Wildbore is once again spreading his version of gun control, cloaked in reason and logic.

Guns kill people like cars kill people.
Like forks make people fat.
Like a pencil causes misspelled words.

A gun, a fork, or a pencil sitting on a table all have the same potential for harm. It is only when in the hands of a person does that potential change.

In the perfect utopia that does not exist, guns would not be necessary or desired. Unfortunately that utopia is not likely to manifest itself any time soon.

I gun free utopias like College campuses, or shopping malls there seems to be a slight spike in mass murder. I wonder why?

I wonder what the outcome of this recent mall shooting would have been if just one armed citizen would have cut an angle on this creep? If he would have stopped him, would he have been heralded a hero?
Or would the facts be buried in minutia and spin?

Guns don't kill people. people kill people

__________________
http://www.70chargerboy.com/forums

People don't have security of self according to who, you? LOL! Its an inherent right of individuals to be safe and secure in their existence.

Why do you think common law allows people to defend themselves from imminent bodily harm or death. You don't actually have to be struck or hit before you can exercise the right, the imminent threat is justification enough. In a similar respect, if the people deem someone with a nuke is an imminent threat to their lives, they can intervene, with assistance from the state if necessary, to eliminate that threat.

No individual must be in possession of a nuclear bomb. Shouldn't matter if they never intend to use it, it is still a huge threat. If it blows up accidentally, or is stolen, it could have the potential to wipe an entire civilization from history. The person could theoretical give the nuke to Bin Laden himself, in the daylight of his front yard, to be blown up 1 second later.

And in you're world, we wouldn't be able to a thing because we would be taking away his right to private property by walking on and dismantling it. Even if he was yelling out that he was going to nuke us, in you're world we wouldn't be able to act because words are just an exercising of free speech, rather than a indicator of immediate mass death and destruction.

However, we do not live in you're world. We live in a world where people have the right to security of self, and where society has the right to self-preservation. If in peoples judgment there is an imminent threat to their individual or community security, they are justified to legally act, or have the state to act, in order to prevent mass death and destruction.

HAHA, nice try. I have never used that logic in any of my arguments. First of all, guns don't kill people like cars kill people. Most deaths involving cars result in the occupants/users of the car dieing. Most deaths involving firearms involve someone who is not using the firearm, meaning they are standing in the line of fire having a projectile go through their body.

I know what you're point is however. Cars and guns require the thoughts and actions of people to operate them, therefore the individual is responsible. True, people kill people, but people need a weapon to murder. Gun Control aims to limit access to the weapons criminals need to accomplish their task.

LOL!!!! Try committing mass murder, or any crime for that matter, with a fork or pencil, you will quickly see how their potential to do harm is greatly hindered by their design. Nice try.

No utopia? Really!! Wow, I was really hoping for that utopia, thanks for ruining my day. I am not saying there is no role for guns in society, I am just saying there is a role for regulations, licensing, and registration in their use.

I wonder why also. Maybe someone wanting to commit mass murder should drive by the crowded mall or college campus, and continue on his way to the middle-of-nowhere to start his killing spree.

Theres nothing wrong with having armed citizens. My preference is to have the armed citizens wondering society be trained and licensed, to ensure they meet high-standards.

Theres also nothing wrong with mall owners or college campuses regulating what can or can't be brought onto their property. If people don't like the fact that there is no guns allowed, they can go somewhere else.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

Yes, but, guns make it much easier for people to kill people. Without guns, people would think twice before trying to kill someone else because it is much harder to do without a gun.

Also, what about all the accidental gun related deaths? For example, a couple months ago a small child found a gun his parents had been keeping. He then proceeded to shoot his friend because it looked like a good toy.

__________________
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

There is no enforceable right to personal security. The government's duty as to your personal security only extends to what you mention; maintaining a legal climate where justifiable self defense is an affirmative legal defense against prosecution.

The court's (at least in the USA) have never held any government entity responsible for any person's security or held them duty bound to provide any level of protection except for a person in custody; in fact an immunity from such claims has been established.

"[It is] a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C.App. 1981)

Out of 50 states, 37 have passed laws that say the same thing -- the police are under no obligation to protect you, no matter how negligently they perform their duties.

California's Government Code §845 is quite typical:

"Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

The states that have no such law on the books have achieved the same result by letting their courts make this decision instead.

There is no "right" to being safe or of personal security.

Im a long time gun owner and i just wanted to say that I see both sides to this issue. But I will never give up my right to bear arms. If you want gun control than why shouldnt every gun owner take a class on rights and responsiblities. I personally would like a class like that. Then they can weed out the crazy people that shouldnt have one. Granted if they want one they will probably still be able to get one. But i think it will help calm people with the gun control issues and maybe educate a few.

The right to be safe and secure does exist, heres an example.

This is from the California state constitution:

"SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

Most state constitutions have comparable sections guaranteeing individual and group safety.

Part of pursuing safety means demanding essential and emergency services. If the people demand emergency services, and the government doesn't create them, then the government is a tyranny.

Just because American law says no legal obligation exists for the government to provide for safety, doesn't mean none exists. Their sure as hell is a moral obligation, given the government is suppose to serve the people.

Also, the right is enforcible. If government doesn't provide emergency services, or does so incompetently, then they are either voted out or overthrown, simple as that.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

This is my first post on this forum. I like it so far.

Someone posted in this thread and asked what could we could do if our government turned on us even if though the public is armed. It's actually silly to even consider it but for the sake of my point I'll continue. Even the entire US military would have a very difficult time if it were to declare war on the American public. There aren't enough soldiers, or military hardware, to combat the amount of legally armed civilians there are in this country. The military might be able to hold a couple of cities but that's about it. Sure, they have a bunch of planes and tanks and such but surely half of the military personel at least would defect if it came down to something that severe. It is a good thing that the public maintains the right to bear arms. It ensures that it will never happen. But, strip the citizens of thier guns, then in theory it could happen.

Guns are dangerous, and like anything else that is dangerous, accidents will happen, people will be killed. But, it isn't the most dangerous thing we have to worry about in our society. I'm more likely to die from a car wreck than getting shot no matter what my arsenal is.

You have some very special powers of perception there . . . The government saying you have the right to pursue and obtain safety does not mean that government has made a promise to provide safety. Your example endorses rather than refutes my position.

Your conception of rights is far from the founder's ideals. There are vast differences between the theory of "rights" as understood by the founders and this modern theory that it is government's job is to pick us up and dust us off when we have fallen or unwilling to stand on our own.

First generation rights, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, led to restrictions on the state's interference in the lives of citizens and having their natural, civil and political rights respected by law. The second generation began in 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. As a result of that revolution, economic, social, and cultural "rights" emerged. By nature, these two generations of rights assume very different roles for the state. Those second generation "rights" convey a romantic idea of how the state should take care of us, about how we, as an organized state can somehow provide human dignity and "help" citizens live a decent, happy and apparently safe life.

The modern rants demanding our "rights" to health care, prescription drugs, education, affordable housing, a living wage and that most basic of human rights, an abortion, and now the most impossible to provide, safety, are only demands that others provide what some are unwilling to earn, purchase or provide on their own. Statements that one has a "right" to such things creates a demand on another human to provide it. That is never the true definition of a right.

Such things are of no concern anyway of the national government, at least as far as the legitimately exercisable powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

Are you saying a standard of morals should be legally enforceable in the courts? Isn't that a dangerous thing to promote? Who's moral code do you think should be used? Who's standard of safety is to be used; one man's safety is another's panties wetting terror.

OK, an intangible, impossible to quantify right is enforceable by indirect means . . . I think I've got it now.

It's saver for the liars to deal with a mentally and physically disarmed population!


“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

__________________
In times of universal deceit the love of truth becomes the most radical of all ideologies.

Still a Caveman? - Your Mind is Controlled - The Brainwashing of the West - Your thoughts are not your own

Veritax Vox Liberabit