Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 1:10 am It says much about a society when many of its people are so passionate about owning lethal weapons.

American: n. An individual who can only relate to the rest of the world if he can shoot them if they disagree with him.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 7:58 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 1:10 am It says much about a society when many of its people are so passionate about owning lethal weapons.

American: n. An individual who can only relate to the rest of the world if he can shoot them if they disagree with him.

…an individual who can only assuage his fear of others by being prepared to shoot them dead

AverageBozo wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 9:55 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 7:58 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 1:10 am It says much about a society when many of its people are so passionate about owning lethal weapons.

American: n. An individual who can only relate to the rest of the world if he can shoot them if they disagree with him.

…an individual who can only assuage his fear of others by being prepared to shoot them dead

Are you boys referring to the folks living in the inner-city neighborhoods of Chicago, Baltimore, or Los Angeles, etc.?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 1:10 am It says much about a society when many of its people are so passionate about owning lethal weapons.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 7:58 am American: n. An individual who can only relate to the rest of the world if he can shoot them if they disagree with him.

AverageBozo wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 9:55 am …an individual who can only assuage his fear of others by being prepared to shoot them dead

Better wording than mine; thanks.

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 10:45 am Are you boys referring to the folks living in the inner-city neighborhoods of Chicago, Baltimore, or Los Angeles, etc.?

No, to the 330 million Americans across your country who own, between them, 393 million guns.

GND - Gun News Daily wrote:There are over 393 million firearms in the United States, and this number only includes civilian-owned firearms, meaning it doesn’t count firearms in possession by the military, government agencies, or by law enforcement. - Quoted from this article.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 10:55 am

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 10:45 am Are you boys referring to the folks living in the inner-city neighborhoods of Chicago, Baltimore, or Los Angeles, etc.?

No, to the 330 million Americans across your country who own, between them, 393 million guns.

GND - Gun News Daily wrote:There are over 393 million firearms in the United States, and this number only includes civilian-owned firearms, meaning it doesn’t count firearms in possession by the military, government agencies, or by law enforcement. - Quoted from this article.

Thus insuring that we will never be ruled by anything as antiquated and obscene as a Queen, or King.

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 11:24 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 10:55 am

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 10:45 am Are you boys referring to the folks living in the inner-city neighborhoods of Chicago, Baltimore, or Los Angeles, etc.?

No, to the 330 million Americans across your country who own, between them, 393 million guns.

GND - Gun News Daily wrote:There are over 393 million firearms in the United States, and this number only includes civilian-owned firearms, meaning it doesn’t count firearms in possession by the military, government agencies, or by law enforcement. - Quoted from this article.

Thus insuring that we will never be ruled by anything as antiquated and obscene as a Queen, or King.

No, your votes do that.

P.S. We Brits have not been ruled by our figurehead-Queen (or -King) for many centuries. We have an elected body that governs, as you do. Many other modern monarchies are the same.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 11:36 am Thus insuring that we will never be ruled by anything as antiquated and obscene as a Queen, or King.

No, your votes do that.

P.S. We Brits have not been ruled by our figurehead-Queen (or -King) for many centuries. We have an elected body that governs, as you do. Many other modern monarchies are the same.
[/quote]

So, the Queen, is just make-believe for you subjects, to keep you humble?

Never forget that is was English subjects that brought the ownership of African humans to the Americas - and England colonized and subjugated more more 'uncivilized colored people' than any nation on Earth - to take their natural resources.

Such paragons of humanity!

By some miracle of serendipity I've managed to live in America for more than 60 years without owning a firearm. In fact, it seems to me that it's far safer NOT to own a firearm than to own one, and the statistics support my opinion.

Personal protection firearms clearly INCREASE one's danger of being shot: not only is there a potential for accidents and suicides, but if there is a home invasion, and the invader is armed, it seems clear that he is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun than if you do not (Breonna Taylor would be alive today if her boyfriend didn't have a pistol). That's why I consider owning a personal protection gun cowardly: it's cowardly to behave irrationally out of fear, and protecting oneself with a firearm is irrational (for most people -- if you're a drug dealer or a mafioso this may not be the case).

Ecurb wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 1:00 pm By some miracle of serendipity I've managed to live in America for more than 60 years without owning a firearm. In fact, it seems to me that it's far safer NOT to own a firearm than to own one, and the statistics support my opinion.

Personal protection firearms clearly INCREASE one's danger of being shot: not only is there a potential for accidents and suicides, but if there is a home invasion, and the invader is armed, it seems clear that he is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun than if you do not (Breonna Taylor would be alive today if her boyfriend didn't have a pistol). That's why I consider owning a personal protection gun cowardly: it's cowardly to behave irrationally out of fear, and protecting oneself with a firearm is irrational (for most people -- if you're a drug dealer or a mafioso this may not be the case).

No one is forcing you to own a firearm for self-defense - and I will not call you names or attempt to belittle you like an adolescent for choosing not to.

You are free to endeavor to repeal The Second Amendment - go for it!

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 1:31 pm

Ecurb wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 1:00 pm By some miracle of serendipity I've managed to live in America for more than 60 years without owning a firearm. In fact, it seems to me that it's far safer NOT to own a firearm than to own one, and the statistics support my opinion.

Personal protection firearms clearly INCREASE one's danger of being shot: not only is there a potential for accidents and suicides, but if there is a home invasion, and the invader is armed, it seems clear that he is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun than if you do not (Breonna Taylor would be alive today if her boyfriend didn't have a pistol). That's why I consider owning a personal protection gun cowardly: it's cowardly to behave irrationally out of fear, and protecting oneself with a firearm is irrational (for most people -- if you're a drug dealer or a mafioso this may not be the case).

No one is forcing you to own a firearm for self-defense - and I will not call you names or attempt to belittle you like an adolescent for choosing not to.

You are free to endeavor to repeal The Second Amendment - go for it!

So, if the Second Amendment (and the federal, state and local laws it informs) remains as is, you will support gun ownership.

And if the Amendment is repealed, you would agree that individual private gun ownership is no longer protected by law? You might even relinquish your weaponry if required by law to do so. Is that right?

But I think Bruce has been arguing from the standpoint of morality. Do you assert that it is morally right to maintain private gun ownership?

AverageBozo wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 2:27 pm But I think Bruce has been arguing from the standpoint of morality. Do you assert that it is morally right to maintain private gun ownership?

Absolutely.

My Right to defend myself does not come from you, or any Government.

It comes from me.

Let us also remember - it was English Aristocrat Subjects (colonists) in America that declared Independence from England - and thereafter it was former English Aristocrat Subjects (colonists) in America that penned the Constitution, and The Bill of Rights, which contrary to current neo-Bolshevik thought, do not Grant Rights, as is the case in Monarchies, but affirm per-existing Rights.

Now, ask yourself, what could possibly cause former English Aristocrat Subjects (colonists) in America, do such a thing?

Damned 12-year old old keyboard!

*PRE-existing*

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 7:17 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 7:02 am The only ones revoking my rights, taking my belongings or forcing me to do what I don't want to do are untouchable with little people's guns. The only people I've known who would be safer with a gun are small time crims.

US paranoia appears to be so extreme that many Americans cannot even imagine living in a peaceful society. You seem to think that a peaceful civil society where guns are not needed is Shangri-la. It's actually quite common in more civilised western nations.

Are you saying that you literally believe there are Shangri-las, somewhere on Earth, but you do not want to go live there? I am not suggesting that you should "go live there," I just want to understand your point better.

You speak as if a peaceful, civil society is impossible, thus your assumption that are essential or important for ordinary people. I have never even touched a gun in my life, I'm probably a fair bit older than you and, touch wood, no gunman has mugged me - or anyone I have known all these decades.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 21st, 2021, 6:22 pm You speak as if a peaceful, civil society is impossible, thus your assumption that are essential or important for ordinary people. I have never even touched a gun in my life, I'm probably a fair bit older than you and, touch wood, no gunman has mugged me - or anyone I have known all these decades.

The only assertion I have made is that no one is going to decide for me, what I believe, or what I do, and the last thing I will ever do is make a choice to get other people to like me - the highest form of cowardice I can imagine.

I am 63 - I grew up in an orphanage in NYC - I have been carrying a gun since I was 17-years old and what a surprise, I have never shot anyone. Nevertheless, no one on this planet is going to tell me if I am "allowed" to defend myself, or how I am allowed to do it - ESPECIALLY no one associated with the very same philosophies that were the bedrock for owning African Humans like they were livestock, or annihilating Native Americans in order to take their land.

My question is this: what scares anti-Rightists about law abiding citizens owning and bearing firearms? I have long suspected that it is because they want the freedom to oppress other people's Rights, and not suffer any possible cost for it.