Philosophy Discussion Forums

This whole issue of gun control became big back in the '90s when Bill Clinton was Pres. Then like now it becomes apparent that the US is divided on the issue but most Americans are probably in-between, and probably would not mind some gun control and there is already some gun control and there has been for most of the 20th Century. The problem arises because gun owners sense, and not without good cause, that some of those politicians advocating gun control are GUN-GRABBERS. They really want to eliminate most guns from the hands of the public and are working for that goal - they are the bad side of the NWO {New World Order} collectivist agenda - the public {the masses} are always first and the individual is only there to serve the function of the masses - You see even under so-called Capitalism there is a socialist agenda in play. An author using the pseudo-name of Adam Smith wrote a book many years ago called "THE MONEY GAME" in which he defined our economic system as 'socialism of the rich'. Luckily for gun owners there is big money in guns so the gun lobby and the NRA can fight back and have done so fairly effectively. BUT every time there is a tragedy caused by a mad man with a gun the gun grabbers begin to salivate - And there true agenda becomes apparent, with politicians such as Diane Feinstein trying to push legislation to outlaw about 100 different types of guns that she {and her handlers} define as 'assault weapons' - truth be told I believe she would reduce gun ownership to an English style paradigm with the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms eliminated.

Guns will never be safe and the same could be said for a kitchen knife, or a big rock, a pipe or a stick, or tall strong people or martial arts fighters. Only way to be safe is make sure no one grows too big or gets too strong. Freedom and safety are not synonymous

This old saying still has some relevance:.

"God Created Men - Winchester made Them Equal"

You all keep going on about guns and freedom not recognizing or maybe ignoring that gun control is a Red Herring as it relates to mass murder. The problem with guns and violence is the violence not the guns. Most people agree with reasonable gun control and most people agree with our inalienable right to protect ourselves by what ever means possible. So what? Until we learn to recognize who might commit these terrible acts of violence and then inturn have to collective will to actually violate their rights before they carry out their deadly intention, this kind of thing will continue until the human race takes it's collective last gasp. Mass murder is murder. Any substance or device that can inflict damage on a large number of people in a short amount of time can be a weapon of "mass" destruction. The law is terribly inconsistent in this reguard. I can't have access to C4 but I can get a can of gasoline. Terrorists turned airplanes into very effective weapons of mass destruction did they not? This gun control issue is clearly a superficial argument and will have no effect whatsoever on reducing mass murder in the future no matter which side of the issue you are on. That means by arming everyone you won't stop it or by disarming everyone you won't stop it. Determined psychopaths will do their wretched business by hook or by crook so let's wake up and put our energy into dealing with that. And if we don't have the stomach for pre-emtively limiting the freedom of a psychopath or sociopath by forcing medication on them or by physically restraining them before they act then I'm afraid we are doomed to watch this play out again and again.

Philo, are you suggesting local, state, and the federal government should allow citizens to own blocks of C-4, hand grenades, and small nuclear bombs?

This is why one million+ people commit suicide every year. This world brings despair! What's the reason why? Because these topics are STILL GOING. Jesus, we have a serious case of ad nauseum adjoined with intellectual constipation here! More emotional turds trying to paint themselves gold with more emotional assertions that hold no water! What does that mean! IT MEANS YOU NEED MORE FIBER!

Ah yes, the land of the free & the home of the brave. Do you honestly believe you are the only country where the people are free & brave?

At last, somebody's intelligence matches their avatar. Bravo, sir.

Fiveredapples wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

At last, somebody's intelligence matches their avatar. Bravo, sir.

Once some American tourists passed me by on the street, 2 women and 2 children. One of the children struck me as having an unbelievably free spirit, which I could immediately associate with all that talk about the great American spirit. The women were a little overweight, but exuded deep satisfaction.

So I would say yes there is something special about Americans, that is, those Americans who believe in America of the constitution with the first and second amendment. The uncanny free spirit which comes from supporting freedom of religion, and then choosing a religion.

In Europe, and the rest of the world, people tend not to even accept the fact that freedom is a reality, and tend to be slaves to various statistics of performance. And as far as I can tell the Democrats are trying to make America more like Europe. I have no doubt the uncanny free spirit will disappear if the Democrats win the culture war, since most of the Democrats including Obama are science minded and dont subjectively acknowledge the existence of the human spirit. They only accept the existence of measurable things.

1. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time where "the army" was the well regulated citizens' militia. Everyone had to bring their own weapons as there was no existing provision at the time for issuing weapons to the rank and file. They did not envision either a standing army, the technological advances and how they would impact society, government, and defense or the degree to which the military would become the first avenue of development for technology along with the economic incentives/realities of this partnership (which Eisenhower warned us about).

The Bill of Rights were included at the insistence of the anti-Federalists, who were concerned with the power the state had been granted by the Constitution and wanted the rights of the people, which are above those of the government, to be clearly stated so no one could ever deprive us of them. Sorry, but "it's much later now and things are different" isn't exactly a compelling argument. You lose.

2. The 2nd Amendment is no more "sacred" than anything else. While I get the idea that the constitution embodies principles that are quite valuable (in some cases essential) in terms of equanimity and good governance, nothing in it is a priori and the framers couldn't foresee everything. The framers recognized this and that is why the amendments exist. The whole "strict constructionist" thing is bullcrap.

The Constitution is sacred. You don't get it, which is why you're not truly an American. I mean, legally you are, but spiritually you're alien. It is because we have rights that the government or the people cannot deny us that we're a free people. Once there's a way to infringe or deny us those rights, then you're not free. It's rather simple. Try really, really, really to wrap your head around it. The Constitution, every part of it, is sacred. The framers couldn't foresee that guns could be used in crimes? Oh gee. The framers didn't realize that guns were good for killing people? Oh my. This 'the framers couldn't foresee' nonsense is rhetorical drivel. The Amendments add rights to the people. They don't take them away. You might think this is a coincidence, but that's only if you're retarded. Once you realize what rights are in the Constitution, you'd know Amendments were never intended to deny us any of the ones already there -- and none so far have. Gee, big coincidence.

3. Practically speaking, private citizens can't get the "good stuff" anyway. Post 1986 automatic weapons are not available for private sale even if the person completes the paperwork, background checks, waiting period, and tax stamp. The "against tyranny" contingent must know how vastly outgunned they are. I do see the logic of their argument but, honestly, parity is not possible in the context of our present situation. We're dealing with a government that has drone aircraft, sonic weapons, serious SMG capability, gas, grenades, and all sorts of tactical goodies. So. . . while it's nice in theory, the 2nd amendment remains tied to history when, at the time of the American Revolution, theory and reality were much closer.

It's about our rights to keep and bear arms. There's nothing about being able to have what the government has. So you're for allowing private citizens to own Missile Defense systems and nuclear weapons? Of course not. This is a disingenuous argument of yours.

People who can't understand the Constitution have no place making arguments on behalf of Americans.

Fiveredapples wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

At last, somebody's intelligence matches their avatar. Bravo, sir.

We sorted it out a long time ago: it's called freedom.

Oh gee, why couldn't our Founding Fathers have foreseen that guns could be used to commit crimes! Why weren't they savvy enough to realize that guns are effective tools for killing! Damn them and their myopia. What we needed were geniuses to stand up to those ignoramuses and say, "Guns kill people."

The right to bear arms was written when a gun could fire a maximum of four rounds a minute. Today's automatic weapons can fire a thousand rounds a minute & counting. Do you believe that if your founding fathers could have foreseen that their law would lead to the slaughter of children & other innocents, they would have still done it. It's not going to get better, you know. It can only get worse. At what point will you say enough is enough, or perhaps you'll never say it.

You think that owning guns & ammunition makes you free, it doesn't, it chains you & your society to ever increasing gun ownership & the ever increasing slaughter of innocents.

If your hand gets burnt in a fire, do you immediately put it back in the fire to make it better?

Stupid.

Rederic wrote:
Stupid.

Is your NAME-O. Rederic, you make very strong points in religion, but here. You are an IDIOT. The guns aren't even the problem!!! The bullets -- no matter the quantity -- AREN"T THE PROBLEM. ITS THE PEOPLE. PEOPLE ARE STUPID. If people didn't FEEL pain and if it DIDN'T HURT THEM, I GUARANTEE you they would put their hand in that fire as if it was CLAY and wonder why they struggle to fix their MESS of a hand. We have hands and MINDS that can BUILD nuclear bombs and biochemical WARS. THIS IS A MILLION TIMES WORSE THAN GUNS. NOW GET YOUR HEAD OUT FROM YOUR %##.

Naughtorious wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Is your NAME-O. Rederic, you make very strong points in religion, but here. You are an IDIOT. The guns aren't even the problem!!! The bullets -- no matter the quantity -- AREN"T THE PROBLEM. ITS THE PEOPLE. PEOPLE ARE STUPID. If people didn't FEEL pain and if it DIDN'T HURT THEM, I GUARANTEE you they would put their hand in that fire as if it was CLAY and wonder why they struggle to fix their MESS of a hand. We have hands and MINDS that can BUILD nuclear bombs and biochemical WARS. THIS IS A MILLION TIMES WORSE THAN GUNS. NOW GET YOUR HEAD OUT FROM YOUR %##.

This is exactly what I meant. The pro- gun lobby are stupid.

Thanks for your compliments.

The right to bear arms was written when a gun could fire a maximum of four rounds a minute. Today's automatic weapons can fire a thousand rounds a minute & counting. Do you believe that if your founding fathers could have foreseen that their law would lead to the slaughter of children & other innocents, they would have still done it. It's not going to get better, you know. It can only get worse. At what point will you say enough is enough, or perhaps you'll never say it.

The tiny little problem you have is that the Constitution was intended, offered, and instituted as the basic meta-rights of the people, rights given to them by their Creator, rights which a government was there to safeguard (not determine), rights which no government could deny or infringe (because it is beyond their power), rights which make us a free people. The Constitution can only be understood as the foundation of freedom. They are the equivalent of the Ten Commandments Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. They are timeless. This is why your 'they couldn't have foreseen" argument has no claws -- because everyone understands the essence of the Constitution.

All the "The Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen" arguments fail for this reason.

Barack Obama has openly said that he wants to fundamentally change the United States. He's openly expressed his dislike for the Constitution. If you bother to take him seriously, or just look at the policies he pushes and implements, you'll see a socialist/communist at work. Why do you think he rammed Obamacare down our throats? Because it was a strategic victory for him. He will become the first person, let alone president, to ever impose on Americans such a duty. He in effect has increased his powers beyond that limited by the Constitution. That's a monumental failure for America, because it's a direct attack on the Constitution. But as big a failure for freedom as Obamacare in essence is, this so-called gun control debate is ten times worse. Obama doesn't care one bit about the children or our safety. It's a ruse like all his other concerns are ruses. This is his opportunity to undermine the Constitution, to actually infringe upon something in the Constitution, not simply abrogate for himself a power not written into the Constitution. It doesn't matter which part of the Constitution he can undermine. It's just that stupid Liberals make the 2nd Amendment the easiest target. He needs you morons because only with public opinion in his favor could he ever hope to undermine the Constitution, because he has no Constitutional argument to make. Once the precedent is set that the president or Congress or the people or the Supreme Court can infringe upon the rights of the people as stated in the Constitution, we cease being a free people. All you idiots caught up in details about guns and murders are tools or lying scumbags helping Obama undermine the greatest document ever written by man -- you are trying to make us slaves to popular opinion and charismatic tyrants.

Once the precedent is set that the president or Congress or the people or the Supreme Court can infringe upon the rights of the people as stated in the Constitution, we cease being a free people.

Said the man who lives in a country where the military can declare anyone a terrorist & lock them up indefinitely. I believe this was started by one of your "good old boys" GWB. The Fifth Amendment I believe.

Said the man who lives in a country where the military can declare anyone a terrorist & lock them up indefinitely. I believe this was started by one of your "good old boys" GWB. The Fifth Amendment I believe.

That Patriot Act, which is what you're referring to, I assume, is within the the prescribed actions in the Constitution. They are implemented as a means to combat terrorism. As unconventional an enemy as terrorists are, we are at war with them. There's simple common sense at work there. You simply relinquish certain civil liberties in cases where those civil liberties can be used to defeat you. Nobody wants to relinquish such liberties, but they're a necessity, a temporary one it's hoped, during wars. So, as unpleasant as it is to implement, especially for conservatives, we are realists.

Liberals want to not just relinquish our Constitutional rights, they want to undermine the Constitution...as there is nothing within the Constitution which allows for infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, we aren't at war. So there's no equivalent here. The Patriot Act is Constitutional. Odious, but Constitutional. What Obama is trying to do is un-Constitutional. By the way, Obama supports this indefinite detention.

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)




(Nested quote removed.)


The right to bear arms was written when a gun could fire a maximum of four rounds a minute. Today's automatic weapons can fire a thousand rounds a minute & counting. Do you believe that if your founding fathers could have foreseen that their law would lead to the slaughter of children & other innocents, they would have still done it. It's not going to get better, you know. It can only get worse. At what point will you say enough is enough, or perhaps you'll never say it.

You think that owning guns & ammunition makes you free, it doesn't, it chains you & your society to ever increasing gun ownership & the ever increasing slaughter of innocents.

If your hand gets burnt in a fire, do you immediately put it back in the fire to make it better?


Stupid.

But, from another thread, how are you competent to deal with this issue, when you don't even know how to handle a logic that a human being in the moment can choose A or B alternatively?

Then you don't understand anything.

Supine wrote:Philo, are you suggesting local, state, and the federal government should allow citizens to own blocks of C-4, hand grenades, and small nuclear bombs?

No of course not and I think you know that. I asserted that most people (including myself) are for "reasonable" gun control and reasonable control of dangerous materials as a matter of public safety, but what I'm saying is that only addresses the superficial aspect of a deeper problem.