The Gun Debate (Both Sides)

http://www.objectivistjournal.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-gun-debate.html

The President has brought the debate over guns in this nation back onto center stage. The media has certainly jumped on board; and let’s face it, who in this country isn’t against slaughtering children, besides gun owners? It’s a great debate for the President and the media to engage in; especially considering the way in which the argument has been framed.

Premise 1: Guns, while being instruments of self-defense, are often used to commit acts of force and violence against innocent people.

Premise 2: While not being the only means of force, guns are typically the most notorious and popular instrument for committing acts of force.

Premise 3: While the people have the constitutional right to bare arms, the Constitution doesn’t specify which arms they are entitled to possess.

Premise 4: If the ban of a small number of specific weapons could prevent the slaughtering of American Citizens by removing weapons capable of causing mass destruction, then President of the United States has the authority to issue an order banning those guns for national security reasons.

Conclusion: Some guns, more than others, can be used to kill large numbers of citizens. These weapons endanger the lives of American Citizens. The President is responsible for protecting the lives of American Citizens. Therefore, the banning of specific weapons of mass destruction is obligatory and Constitutional, since the government is not depriving the people of their right to bare arms (at all).

If you are a Democrat, a Communist, a Socialist, a Liberal, or a fidgety Republican, the above argument should make a great deal of sense to you. “That’s right”, you’ll say. “That’s an airtight argument. How could anyone possibly argue against it”, you’ll wonder. Let me give it a try.

The problem with Premise 1: Guns, while being instruments used to commit acts of force and violence against innocent people, are often used to protect the lives and property of innocent people, who would otherwise be accosted; the consequence of justice would not take place until after an atrocity occurs.

The problem with Premise 2: Guns are the most notorious and popular instrument of force for the same reason that they are the most notorious and popular instrument of security. They work well. The President is surrounded by armed men. The police carry weapons to protect themselves while they try to ensure the security of the populace. Air Marshals carry weapons to ensure the security of planes. Businesses with large cash deposits use Security Services that utilize weapons to protect their property. Why the emphasis on weapons? Because they are the most useful tool to provide security; take that away from the American People and the American People will be less secure.

The problem with Premise 3: While the Constitution doesn’t specify which arms the people have the right to possess, neither does it specify which arms they don’t have the right to possess.

The problem with Premise 4: If it wasn’t for the effectiveness of a weapon to cause rapid amounts of danger, Americans would be at the mercy of any rapist, thief, murderer, or ex-husband, and their friends, should they show up at ones’ home and attempt to do them harm.

Conclusion: It is unreasonable to expect average Americans to accept less security than is afforded to the President of the United States, should they wish to employ it. It is insulting to average folk that a President protected by the best weapons known to Man could consider their own security of less importance to the nation. The arrogance it takes to tell the American People, that it is their place to wait on the Government to sort out their troubles after the fact is astonishing. How’d that philosophy work out in New Orleans? How’d it work out for our troops in Hawaii as the Japanese attacked? How’d that work out for American Citizens inside the Twin Towers as terrorists flew planes into those two buildings? You’re already dead. Justice is superfluous at that point. However, if you have the right to own weapons, the same weapons that criminals possess, the same weapons that your government possesses, then “You”, the American People, are more secure. You can defend yourself against criminals and against any criminal government that should present itself.

Without guns you have no defense. If your guns are inferior to a criminal’s gun, you have no defense. If your guns are inferior to your governments’ guns, you have no defense. Weapons are equally instruments of force and instruments of security. As to the argument that if dangerous weapons are banned, then fewer criminals will possess them; therefore fewer Americans will be threatened by them; therefore more Americans will be secure. Explain that to a woman who used a weapon to avoid being raped. Explain that to the mother who used an automatic weapon to defend herself and her children from a home invasion by four men or more. Explain that to children of an elementary school, where guns were not allowed, who had no one to defend them.

In a school without guns, you could kill twenty people with a sword, a hatchet, a knife, or a homemade bomb, if you wanted to. The only means of defense, the only hope Men have against madness, is their own ability to defend themselves. Taking that away isn’t going to save lives. It’s going to cost them.

 

Conclusion: It is unreasonable to expect average Americans to accept less security than is afforded to the President of the United States, should they wish to employ it. It is insulting to average folk that a President protected by the best weapons known to Man could consider their own security of less importance to the nation. The arrogance it takes to tell the American People, that it is their place to wait on the Government to sort out their troubles after the fact is astonishing.




conclusion - this person could only be american to spout utter tripe like this.

 

Argue the point, Charlie. If you have an argument. If not, admit that you are incapable.

 

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of our free States.

 

there is no point, its the idiotic ramblings of a sadly deluded mind, its like asking me to to interpret a 3 year olds hand painting its just a mess it doesnt mean anything but well done anyway

 

Clearly? Democrats argue that it isn't clear at all; that the Second Amendment stipulates that we have the right to bare arms, not WHICH arms we're allowed to bare.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that I already made your argument for you, proved it ridiculous, and moved on. You can't seem to keep up. No?

 

The Second Amendment clearly enumerates that well regulated militias are necessary to the security and presumably the domestic Tranquility of our free States.

 

Conclusion: It is unreasonable to expect average Americans to accept less security than is afforded to the President of the United States, should they wish to employ it.


this is your original and ridiculous premise. helllooooooooooo nobody elected you. he is the PRESIDENT. you are not. he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, his death would be a global events impacting many countries and sending every military in the world onto high alert. yours might get a line in the local paper. when he travels he has a secret service detail, two identical private jumbo jets with all the technology in the world costing like 100m each, is probably shadowed by a nuclear submarine, secret service agents go to his destination ahead of time and clear the area, put snipers on roofs, if he goes into a shop they close the shop down, do you really think you are entitled to that level of protection ? I'm sure youre very important to your mum but in the grand scale of things youre a minion, the president is not.

 

Just curious, but the NY Constitution quote... What's your point? Personally, I'm OK with states banning guns. They get what they ask for. I just have a problem with the federal government banning them.

 

this is americans being so stupid, I mean how can you walk and talk and type and think like that ? I'm entitled to the same level of protection as the president yeah maybe in your own little head, why on earth would you be ? are you the vice president ? what an unbelievably stupid thing to say, and you actually thought that, typed it out, hasnt occurred to you at any time how ridiculous it is, and they let people like you have guns ? jesus christ cancel my trip to disneyland theres total zoomers with semi automatics over there Ill go to the one in paris.

- - - Updated - - -

they shut down roads for him, what if they had to do that for 320 million people every time they went anywhere ? what a ridiculous thing to say, I cant even get my head around how stupid that is

 

when will you be giving your state of the union btw Im looking forward to that

 

The point is that keep and bear is not synonymous nor interchangeable with acquire and posses.

 

It seems some posters in this thread think we have the right to wear short-sleeved shirts.

It is BEAR arms, not BARE arms.

Jesus

 

Everybody knock it off.

The deal is assault weapons are for soldiers, hand-guns are for cops, and everyone else gets shotguns and rifles.

I sincerely do not know what the prioblem is. Do you have any idea how much damage can be done with a shotgun loaded with slugs? Do you have any idea what I can kill from a distance with a properly sighted rifle?

The problem is nuthole crazies, which America *would* detect if it had any form of social organization, but I guess you're not here to be here, rather to scoop wealth and go retire somewhere else.

Is this a product of Europe dumping their most violent people on the south-east part of America to stop the Spanish from crawling up from Florida, because said British didn't have the heart to hang them?

Wonderfull... we got plaid shirts instead of plaid kilts, and Billy Joe Mcallister jumps off the Talahashy bridge.

 

He's the President, not a very good one, but he is. He is surrounded by guns for the same reason that every President is surrounded by guns. There are lots of people that want to kill him. Maybe even as many people who wanted to kill George W. thought I doubt it. Liberals were constantly talking about killing him for eight years. I guess its a good thing liberals can't afford the guns to back it up. Anyway, the President is not the VIP of the nation. It's a CEO position. He's the CEO of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government, which means he overseas about 900 different powerful special interests. Thankfully, the Constitution was inteneded to ensure the Presidents inability to serve outside interests. Regretfully, the Congress seems willing to allow the President to do whatever the hell he wants to do. This was true under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, even with a Democrat House under Bush and Republican House under Obama. Everyone seems to worship the President like some Egypitian God. Seems a little crazy to me. Bush, Obama, Clinton... They're just really good liars, maybe the best, and therefore earned a bed in the White House. Big Deal. Doesn't make them more valuable than me, or my wife, or my family.

 

I love the bow and arrow. If guns were outlawed, I'd have a lot to gain. Can't really "trace" an arrow. If I wanted to kill someone from eighty yards, I could. Wouldn't need a gun; only the absence of trees, wind, and debris. You get rid of guns and bow-hunters inherit the earth. Of course, COPS will still have guns, which has worked out for African-Americans for decades. No reason for them to bear arms, right? The only downside with a Bow is that your prey takes longer to die. The Rifle is more humane.

Which reminds me of that whole "Ban Horse Meat in America" thing. Americans slaughtered hourses humanely. Now, they are strung up by one leg in Mexico, until their leg brakes. Then they are cut down the middle while they are still alive. They die after an hour of immense pain and torture, while our Southern neighbors are harvesting their organs and meat. Makes me wonder why the humane slaughter of horses in America was banned; only to see the trade turned over to brutes on the otherside of the border. Uninteded consequences... That's what idealism gives us and Americans are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing full of ideals.

 

Plus morons don't know the way to get through kevlar armour is to use a crossbow!

About 22 years ago an assasination of a daughter of a Chinese diplomat happened in Vancouver, and it was done with a crossbow.

 

Really? Downside of the crossbow - takes 10 seconds to reload.

 

Unless you're waiting in the bushes for one shot, which got her.

 

http://johnmcfetridge.blogspot.com/2010/12/crossbow-murder-weapon-of-choice-in.html

 

Right... the person I was refering to was Silvia Leung, daughter of a Chinese diplomat, and it wasn't 22 years ago... it was 20 years ago... she was 22.

The key to that particular issue was that the family knew they were under some kind of threat, and were acting "prepared", but what got them was that cross bows can go through kevlar.

 

Pardon me Moi for a minute.Is one to believe that a debate on gun violence
only applies after a school shooting by a known sickie who STOLE the
guns after murdering his mom.From what I know Adam Lanza tried to
purchase guns on his own and was Denied.So background checks did kick-in.
Lanza didn't try just once to purchase guns but FIVE Times.He failed every time.
So there is no debate on that part of the Gun Debate.Or should there be.
How about debating the more Intense and continual problem of Guns
and Homicide in Chicago.Pardon me Moi,but would it be safe to conclude
that I haven't heard any debate about that.Now how come.
Did Dr.Joe Biden bring up the 530 murders in Chicago ,I assume children
were involved By Guns.Or did Dr.Joe state that last year 88 deaths were
inflicted by those rascally Assualt Guns out of around 11,ooo gun deaths
in Mass shootings.Why is the NRA being taken to task.Unless someone can explain
how NRA members have a penchant for shooting fellow humans.How about
a name of two of an NRA member caught shooting and killing another human.
So obviously NRA members are Not ANY Problem.No matter how Dr.Joe
feels they may be.Wasn't it Dr.Joe who said on the stump in his Presidential
bid at Castlewood,Va. ... : " Barack Obama ain't takin' my Shotguns.So
don't buy that Malarky.Don't buy that malarky.Their gonna start peddlin' that
to ya. "
Hmm ... Say it ain't so Joe.
I mean ... Dr.Joe.

 

Uh, Giraffe. Don't feed the troll. Just ignore Charlie Chalk.

 

It's something cultural. Other countries have gun ownership rates just as high as the US, but without the same murder rates.

What I've noticed is that if you spend time in Western Europe or Japan or Australia, and compare their attitude to the US, they are generally less stressed about things like getting sick, or loosing a job, or seeking education. Compared to those places, Americans are more stressed about things in general. I know of at least one organization in Chicago where the women were wearing testosterone patches in order to be more "competetive" in business.

But there might also be a problem with some historical linkage of racial/cultural differences to economic opportunity. In white America, things tend to be pretty-much okay (except for Nevada trailer-parks), and in white America, the murder rates are basically the same as in Western Europe, Australia or Japan, but...

... Lemme put it to you this way: Take Canada for example, which likes to present itself with a nice, placid face of peace and order. What they don't tell you is that in Nunavut - the Inuit territory - the murder and violence rate is right up there with the worst parts of the US, and it's basically because the Inuit are getting their livelihood melted out from beneith their feet by shrinking ice-caps, combined with a total racial/cultural disconnect from the rest of Canadian society, such that all they've got is booze and bullets.

I've seen the Chicago murder-and-crime demographic maps, and it's *totally* drawn along racial lines (in Chicago, the races have sorted themselves into districts).

 

HK or Singapore, Shanghai.... is far more intense and stressful than nearly anywhere in the USA.

The Indian reservations are always a place for high levels of substance abuse and poverty / crime / violence. Canadas eskimos probably have far less reason than Indians on American reservations

The 3rd world gulag of reservations is of course, a disgrace to both countries.