limpid Posted December 16, 2012 Administrator Share Posted December 16, 2012 Speaking as someone who has never and in all probability never will own a firearm (I have fired the odd rifle of a friend while hunting), I have no interest in living in a society which would in any way limit my ability to purchase, possess or use a gun. It's a question of principle: if the government retains access to firearms (has an armed forces or police), then one of the prerequisites for citizenship, as opposed to being a subject, is access to military-grade firearms. Power comes from the barrel of a gun; if it is to be the people who have the power, then they must be able to acquire and use any weapon the government can. Do you think it's likely that the British royal family will be attempting to recapture your colony then? Or is this a revisionist interpretation of your constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I have no intrest in using a gun, whether its for going hunting, going to shooting range or having one for self defense, its just not in my nature to feel the need to own or use one, obviously this is completely different in certain country's and the most obvious is the USA so for me its irrelevant that my opinion is that the general public should not be allowed fire arms. Gun crime is minimal in the UK and when it is reported its usually between gangs. It's easy to sit on my high horse and say banning the owning of or the use of a gun will sort out these senseless, heartbreaking acts of yesterday, columbine etc but its just not that easy. Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I have no intrest in using a gun, whether its for going hunting, going to shooting range or having one for self defense, its just not in my nature to feel the need to own or use one, obviously this is completely different in certain country's and the most obvious is the USA so for me its irrelevant that my opinion is that the general public should not be allowed fire arms. Gun crime is minimal in the UK and when it is reported its usually between gangs. It's easy to sit on my high horse and say banning the owning of or the use of a gun will sort out these senseless, heartbreaking acts of yesterday, columbine etc but its just not that easy. Unfortunately. Cultural differences explain why gun control is much less popular in the US than in other developed countries. They do not, however, mean that gun control would be less effective, if enforced properly (which I think is half the problem). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 If legislation actually passed that resulted in the confiscation of firearms, there would be a civil war in this country, with a lot of local law enforcement siding with the people and militia groups. Google the "Oath Keepers", these people take it very seriously. The gun lobby is far too entrenched. As legov has alluded to earlier, it's career suicide for a politician to include meaningful gun law reform in his platform, especially if his constituents belong to that culture, and it is a cultural thing in many parts of the country. You'd think that 20 dead 6 year olds piled up in a classroom would be the proverbial straw, but I doubt much will come from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted December 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2012 Do you think it's likely that the British royal family will be attempting to recapture your colony then? Or is this a revisionist interpretation of your constitution? It has nothing to do with the Constitution, beyond whatever extent that the Constitution is consonant with the idea of popular sovereignty. To put it plainly, one is not fully human unless one has the ability to (among many other things) buy a gun (or a nuclear weapon, for that matter) and kill people with it, for such is the greatest power one has. This is not endorsing killing people, but it is to say that laws aimed at preventing people from killing people essentially trade a great number of small deaths (in that they make those who are not anointed by the state less human) in the hopes that a comparative few people will die later than they otherwise would have. That's not a trade I favor making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted December 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2012 That's already not the case though. That does not change that, IMO, that's the way it should be and any movement towards the state where every person on Earth is able to have and use a nuclear weapon is desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 That does not change that, IMO, that's the way it should be and any movement towards the state where every person on Earth is able to have and use a nuclear weapon is desirable. Really? Even the mentally unsound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 The gun lobby is far too entrenched. As legov has alluded to earlier' date=' it's career suicide for a politician to include meaningful gun law reform in his platform, especially if his constituents belong to that culture, and it is a cultural thing in many parts of the country.[/quote'] It's a cultural thing in most of the country, not just the South. We're not talking about tax rates or LGBT or science denial where there is a definite cultural and geographical schism. Even the liberals seem to agree with the conservatives on this one in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 To put it plainly, one is not fully human unless one has the ability to (among many other things) buy a gun (or a nuclear weapon, for that matter) and kill people with it, for such is the greatest power one has. This is not endorsing killing people, but it is to say that laws aimed at preventing people from killing people essentially trade a great number of small deaths (in that they make those who are not anointed by the state less human) in the hopes that a comparative few people will die later than they otherwise would have. That's not a trade I favor making. ah, you were just taking the piss. had me going for a while there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2012 I have to say Levi - assuming your post was serious - that from a British standpoint it comes across as little short of demented. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 too clumsy to be real 'you are sub human without the power and right to kill people with guns' nowhere near subtle enough for me to fall for it you can still stab, strangle, garrot, impale, gut, cheeswire, stone, kick to death etc., all those things will help the average american feel fully human 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 too clumsy to be real 'you are sub human without the power and right to kill people with guns' nowhere near subtle enough for me to fall for it you can still stab, strangle, garrot, impale, gut, cheeswire, stone, kick to death etc., all those things will help the average american feel fully human Careful now, lest the "people can still kill without guns" argument comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I think if Levi's point is serious (and I'm not sure it is...) it seems to be more of a "if the power lies with the people, then the people should be the ones with the ability to wield the power" thing rather than "I should be able to nuke everyone if I want to". As it stand we're all deluded into thinking it's the people with the power and control, when in reality we're limited in what we can do and we're the ones being controlled. I can understand the argument for the right to bare arms, it was always meant as a way to keep Government in check, to ensure that it was always the people who had the final say and at any point there could be a popular uprising to oust a rogue government. I just think that it's gone far too far past the point where that could happen now for it to be a valid reason. Lets say for arguments sake that Americans did tomorrow decide that they were fed up with a Government that constantly bows to big business at the expense of the individual, that exists seemingly to further advance the wealth of the few. How long would a popular uprising last these days? How far would they get before they were able to storm the Whitehouse and oust the Government? Not very really. There's far too big of a gap between the military might of the Government, and the arms holding abilities of the people. But maybe that's just a reason to relax gun control further, so that the ability to overthrow the Government regains what it once was. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa_chemist Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 That does not change that, IMO, that's the way it should be and any movement towards the state where every person on Earth is able to have and use a nuclear weapon is desirable. Honestly Levi, you have to be aware that here in the UK we get all of the doolally garbage that comes out of the NRA reported to us as though it's the opinion of every American. To the point that some of us are likely to believe your joke is your seriously held view. Just imagine living in a country with low gun ownership and low gun crime and looking at the news reports from this tradgedy, then reading the amount of paranoid shit we see coming from the gun lobby. It is what the facepalm thingy was invented for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 But maybe that's just a reason to relax gun control further, so that the ability to overthrow the Government regains what it once was. An admirable ideal, but one that is heavily founded upon the idea that people use weapons responsibly. Which just isn't the case in a lot of situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 VT is Snowing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 VT is Snowing This should be in the things that piss you off thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 things are gonna get awkward for anyone with a BMW mouse or Audi touchpad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 things are gonna get awkward for anyone with a BMW mouse or Audi touchpad Audi's are fine! My BMW mouse is already upside down in the corner of the room :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts