Do we NEED guns? (evolution, America, pagan, Zen)

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by robtex

On a tangent why if you fear the goverment do you still live here? Isn't relocation a saner option than armed revolution in this case?

First, I do not fear the government. I fear government. I fear the power of the few over the liberty of the many. I fear the tyranny, manipulation and control of a government easily purchased by foreign and domestic interests (which are certainly not my own).

On a positive note, I believe in liberty and in Man's right to defend himself, to be in charge of his own destiny, instead of submitting to the mob-rule, the blasé mediocrity and inept will of the masses when coupled with hysteria, malevolence or bigotry. I believe in individualism, in civil rights and civil liberties, in the sovereignty of family and community; as opposed to obedience to a corrupt federal government.

The point is, I don't trust you to protect me. Neither do I believe it is your responsibility. We are a society, but a society of free, autonomous individuals who associate with one another according to the law, the Constitution and the principles of mutual benefit; not force or coercion.

Furthermore, I don't think I advocate any kind of revolt... only that you will be in severe danger if you come to take my guns away. Guns are there to serve and protect the family and community, from whatever threats. You may want to put your fate in the hands of men you don’t know and a government you can’t control, but I do not.

[Fascist Christ]

Originally Posted by robtex

Could you please define "us" and "them".

us: the people
them: the government

Originally Posted by robtex

Your macho attitude, in reference to "running away is not the answer" is a stronger arguement for gun control to me than against. In reference to "goverment must serve the people not other way around" I don't see how gun control laws will aid or deter the relationship society has with the deocratic goverment other than on issues of the gun control laws themselves. By stating we, as in society, need guns to get service from the govement you are advocating armed revolution. If I might make an alternate suggestion. I would go with voting and campaigning in our democratic republic instead.

I am talking about when that system fails. I am not advocating a violent revolution, but protection against violent oppression. Hopefully we won't need it.

For example, history has shown that this government is not beyond something like executing homosexuals. Jefferson suggested castrating them instead. Both options are sick, and either attempt would warrant, in my opinion, the homosexual to open fire on the armed officers seeking to arrest and punish him.

[Fascist Christ]

Originally Posted by robtex

What other factors are you proposing I consider?

I would have to say your belief, based on your posts here is not based on research

1) http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
scroll to the bottom for the stats

2) http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...rticlekey=6166

3) http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Your links address gun deaths, not incentives for murder. Correlation does not prove causation. You seem to have an issue with violence, not with guns, since you claim that guns encourage murder. Address the violence, and guns won't be an issue.

[robtex]

D.D. Some lucky libertarian or techincal writer for the NRA is going to stumble across your last post one day. Kidding aside, irregardless of if you believe in indivdualism or not you and I live in a society. Due to this we interact as a community and should have concensus on various issues to live comfortably with one another. As a society we pay taxes, support business within our community and work towards a synergistic goal of living.

The goverment is a repensentation of the wishes of the people. Dissent exists within the paradim as well as consent on govement actions and realistically there are laws on the books that will negativly impact or affect portions of society but that is the trade-off of the synergy that a community and goverement has to offer.

While you maintain that owning any type of firearm is a personal choice I a saying it has a community impact and as such is a community issue. Based on the stats posted on this thread we know, as a society that our gun control policty can and will have either a negative effect or postitive effect on our society that can be quantified in medical dollars, human damage and death.

Again, I want to point out that the main purpose of handguns and assult rifles is murder. Any decisions made on the legislation or lack of legislation of such should keep that idea in mind .

There are things I am not happy about with our goverment which may or may not coincide with your personal issues on our goverment. However, I am a much stronger advocate of negociating those issues in a political arena instead of a militeristic one. I also see a larger negative impact from lack of gun control on pistols and assult rifles in terms of an increased homocide rate than I see a positive impact of the need to arm myself against the goverement of the USA.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Fascist Christ

us: the people
them: the government

I am talking about when that system fails. I am not advocating a violent revolution, but protection against violent oppression. Hopefully we won't need it.

For example, history has shown that this government is not beyond something like executing homosexuals. Jefferson suggested castrating them instead. Both options are sick, and either attempt would warrant, in my opinion, the homosexual to open fire on the armed officers seeking to arrest and punish him.

In reference to us= people them = gov .. We are the goverment. Officals are elected. I don't seem them as a seperate entity for that reason. I am curious as to why you do.

I don't see violent oppression in current domestic policy. Nor do I see it as a foreseeable event in the USA. Again curious why you do?

On your Jefferson example. Ideas become laws based on goverment propositions that either go throught the house and the senate plus a possible executive veto or throguh the judicary branch which at the zenith have a panel as opposed to an indivdual to handle laws.

What you are stating about goverment oppression is more probably in a caste system or dictatorship but in our goverement is severly marginalized by the structure of our current system.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Fascist Christ

Your links address gun deaths, not incentives for murder. Correlation does not prove causation. You seem to have an issue with violence, not with guns, since you claim that guns encourage murder. Address the violence, and guns won't be an issue.

The correlation is that firearms make murder simipiler in two ways:

1) Ease of execution. You are moving a metal level (aka the trigger) over a small distance. Other ways of killing peopler require much more physical skill. this negatively affects our death rate.

2) Lack of emotional commitment. A firearm takes less mental fortitude to kill with than say a baseball bat which would require mutiple swings more often than not and the visible brutality associated with blugeoning someone to death. The difference in emotional committment is likely the reason guns are the leading tool used in homicides.

The incintive, may or may not be carried out in part due to both the ease of execution and the emotional commitment neccessary. Firearms make both more feasible.

[Fascist Christ]

Originally Posted by robtex

However, I am a much stronger advocate of negociating those issues in a political arena instead of a militeristic one.

This reminds me of how some felt toward Britain in the 1700s. Slowly, but surely, we learned that negotiation would not work. As Thomas Paine argued in 1776, "bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?" You see, there is a time and a place for it. We must not be naive to this, but preserve our rights today so that we are prepared for when "the time hath found us."

[robtex]

`

Originally Posted by Fascist Christ

This reminds me of how some felt toward Britain in the 1700s. Slowly, but surely, we learned that negotiation would not work. As Thomas Paine argued in 1776, "bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?" You see, there is a time and a place for it. We must not be naive to this, but preserve our rights today so that we are prepared for when "the time hath found us."

Well T Paine and the those you label as "some" ain't here right now. But since you and I are tell me what why you advocating an armed citizenship to protect against the goverment?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by robtex

On the gun ownership I am focusing on handguns and automatic rifles only. Not hunting rifles like shotguns and single bolt action deer rifles. The reason for outlawing them is the idea that the PRIMARY purpose of those instruments is killing humans. Where as pot, (which is illegal for recreation consumption) unhealthy eating and legal porn (aka not child porn) have different primary purposes and differnt uses. I feel like you are throwing out a red herring with these examples because

1) those examples don't carry the immediate lethal aspects of handguns and automatic rifles
2) the primary purpose of those instruments is not killing humans
3) the use of the other activities is focused on self use where handguns and assult rifles are more for interactive use with a high possiblity of lethal results.

I brought up porn, pot, and obesity to show that in general we liberals advocate allowing people to make their own choices about their lives. In general, we believe that it is not up to the government to legislate how we live, except when our choices unnecessarily hurt others.

I agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun is for killing humans. But that's not the issue. I feel that this is the argument that's the red herring. Killing humans is not considered by this society to be inherently immoral. Killing humans can be done for murder, which is considered immoral and is illegal; and killing humans can be done in self-defense in order to avoid getting murdered. In our society, killing someone in self-defense is considered justified. It is not illegal.

You've agreed that the majority of peo