United States & Gun Control discussion.

[8654Maine]

Why go private? Let's air this moldy jockstrap.

I judged based on your previous posts in this thread. I have no preconceptions of who you are or what your agenda is.

Your words: "Just posting my opinions, which clearly go against what the majority of members of this board think, but I expect that regarding this issue here."

Again, why would you write this unless you were making certain assumptions? That we all think alike? Because of being on this board? Some of the most rational beings are folks in uniform. Especially when it comes to violence. Because we are the ones to bear the brunt of such policy.

Your statements about militias, day-to-day violence not being real, questioning why a mom would have weapons, and guns only for hunting are just examples of your lack of insight.

Now remember, proper debate dissects the discussion points. Not dismembers the participant. Proper debate should not highlight debater's naivety, experience nor immaturity. That is not it's purpose.

In case you are wondering, I may actually agree with some (little) of your points and am more than willing to learn something from everyone, but my pet peeve is your comment about the members on this board and your expectations regarding our attitudes. Besides your other points.

Do not go gently into that good night.
Have you ever pissed off a DI?

 

[Marauder06]

OK guys, keep this thread on the subject at hand, any mano a mano is best settled via PM, or via the "ignore" function. Any individual member discipline will be handled by the site staff.

Muchas gracias <-- that's three semesters of Spanish for you, right there.

 

[8654Maine]

Roger that.

 

[Scotth]

Now remember, proper debate dissects the discussion points. Not dismembers the participant. Proper debate should not highlight debater's naivety, experience nor immaturity. That is not it's purpose.

Great comment!

 

[mrob]

Which view exactly?

The Founding Fathers believed that a well armed people would be a check against a government that would seek to enslave them as my earlier quote stated

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.

 

[Marauder06]

I have been on these boards for close to three years, I just don't have a post count to show for it. I have great respect for members of this board and those who serve and I hope to follow in many of your footsteps one day. I have not once been disrespectful to anyone. But just because my views differ from most people on this board I am somehow ignorant? Don't presume to know me and paint me as something I am not. Please PM me if you (or anyone) would like to continue this further.

I was trying to argue that view is no longer relevant and that the amendment has become a symbol of our freedom more than a protector of it in today's world and newer problems that our Founding Fathers could not foresee have now taken precedent and need to be addressed.

This is constructive criticism, which you are free to accept or disregard at your own choosing. Ordinarily this would be coming to you via private message, but there are a lot of new joins who could probably benefit from hearing this, so it's public.

It's fine to go against the prevailing wisdom of the site. In fact, I encourage it. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. You have gone about it the wrong way in this thread.

Look at the way users like Scotth or CDG or JBS present their arguments. There are many others but I'm using them as an example because their usernames are easiest to type. Their arguments are well-researched and well-thought-out, and are backed by facts and verifiable sources. It's pretty obvious that you didn't do any real research on this topic before jumping in with both feet, and now you're in over your head. Your posts reveal what is to me a stunning lack of understanding of the basic aspects of this discussion. Now you're left with arguing from emotion, which isn't going to get you far here. It makes you look worse than uninformed, it makes you look ignorant and troll-like.

So, if you really want to continue this discussion, go and do some real research and come back with a more-than-surface-level understanding of the major issues. I'd start with Googling "why do we need gun control," then try "why we don't need gun control." These will give you a better understanding of the base arguments on both sides, the relevant case law, and the underlying Constitutional issues. That way you can make a much more coherent argument, one that others might disagree with but will still respect you for having.

 

[Marine0311]

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.

I disagree and that it one of the reasons that the FF put the 2nd Amendment in; to prevent a government from enslaving it's people through force of arms.

 

[TLDR20]

We are talking in circles, maybe a 24 hr break from this thread to gather new ideas would be worth it. This thread looks like the comments section of a story on Yahoo.

 

[mrob]

This is constructive criticism, which you are free to accept or disregard at your own choosing. Ordinarily this would be coming to you via private message, but there are a lot of new joins who could probably benefit from hearing this, so it's public.

It's fine to go against the prevailing wisdom of the site. In fact, I encourage it. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. You have gone about it the wrong way in this thread.

Look at the way users like Scotth or CDG or JBS present their arguments. There are many others but I'm using them as an example because their usernames are easiest to type. Their arguments are well-researched and well-thought-out, and are backed by facts and verifiable sources. It's pretty obvious that you didn't do any real research on this topic before jumping in with both feet, and now you're in over your head. Your posts reveal what is to me a stunning lack of understanding of the basic aspects of this discussion. Now you're left with arguing from emotion, which isn't going to get you far here. It makes you look worse than uninformed, it makes you look ignorant and troll-like.

So, if you really want to continue this discussion, go and do some real research and come back with a more-than-surface-level understanding of the major issues. I'd start with Googling "why do we need gun control," then try "why we don't need gun control." These will give you a better understanding of the base arguments on both sides, the relevant case law, and the underlying Constitutional issues. That way you can make a much more coherent argument, one that others might disagree with but will still respect you for having.

Understood. I guess the lines between discussing and debating got blurred. I was more or less discussing my thoughts and opinions, not trying to persuade or pick apart people's posts. I'll excuse myself from this thread and do more reading before I decide to post here again.

 

[0699]

Once the reading indicated by CDG is complete few rational people will argue gun control..... and they should be awed at the powerful foresight displayed.

If people argued this topic rationally. But they don't. People will always argue this point on emotion, not logic.

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.

What's nice about your posts is I don't need to read them. I can just scroll along and click "disagree" everytime I see your name without having to blink an eye...

 

[policemedic]

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.

So, you're going to argue that an insurgency the size of the American gun owning population is easy to defeat?

Allow me to refer you to Iraq.

Stop digging.

 

[AWP]

Historically speaking, insurgencies start with the weapons at hand. Look at the last 100 years: Vietnam, Central America, Africa, Afghanistan in the 70's, the Moros, the Bolsheviks, etc.....before they were funded by outside sources they all started with what was on hand, what was in their homes.

 

[CDG]

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

Wow. Just....... wow. I don't even know where to start with this statement. Even if it were true, which it is not, your answer would be to just quit and let the government do whatever it wants? "Well, fuck it fellas, we probably can't win so let's just surrender. We don't need no stinkin' freedoms and liberties!"

 

[parallel]

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

The 2nd amendment is here to stay. Again, I can't see it going anywhere. The issue is and should be how to prevent mass shootings from happening and that can be done without getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Morally, I don't think it is right to use the 2nd amendment as a reason to not do anything. In my first post I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.

Wow... just wow. I purposely avoided this thread because I just KNEW there would be stuff like this being posted. I was tagged or whatever and now I can't unread what I've read.

As policemedic has already said, one needs look no further than the Iraqi insurgency to see the fallacy of your position. Add to that the fact that U.S. Military personnel made an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and therefore the "full power of the US government" wouldn't be in effect.

Now, before I get added to any lists out there... I have no doubt that we're no where near any kind of situation in which an insurgency is even remotely necessary. I'm saying that it is indeed POSSIBLE should the need arise.

As for the bold part of your comment... you will note that many of those mass shootings occurred AFTER the federal assault weapons ban (which was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was passed into law. Hmmmm... imagine that... a bunch of laws originating from D.C. banning this and that did next to nothing in it's stated goal of "Violent Crime Control" much less the type of mass shootings we're talking about here. I do find it odd that so many anti-gun people are invoking morality when it's those with whom they identify politically who have removed morality from the public discourse.

 

[parallel]

LOL... "Wow just wow" just seems to be the only words many of us could conjure.

 

[Marauder06]

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

See, this is another example of what I was talking about earlier. All someone has to do in order to completely destroy this line of reasoning is to introduce you to our friend Mr. Afghanistan. Freefalling and a number of other site members know Mr. Afghanistan pretty well, maybe they can tell you about him sometime.

...I noted we have had 58 mass shootings to Europe's 12 since 1996. Clearly, we have room for improvement and we should welcome changes that will reduce these incidences.

OK, now with this, I can see the beginning of a good argument in support of your position. You should develop this more.

 

[Chopstick]

I dont mean to interrupt the direction the thread has taken but when I read this:

With today's technology and advanced weaponry, I can't really see civilians with guns having great effect against the full power of the US government, so that check against the government is no longer relevant.

I thought of this:

Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass. Isoroku Yamamoto

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Maybe asking the question in the other direction will offer some much need understanding into how some justify gun control in their own minds.

· Who are you to tell me or anyone else we cannot own a gun, a type of gun or limit our carrying of said gun?
· What authority does anyone, government or civilian have to tell the people that I cannot be armed?
· Where did the authority come from to allow the removal of the people’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution?

I think it is real easy to forget about the people, everyone else, when injecting the thought of change. Either it be gun control, limiting freedom of speech, etc. What may make you feel safe may make the rest of us feel unsafe. So how can you justify it outside of simply giving an opinion? The point here is that it is perfectly fine to have an opinion, but to push those opinions into laws limiting the peoples rights is unjustifiable to the masses. I would love to have laws against people like the Westboro baptist church being able to protest my brothers and sisters funerals. However, the constitution protects them, and if I am going to take my oath serious, I have to respect their rights to do so. I don’t have to like it; I can hate them, what they do and who they are. But I do have to respect their rights as American citizens….The same way I expect everyone else to respect my rights to keep and bear arms.

 

[Arrow 4]

Here is another thing to consider...while this and the other mass shootings (Oregon, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and others) are horrific, shocking, sad, gut-wrenching, etc., consider the following:

• In 2008 (most recent data available), about 3200 babies were aborted each day in the US (Guttmacher Institute)
• In 2008, there were 45 homicides every day in the US (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html)
• In 2008, 847 children 16 and younger were victims of homicide - on average, 2.3 per day in the US (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html)

These facts escape the media frenzy yet are also horrific, shocking, sad, gut-wrenching, etc. to those involved. There is evil and darkness in our nation every single day.

 

[policemedic]

One thing does bear mentioning.

When you use the term assault weapon, you are allowing the other side to dictate the terms of the debate. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, assault pistol or any other type of assault anything. We know this, and we know better, but the term has become so commonplace that we use it without thinking. And when we do, we reinforce through the power of semantics and imagery the (allegedly) horribly evil and dangerous nature of these inanimate objects that the other side is trying to sell.

Even the phrase military-style rifle/pistol/shotgun/spork is problematic. A 1911 is military-style, and so are Berettas and Glocks and Sigs because they've been used by our nation's warfighters. Should we ban them simply because of their association with the military? In terms of rifles, the military uses bolt action rifles. Does that mean the Remington 700 you own to hunt deer (not that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting) should be outlawed because at its core it is reminiscent of the M24 sniper weapon system?

When we debate this issue--though why there is a debate puzzles me--we must be sure that in making our points we do not undermine our position by letting the other side frame the debate.

Words matter.