Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

You're right up to a point. The problem is, the act of allowing someone to obtain the means to defend themselves is, at this point in time, also the act of allowing someone else to obtain the means to threaten that person. There's no effective way to only allow people who will only ever use guns in self-defense to possess guns. Therefore, allowing such people to possess guns necessarily means allowing people who might one day use a gun to commit a crime to have them too. In other words, by trying to allow people to defend themselves, you are creating the very threat that you say they need to defend themselves from. No guns = no threat.

 

"No guns" is a pipe dream. Criminals will have their weaponry regardless of the law. Banning firearms would only take them out of law-abiding citizens' hands.

 

Are you copying and pasting old failed arguments, again?

 

yes we do

 

sure ya do...550,000 -6,000,000 criminals are on the loose in Australia. Those are the ones who failed to turn their guns in for the ban...but it seems not even you can touch them

 

No it is not "self-apparent". You make an erroneous assumption that if you are pro-life that you never are able to take a life. There are always times to do that, for sustenance and self defense. If you use your "logic" then your mind is only used for deadly force, since you it is only because of your mind that you can use your hands, sticks, or a gun to kill with.

 

you mean your Special Pleading of a Fallacy..........

 

did anyone else see any name calling?

 

spoken like a true socialist Sieg Heil!

 

,,kind of hard determining what both of y'all got going on

 

I think you'd rather take fresh kill from a lion's mouth than to tell us we have no Rights

 

No, its not an erroneous assumption - if you are truly pro-life, then you would never take another life, period. The gun advocates in this forum who want to believe that by being pro-gun they are also being pro-life seem to be looking for some sort of self-reassurance where in reality there is none to be had. Sorry to burst people's bubbles but if you'd kill another person then at best you are in favor of some life, but not all life. Show me a buddhist monk who'd take great care to avoid even stepping on an ant and you've shown me someone who is truly pro-life. Show me someone who purports themselves to be "pro-life" while at the same time wanting to set themselves up to kill another person should it ever be "necessary", and I'll show you someone who is a pretender, a fraud, or self-delusional.

 

This is nothing more than a scare tactic the gun advocates have been lording over us for eons now. Tell me, how is it that criminals are illegally acquiring guns? They aren't manufacturing them themselves, are they? No, ultimately every gun that's out there in the hands of criminals was legally manufactured here in the U.S. or legally imported into the U.S., and then sent out for distribution at gun shows or to gun dealers. Its at some point afterwards that these guns end up in the hands of criminals. So ban the manufacture , importation and sale of guns except for the military (in Britain, not even regular police units are armed), thereby cutting off the source of guns. And ban the sale of ammunition except to the military. Don't take anyone's guns away that already has one. Make non-lethal self-defense equipment readily available - tasers, pepper spray, etc. Outlaw the sale or transfer of ownership of guns between persons, and outlaw the inheritance of guns - all guns to be returned for destruction at the time of the owners death. Substantially increase the criminal penalty for illegal possession of a firearm. The result of all this? Probably not immediate, but over time there would be a big improvement, especially as young people coming of age would not be able to easily obtain guns - and it is younger people who commit the vast majority of these crimes. As people who are currently young grow older, even though they might be able to keep the guns they have now, they'd be less and less likely to use them. Anyway, not a perfect solution but there is no such thing as a perfect solution.

 

Our Second Amendment clearly and specifically, enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

it is clear ONLY to you................................fail again

 

Like I said...a pipe dream.

 

Translation: I can't refute your argument, so Im not even going to try and fail.................because my failures will prove that I can't and I don't want you to have that proof!

 

Translation: I'm 12 and playing on mommy's computer.

Anyone who thinks that guns will be banned completely in the US within any of our lifetimes is either lying or delusional.

 

Translation: I still can't refute his argument, so Im not even going to try anymore!

 

Yep, thanks for just exposing the GOP/CON party because they are the ones that think guns are going to be taken away from them! And you are right, they are just delusional and very much so!

WHAHAHAHAHA! Touche and thanks for making my argument for me! LMAO!

 

The argument is a poor one... It's not even worth trying to debate. You have a society that cherishes firearms, the firearms probably amount to the millions, restricting/removing the rights of private owners would result in a massive swing of votes towards removing the legislation, manufacturers themselves would be upset greatly so their interests would be pushed through political means, criminals are never going to hand over their guns, land access through Mexico/Canada would make the restriction too costly(Alcohol prohibition failed due in large part because of this and looking at the current drug War that shows how hard it is to stop the flow), citizens would create black market guns/ammo and at the same time any show of force to take firearms away would end in a shooting match in some cases.

The argument could be summed up to "Ban hammers because they're the leading murder weapon in the USA...". That isn't going to fly with anyone because it's a commonly used tool that serves an intended goal... Just because a few people abuse it doesn't mean that the tool in question is a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing innocents.

Guns put teeth on votes... If there are no guns what sort of protection do votes offer if the government ever decided to turn against the people? The people would be nothing but, medieval serfs being cut down if ever came to a point where the populace was absolutely disarmed.

 

Our Second Amendment clearly and specifically, enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

that's funny because here is what he said: "No guns" is a pipe dream. Criminals will have their weaponry regardless of the law. Banning firearms would only take them out of law-abiding citizens' hands.

Well, since we are not proposing "no guns"............his argument is complete BS and only intended to swoon the uneducated and delusional!

 

BS. You are saying that you would offer your life just to appease someone because they wanted to kill you. That is an illogical stance.

 

Looking at the Militia Act every person who is "qualified" to carry a weapon (As in your age group from 18-45 I believe) has the legal right to be part of the "unregulated Militia" but, if we were to go further back in time everyone was part of the Militia(Every male at a certain age... White males to be exact). Thus considering the standards of today everyone has the ability to be armed because everyone is part of the Militia.

What exactly are you proposing? Currently looking at the previous argument that is exactly what he/she is suggesting. An outright outlaw to firearms... Only those who already own them have access to them but, they're not able to give/trade them. They're given to the government for destruction... Which is a country with no guns within 60-80yrs... Yeah I'd consider that "no guns".