire world.

Holy crap.

Did they ask her nicely first? Was she resisting, did she become dangerous?

If someone asked a woman nicely to have sex, and she refused, I wouldn't excuse him for raping her. I won't excuse men in costumes for shooting an unarmed woman in the head using sniper tactics. Unarmed. Holding baby. Sniper. All because a barrel was cut shorter than an arbitrary length. You apparently hold human life cheaply, as long as it's the government doing the killing. We're not on the same page. I reject aggression, you don't.

[stevil]

You apparently hold human life cheaply, as long as it's the government doing the killing. We're not on the same page. I reject aggression, you don't.

A person who rejects aggression is a person who doesn’t own a gun, doesn’t contemplate a possibility of using it against their own government.

What did Jesus do when the Romans came to take him away, came to crucify him? Did he resist via aggression?

[KnightofChrist]

A person who rejects aggression is a person who doesn’t own a gun, doesn’t contemplate a possibility of using it against their own government.

What did Jesus do when the Romans came to take him away, came to crucify him? Did he resist via aggression?

 

Christ didn't fight back against the Romans because He came to earth to die upon the Cross. But before that hour came He did protect Himself. Christ had a problem with weapons being used for unjust aggression, not for owning them for protection.

 

Luke 22:35-38

 

35 When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything? 36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. 37 For I say to you, that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. 38 But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.

[Winchester]

A person who rejects aggression is a person who doesn’t own a gun, doesn’t contemplate a possibility of using it against their own government.

What did Jesus do when the Romans came to take him away, came to crucify him? Did he resist via aggression?

Self defense is not aggression. It is a response to aggression.

Why do you feel subordinate to government?

[stevil]

Why do you feel subordinate to government?

I feel as a member of society, that my society requires some rules so I agree with the concept of having a governing power creating those rules, also providing certain services e.g. school, health care, roads etc.

A governing power wouldn’t be very effective without enforcement, so I support enforcement with regards to breach of the rules of society.

Do you have an alternative?
How would you get people to pay taxes without the government being able to enforce?

[Winchester]

I feel as a member of society, that my society requires some rules so I agree with the concept of having a governing power creating those rules, also providing certain services e.g. school, health care, roads etc.

A governing power wouldn’t be very effective without enforcement, so I support enforcement with regards to breach of the rules of society.

Do you have an alternative?
How would you get people to pay taxes without the government being able to enforce?

You assume I think it's okay for a special subset of people to have a right to take property by force. I don't.
 

 

 

 

 

The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from
the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.-- Murray Rothbard