wires crossed? how so?
I’d like to clear up some of what I posted previously.
My first post was primarily a response to those who were adamant about guns being completely unrestricted (someone had posted “…there are too many laws regulating ownership of guns…”), and to the person who posted that they did not trust their government and that owning a gun was their defense against a tyrannical government.
If you read my last post, I never said the government would use nuclear weapons on their own land, but there are chemical and biological weapons that will kill people and dissipate within a few months that leave the land virtually untouched.
Regarding the government/soldier issue: What I basically was saying is that if “DA MAN” should become a threat to a f*cked up government, no matter how good his skills are at hitting a non-moving target at a firing range, you are a sitting duck for a special forces squad that is hell bent on taking you out.
Why? Because you are trying to function in a ‘society’ (i.e. live at a fixed address, go to work, etc) whereas their goal would be to come in, kill you and leave the area, the country, etc.
Unless you go into hiding, the government that wants to kill you, will do so at their discretion. If you live at a known location, owning a gun and being able to effectively use one might not give you a much better chance of survival (i’m not saying anything about taking some of them out – i’m sure you would take a few of them with you)
Also, I agree that most of the people in positions of congress and government DO NOT REPRESENT all of my beliefs either. This doesn’t mean that we should just say “F*ck our democratic process”.
As for intelligence or responsibility tests for owning other things, I think there should be stringent requirements for getting a drivers’ license as well. How many people kill other drivers / pedestrians in the US because they are incompetent operators of motor vehicles? This is another argument against legalizing drugs. With mass transit system you don’t have to worry about this as much, but think about how many people get into a car intoxicated and drive. Now you have legalized drugs. What are the death rates going to be like from people killing others because they drove while high ?
Furthermore, there is a difference between owning a gun, being able to operate a car and buying a (saturated fat-filled) snickers bars.
A gun is designed to wound/destroy life.
A car is designed to transport you from point “A” to point “B”.
A candy bar is designed to provide the body with (albeit not the best form of) sustenance.
The intent of the object should be the focus of any regulations placed upon it. A gun is fairly useless for anything besides wounding/killing and drilling holes.
See the difference. If a person doesn’t value human life, there might be no distinction at all. But if more people [i.e. criminal types] respected the lives of others, there would be less need for weapons. Perhaps you view this lack of respect for other humans as an intrinsic part of human existence.
True, there might never be a utopia where everything is wonderful. I would just ask you what you would rather have:
- A society where people RESPECT each others’ lives, property, beliefs and people live primarily in peace
or
- A society where nobody trusts anybody, you are on the constant lookout of being killed by anybody, even those you might believe are your friends, and where anything you possess needs to be protected with violent force.
These are two extremes. But which one would you rather live in?
RE: This doesn’t mean that we should just say “Fck our democratic process".
No need to say "Fck our democratic process”, for our Democratic process is already F*KED (well mostly)
As for intelligence or responsibility tests for owning other things, I think there should be stringent requirements for getting a drivers' license as well.
Stringent requirements for getting a drivers license already exist
This is another argument against legalizing drugs
This is another argument for alcohol prohibition? anyways its illegal to operate a vehicle on any debilitating substance or condition (sleepy etc) ether illicit or not (prescription OCT medicine , Paint fumes) the answer is Judicial reform in sentencing, stop the revolving door.
With mass transit system you don't have to worry about this as much, but think about how many people get into a car intoxicated and drive. Now you have legalized drugs. What are the death rates going to be like from people killing others because they drove while high ?
Yelling fire in a theater is illegal, but who thinks muzzling people before they enter so to prevent them from doing so is a swell idea.
Furthermore, there is a difference between owning a gun, being able to operate a car and buying a (saturated fat-filled) snickers bars.
How many people die from heart disease, than firearm accidents and homicide, so what is more dangerous?
A gun is designed to wound/destroy life.
Its designed to protect life, it is an abuse of the purpose to use it otherwise, to wound/destroy is a method.
A candy bar is designed to provide the body with (albeit not the best form of) sustenance.
A candy bar is designed to provide quick hunger satisfaction without consideration of nutritive value, for profit, perhaps you should consider eating real food (joking)
The intent of the object should be the focus of any regulations placed upon it.
Its designed to protect life, it is an abuse of the purpose to use it otherwise, this should be the focus of any regulations placed upon it.
A gun is fairly useless for anything besides wounding/killing and drilling holes.
wounding/killing and drilling holes is a method, purpose is Protection of life (sometimes property, or to defend the Constitution, or make you pay taxes or...)
If a person doesn't value human life, there might be no distinction at all. But if more people [i.e. criminal types] respected the lives of others, there would be less need for weapons.
If all we Sing Kum Bai Ya om Shakti, and eat alfalfa sprouts, and snort Vibutti, and wear Birkenstocks and a medallion with trendy mystical symbols the size of a hubcap you bought on eBay from an unemployed actor, and eat couscous, and stain our India shirt whit Miso at the rainbow gathering, the Sado Masochist that likes to eat the faces off of living people will join the peace corps, but only after he’s finished urinating in the mouth of the corpse of someone’s baby sister of course ( you probably think I’m exaggerating )
Perhaps you view this lack of respect for other humans as an intrinsic part of human existence.
Always has been, always will be.
these are two extremes. But which one would you rather live in?
I'm quessing... The REAL one?
so youay there are biological weapons that TOTALLY dissipate after a few months? I beg to differ on this, but it is not the topic, so I digress. Concerning the discussion of me not having a chance at defending myself and loved ones- this may very well be true. but does that mean I should just roll over and die? I think not. Is it likely that you will ever achieve the “perfect body?” Most likely not- but you still lift and eat correctly-do you not? Will you ever be the worlds greatest rock climber? most likely not, but you still climb, dont you? If all of these things are so futile, then why even do them? Is my point clear now? Just because all odds are against me (and you) doesnt mean I wont try (just like you). There was no way the colonies would ever win, according to the rest of the world, way back in the 1700s. Yet here we sit in the United States of America. Not some British conlony. You see my point? It is a matter of self respect and dignity. I REFUSE to be a victim of anything. And I CHOOSE to be prepaired for anything. If you would rather roll over and play dead, knock yourself out. More power to you. BUT I WILL NOT. And that is why the 2nd exists. And the entire utopian dream is a sad argument. Never will there be a society anywhere where everyone RESPECTS everyone else. There will always be jealousy, want, greed, hatred, etc. Do you actually believe there will ever be a day when every man respects every other? I seriously doubt it. Humans have had a 2000 year track record for being horrible and disrespectful. What makes you think the streak will break? Concerning a guns “purpose,” the purpose of a firearm is to launch a projectile in a direct line out of the barel at a high velocity. That is what they are designed to do. What is done with this is totally up to the person who holds the instrument. And Coyote hit the nail on the head concerning the snickers- I would hazard a guess that more people die from heart disease each year than are killed with firearms. Isnt heart disease the number 2 killer of americans over 30? Seems like a snickers, and most other fast food, is a pretty efficient killer to me. And concerning regulating inalienable rights- if they start with the 2nd, what is to stop them from retracting any other rights laid forth to us by the Founding Fathers? It would start a precident of retractable rights. And once that precident is set, there would be nothing we could do to stop whatever else the government felt didnt serve what they think should be served.
Well said Coyote and Da Man. It’s grea to see that people can still think with perspective than just react with emotion disguised as facts.
Thank you irondoc. I appreciate the kind words.
You bring up some interesting points, but you seem to convey the opinion that the Government (capital G) is not the same as you or I.
Somehow i recall the words that start a fairly famous declaration: “WE, the PEOPLE”, not “WE the GOVERNMENT”
And regardless of who and how many die from snickers and heart disease, its not like any jackass who buys a snickers is going to kill me. He/She will kill themselves. An incompetant individual with a weapon or someone emotionally distraught can do a lot more damage than anyone armed with a snickers bar.
As for coyote’s statement regarding yelling “fire” in a theatre and “muzzling the people before they go in”: If one looks around, sees no fire and stays put, that person is not going to get trampled. If some distraught individual with an UZI starts firing around, its not like staying put will save one’s life.
I’m interested to hear what you think of Dodge City circa the time of Wyatt Earp. No weapons allowed in town. Look at the records of how many died before and after Earp instituted that policy. What are your thoughts on this matter?
I’m not saying anyone should role over and die. However, coyote’s statement that “seems like the democratic process is f*cked up as it is” seems pretty “roll-over-and-die” to me.
You mentioned how you or I might not be able to achieve the perfect body, but that doesn’t stop us from trying. Wouldn’t your statement also apply to the idea that not attempting to achieve a better society is “roll over and die” as well?
Not knowing how to do something doesn’t mean it cannot be done. For 5000 years of recorded history, (chinese have written documents prior to 3000bc) man only dreamed of walking on the moon. Then on July 20, 1969, after only 9 years of determined planning and development, man walked on the moon. Although this was not a societal-change, it was something heretofore believed unattainable.
DA MAN-I do not need a gun in my society. If I was living in the US I would get a handgun. That is called ‘adapting to one’s environment’. That is what SURVIVORS do. VICTIMS allow their fears to dictate their behaviour. Read my original post properly-I’m not disagreeing with any of you. In my society there is strict gun control and it works. Maybe your system works for you-I can’t comment on that because I don’t know enough. I was just saying from my perspective I would rather live in a society with strict gun control. I can handle private ownership of rifles and (full length) shotguns, but hand guns and military firearms in my society? No.
This thread is getting too long for me, I must accept that some people just don’t get it, but I understand that we seem to all want the same thing, a better world to live in, we come from differing POV’s, some based more on theory , some more on experience, the difference seems to be polarized between people that focus on theoretically optimum (emotional) outcomes (where I began), or conversely, practical applications in existing situational realities.(where I find myself after much study)
so we have
A: Our vision of what that perfect world would be like.
B: How the world actually is now.
C: How to implement practical change.
ps: By the People is the theory (and the law), By coercive force, the invincible power of Governments own interests is the fact, (law is what the Judge says it is), I don’t not believe that the U.S. Government, in its present condition is fixable, largely because the People themselves are ignorant of Law, I think eventually it will be fixed, but not in my lifetime, in fact I think it will get much worse very rapidly, all I can do is keep my head down, try to stay out of trouble, and cope the best I can, and Pray to the Gods of Iron and Gravity.
----First I will address your correction of my grammar. If you are going to correct mine, make sure you yourself use it correctly. I is always capitalized, and Chinese would have a capital ‘C.’ You also misspelled incompetent. People in glass houses should not throw stones my friend….
----Now to the topic at hand.
You bring up some interesting points, but you seem to convey the opinion that the Government (capital G) is not the same as you or I. Somehow i recall the words that start a fairly famous declaration: “WE, the PEOPLE”, not “WE the GOVERNMENT” And regardless of who and how many die from snickers and heart disease, its not like any jackass who buys a snickers is going to kill me. He/She will kill themselves. An incompetant individual with a weapon or someone emotionally distraught can do a lot more damage than anyone armed with a snickers bar.
----And someone with a knife will do more damage than someone with a snickers. And someone with a bat will do more damage than someone with a snickers. Where will the regulation of ‘inherently dangerous objects’ stop?
As for coyote’s statement regarding yelling “fire” in a theatre and “muzzling the people before they go in”: If one looks around, sees no fire and stays put, that person is not going to get trampled. If some distraught individual with an UZI starts firing around, its not like staying put will save one’s life. I’m interested to hear what you think of Dodge City circa the time of Wyatt Earp. No weapons allowed in town. Look at the records of how many died before and after Earp instituted that policy. What are your thoughts on this matter? ----Check out some Texas crime stats before and after concealed carry was instituted. There you will find my thoughts on that. How likely would it be that some nutty SOB would get off more than a couple shots from that Uzi (which is already illegal if it is full auto) if there is a group of people present with there own weapon? I would hazard a guess that the person could not squeeze off more than a couple before he found himself wounded.
I’m not saying anyone should role over and die. However, coyote’s statement that “seems like the democratic process is f*cked up as it is” seems pretty “roll-over-and-die” to me. You mentioned how you or I might not be able to achieve the perfect body, but that doesn’t stop us from trying. Wouldn’t your statement also apply to the idea that not attempting to achieve a better society is “roll over and die” as well? Not knowing how to do something doesn’t mean it cannot be done. For 5000 years of recorded history, (chinese have written documents prior to 3000bc) man only dreamed of walking on the moon. Then on July 20, 1969, after only 9 years of determined planning and development, man walked on the moon. Although this was not a societal-change, it was something heretofore believed unattainable. ----You have just made my point for me. It is seen impossible for ones government to turn on them. But, since impossible things happen all the time, why wouldn’t that so called impossible thing happen? To ensure peace, you must prepare for war. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. The quotes go on and on, but they all say one thing, the old Boy Scout saying, “Always be prepared.” And I am. And it is every persons responsibility, imo, to do so.
What it really gets down to is are we safe? I have a few guns, my neighbor has a few, matter of fact with the exception of two houses in the area every one has at least one firearm in it. Despite that amount of weaponry there hasn’t been a murder around here in years, and that one was a beating followed by being thrown off of a high bridge. Guns are a problem? Not here, and the guns are the same here as anywhere else.
Nationwide 45% of all homes have firearms, many of those homes have multiple firearms. That’s a lot of guns. A lot of guns and a lot of people, if guns were actually being mishandled by the majority of owners you’d think that more people would be getting shot. Accidental shootings are far fewer per capita then they were just a few years ago. I know a few guys that handle firearms that have a below average IQ, those people are as safe with a gun as anyone I know. How can this be? Well, it’s because gun safety isn’t rocket science. The average IQ of the infantry soldier isn’t all that high, yet we issue them fully automatic weapons. The Army must know something about gun safety that some of us don’t.
Most people feel pretty safe walking down the street. How many of you actually know somebody that has either murdered someone or been murdered by a gun? Can you say the same about involvement in motor vehicle accidents? The fact is that crimes are generally committed by a small minority of the population, and violent crimes by a much smaller minority. Restricting the rights of the huge majority to make some people feel marginally safer is just not necessary. Indeed Prozac might be a better idea.