Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

[Scott Mayers]

Don't lie about our motives when we don't congratulate you on the widespread sale of armaments to psychopaths.

Inevitable, and no matter how much gun control, some psychopaths are going to get there hands on guns - some sane people will go crazy and kill people - Nothing will make guns safe except to outlaw them. And nothing will make you safe unless you turn over all your rights to the state - a free mind with a will of its own can always be dangerous - But you don't want danger,
you want to be safe.

Don't patronise me. I don't want children getting shot by selfish arseholes. That doesn't make me morally inferior to you, nor does it entail that I am a whimpering fool. I don't lack your intellect or vision simply because I don't share your opinions.

I agree to you in that the extreme to be completely too trustworthy of ANY entity, such as government, to just give up all means of security should be discounted for the sake of safety. But, if you read my last post above, my concern is that IF we must have some 'right' to keep any government in check of acting as an abusive body when their power enables them to make the population defenseless, it has to be done either most universally to actually guarantee everyone HAS a gun (even if they may not agree to having or using it), or we are perpetually in some back and forth competition to assure WHO actually has the power to maintain force in practice using such tools.

Reducing the means to access can eventually also reduce the need for those even policing ourselves to actually require them too in a realistic way. At present, the gun lobby tends to escalate the problem because the ones most enthusiastic about such freedoms of access by default would be those most willing to also use them in some 'terroristic' event.

[UniversalAlien]

OK, socialists you win - This origianal post was probably done by you to bait the 'gun nuts' so you could further your agendas - So for now I will bow out of this argument - Just one other thing:

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

The Relationship Between Gun Control And Genocides


_________________________________________________________________

Excerpts from

THE WAR ON GUN OWNERSHIP STILL GOES ON

as appearing in March 1994's Guns & Ammo magazine.
_________________________________________________________________

LETHAL LAWS

Military rifles are society's "life preservers." Without them gun
control can ultimately lead to mass murder.

By Jay Simkin

The Down-Side of Gun Control

Advocates cannot see any harm in gun control, but it has a nasty
downside. Its victims number in the tens of millions. Its downside is
genocide: the mass-murder of civilians on account of religion,
language, or political views. Since 1900, at least seven major
genocides have occurred worldwide involving 50-60 million victims (see
table).

MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES -- THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL
Date of
Perpetrator # Murdered Gun-Ctrl Source
Gov. Date Target (Estimated) Law Document
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ottoman 1915-17 Armenians 1-1.5 Mil. 1866 Art. 166,
Turky Penal Code

Soviet 1929-53 Anti-Comm. 20 Million 1929 Art. 128,
Union Anti-Stal. Penal Code

Nazi 1933-45 Jews, 13 Million 1928 Law on Fire-
Germany Anti-Nazis, arms & Ammun.
& occupied Gypsies April 12,
Europe Weapons Law,
March 18

China 1948-52 Anti- 20 Million 1935 Arts. 186 & 7
Communists Penal Code.
1966- Pro-Reform
1976 Group

Guatemala 1960-81 Mayan 100,000 1871 Decree #36
Indians 1964 Decree #283

Uganda 1971-79 Christians, 300,000 1955 Firearms Ord.
Pol. Rivals 1970 Firearms Act

Cambodia 1975-79 Educated 1 Million 1956 Arts. 322-328,
Persons Penal Code

TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION
_________________________________________________________________

(English translations of the original gun control laws responsible for
all this genocide are in the book, Lethal Laws, available from:

JPFO, Inc.,
2872 South Wentworth Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53207
Information source:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/PO ... ocide.html

SO LEO YOU CAN TAKE YOUR GUN CONTROL AND ALL YOU SOCIALIST HUMANISM AND SHOVE IT

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“The Second Amendment is timeless for our Founders grasped that self-defense is three-fold: every free individual must protect themselves against the evil will of the man, the mob and the state.”
― Tiffany Madison

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz

“I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.”
― Frank Lloyd Wright

[Obvious Leo]

OK, socialists you win

What does socialism have to do with gun control?

[Scott Mayers]

UniversalAlien,

No need to get frustrated if you are serious here. I 'get' that we need to be concerned about abuses as much from "government" as to individuals. The logic at issue is just that such "government" also potentially represents the VERY evil form of management (government) of the people who are as relatively 'individual' (as some collective, group, or 'majority' OR 'minority') to their own potential EVIL. As such, tools that enhance our capacity to act as a 'deterrent' actually FAVOR those who are sincerely willing to do whatever it takes to offend us through "terroristic" attacks.

So we all agree to your intentional concern (assuming you sincere are actually 'kind' to others as you say/think). But all of us have both 'good' as much as 'bad' in us and makes gun ease of access more, and not less, harmful, EVEN IF THE MAJORITY COULD BE INTRINSICALLY 'GOOD' by some nature normally.

[henry quirk]

"What does socialism have to do with gun control?"

Broadly: *libertarians and open market folk oppose regulations on ownership (of property) while socialists (and other **communitarian-types) promote regulations on ownership (of property).

That's my take.









*not Libertarians

**this, of course, includes the current incarnation of the GOP and most 'capitalists'

[henry quirk]

"all of us have both 'good' as much as 'bad' in us and (this) makes gun ease of access more, and not less, harmful"

So what?

Again: why should I submit to hobbling and restraint cuz some schmuck did wrong with a firearm? If Joe does bad things, punish Joe. If I don't do bad things, leave me the hell alone.

[Arising_uk]

...
I agree to you in that the extreme to be completely too trustworthy of ANY entity, such as government, to just give up all means of security should be discounted for the sake of safety. But, if you read my last post above, my concern is that IF we must have some 'right' to keep any government in check of acting as an abusive body when their power enables them to make the population defenseless, it has to be done either most universally to actually guarantee everyone HAS a gun (even if they may not agree to having or using it), or we are perpetually in some back and forth competition to assure WHO actually has the power to maintain force in practice using such tools. ...

And yet in many countries where guns are rife the rule is abusive, how do you square this?

Do you seriously think that if your govt decided to become abusive the averagely armed citizen would be able to do anything against your military?

[Hobbes' Choice]

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

Rifles are NOT handguns.

“Foolish RIGHTARDSwho are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it was not designed for the "MILITIA", or that it's not specifically designed as a public safety measure, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to misread portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― A

[Obvious Leo]

Do you seriously think that if your govt decided to become abusive the averagely armed citizen would be able to do anything against your military?

I'm picturing Dad's army lined up against nukes, cruise missiles and stealth bombers with a blunderbuss. There could be a TV sitcom in it.

[Arising_uk]

I'm picturing Dad's army lined up against nukes, cruise missiles and stealth bombers with a blunderbuss. There could be a TV sitcom in it.

I was thinking more of the Infantry.

[Hobbes' Choice]

NRA - Ensuring that THIS...




Can protect us against THIS...

[Arising_uk]

Of course the irony is that in America it would most likely be a right-wing crypto-fascist govt that took over democracy and was doing the abusing and NRA members would just be out on the streets as sectarian militias supporting them a la the middle-east.

[UniversalAlien]

These fanciful scenarios are interesting so I'll play along for the moment.

Would it have done any good in Nazi Germany if Germany had not instituted strict gun control but still decided to round up
all Jews, Gypsies, etc. The armed civilians may have been able to slow them down - same case scenarios could be made for the Turkish Armenian genocide and the numerous others mentioned previously - But if the the state is bent on murder, being better armed than the public - they will succeed - I would get some satisfaction at being able to slow them down and die fighting then to die in a gas chamber in a concentration camp - how about you

But you say these are exceptional abuses of power from long ago and could not happen today - Not that long ago - In fact the 20th Century - and did the people see it coming

Today, yes today, the barbarians are at the gate - In the Middle East, not too far from Europe, and in European countries they have their people, ready, if they could, to create a genocide to rival any and all of the 20th Century - Are you sure your military and police can protect you when the Barbarians over-run your country

I am particularly concerned with the UK - A country that not so long ago was almost attacked on the ground by the Nazi empire - then your people still had the right to own arms and could have aided the resistance - Today if the Barbarians in the Middle East were to get to your country and your military was busy fighting them on other fronts - you would have no protection - And if you stuck up your hands and said we surrender do you think the barbarians will go easy on you? - Yeah maybe they will turn you into slaves instead of killing you

And what does Socialism have to do with gun control someone asked - I don't think it should have anything to do with gun control - but as the political forces keep playing out it is the Socialists who want to make you safe by greatly restricting the public ownership of guns - And in a small way, temporarily they make you safe, say from lunatics on a killing spree, but in the long run history has shown us that many more lives are being jeopardized and lost when strict gun control is in force many more die than the relatively few who die by nut jobs.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-
- Benjamin Franklin

[Obvious Leo]

but in the long run history has shown us that many more lives are being jeopardized and lost when strict gun control is in force

What history would that be?

[Arising_uk]

These fanciful scenarios are interesting so I'll play along for the moment.

Would it have done any good in Nazi Germany if Germany had not instituted strict gun control but still decided to round up
all Jews, Gypsies, etc. The armed civilians may have been able to slow them down - same case scenarios could be made for the Turkish Armenian genocide and the numerous others mentioned previously - But if the the state is bent on murder, being better armed than the public - they will succeed - I would get some satisfaction at being able to slow them down and die fighting then to die in a gas chamber in a concentration camp - how about you

Personally I'd hope I could see the writing on the wall and would leave with my family, as from what you say we're going to die either way.

But you say these are exceptional abuses of power from long ago and could not happen today - Not that long ago - In fact the 20th Century - and did the people see it coming

Many did but they'd just had a war and were tired.

Today, yes today, the barbarians are at the gate - In the Middle East, not too far from Europe, and in European countries they have their people, ready, if they could, to create a genocide to rival any and all of the 20th Century - Are you sure your military and police can protect you when the Barbarians over-run your country

And yet these barbarians are pretty much all armed in the way you prescribe?

How about stopping interfering in the way they wish to run themselves and take away their ire at us leaving them to do what all theists do without an obvious opponenet and have internecine conflict? Oh! I know, OIL!!

I am particularly concerned with the UK - A country that not so long ago was almost attacked on the ground by the Nazi empire - then your people still had the right to own arms and could have aided the resistance -

They would have been annihilated.

Today if the Barbarians in the Middle East were to get to your country and your military was busy fighting them on other fronts - you would have no protection - And if you stuck up your hands and said we surrender do you think the barbarians will go easy on you? - Yeah maybe they will turn you into slaves instead of killing you

If they are fighting them on other fronts then how would they get to my country?

You miss out that one could just become a Muslim.

If such conflict hove onto the horizon then I presume my country would re-instate conscription and start churning-out the guns, with the aside that the Capitalists would once again make a tidy profit.

And what does Socialism have to do with gun control someone asked - I don't think it should have anything to do with gun control - but as the political forces keep playing out it is the Socialists who want to make you safe by greatly restricting the public ownership of guns - And in a small way, temporarily they make you safe, say from lunatics on a killing spree, but in the long run history has shown us that many more lives are being jeopardized and lost when strict gun control is in force many more die than the relatively few who die by nut jobs.

Not Socialists but Liberals and Conservatives. The reason why is we prefer not to have mass-murders and 800 years of history has shown us civil wars are painful.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-
- Benjamin Franklin

What about safety from the loon who can nip out and buy an automatic weapon?