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

[Darkdale]

Weapons of all kinds are essential to any free citizenry, simply for protection against enemy forces and against domestic government. As it is right now, if America was ever invaded, there is no way that a foreign army could take the south, or New York City or LA. Besides our Military and National Guards, the citizens are armed and would be able to fight. Weapons do far more good than they do ill and once the right to arms is given up, it never will return again. Like many Americans, I would willing go to war to protect the right to bare arms, for without that right, none of the other rights are secure.

[Faminedynasty]

I am a gun owner and a defender of the second ammendment, but the notion that the populous is going to defeat the US military in armed conflict is absurd. Does anyone really believe that a rag-tag group of militiamen armed with deer rifles is going to defeat apache helicopters, A-10 warthogs and nuclear bombs? Me thinks not. If we are ever going to challenge the power of the government it will have to come through non-violent non-cooperation. But that said, the right to bear arms is still important to protect oneself, especially in a country so stricken with poverty and subsequent crime.

[Fascist Christ]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Like many Americans, I would willing go to war to protect the right to bare arms, for without that right, none of the other rights are secure.

I completelly agree.

And for those who don't understand, I'll put it this way:

A free and democratic government is put in place by the people.
-Therefore-
The people retain the right to overthrow it.

This cannot be done if we give up our arms. The police and the military won't protect you when they are agents of the enemy.

[Fascist Christ]

Originally Posted by Faminedynasty

Does anyone really believe that a rag-tag group of militiamen armed with deer rifles is going to defeat apache helicopters, A-10 warthogs and nuclear bombs?

It's called guerilla warfare, and the US military is notoriously bad at combating it. See Iraq. See Vietnam.

As for those most destructive forces, they can only hurt the government at least as much as the people. I personally can't imagine a bombing campaign on New York City as an effort to quell the resistence therein.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Fascist Christ

It's called guerilla warfare, and the US military is notoriously bad at combating it. See Iraq. See Vietnam.

Well... the US is "notoriously bad at combating it"... due to various political, moral, etc. reasons....but the US military could turn both places into parking lots inside of a day.... just to clarify.

[cardero]

Guns don't kill people
People Kill People
Do we need people?

[robtex]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Point 1. You cannot have a civilian militia without allowing civilians the right to own guns. Therefore, if the right to a civilian militia is constiutionally protected then the right to own guns is constitutionally protected.

Points 2, 3, and 4: The gist of your argument is that guns can be used to intentionally hurt someone else while obesity, porn and pot are "self-contained." I agree that the law should make it illegal to intentionally hurt someone else. But it already does. It is already illegal to use a gun to murder someone else. It is already illegal to use a gun to rob someone else. The act of owning the gun itself does not intrinsically hurt anyone. So why should owning it be illegal?

Your point one could be a whole new thead and I don't want to chase it in debt on here but I would contest the theory that we NEED a civilian militia. We can vote here. The USA is a Democratic republic. Think I will read on up on stipulations and conditions of the second and make a thread of it later this week.

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.

As a footnote I would say that Canada has a handgun ban and assult rifle ban and look how well it has worked out for them. We have a very similar culture to theres and I think their model is a really good one.

http://panda.com/canadaguns/

[robtex]

Originally Posted by cardero

Guns don't kill people
People Kill People
Do we need people?

guns make is easy to kill people
many guns are designed specifcally for killing people

[Darkdale]

I actually think the military would be on the side of the People against the Government, or at least, split in half. Soliders sware loyalty to the Constitution first and the Country/Government second. The constitution gives us the right to bare arms and thus the military is obligated to protect that right for the people.

Sometimes, being successful isn't the point; the point is standing up for what is good and right and if that means losing a war to your oppressors, that we must have the courage to do that. It is better to live and die with great honor, then to capitulate to oppressive forces and live, that'd just be cowardice.