Jump to content


Photo

Right to Bear Arms and the Safety of Society


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
185 replies to this topic

#161 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 22 October 2015 - 08:44 PM

Wow. Good twist. But we both know that the 2nd amendment was created to stop or prevent government tyranny. Personal self-defense is a benefit of the amendment, but not the reason the amendment was created in the first place.

But great strawman though :kakashi:


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#162 Ganderath

Ganderath

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts
  • LocationSerbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

   2    2   

Posted 22 October 2015 - 08:47 PM

If I use self-defense against government tyranny, does that mean I earn twice the patriotism points?

 

You got to clarify who I'm supposed to shoot first and why, do I shoot them for being tyrannical or for endangering me?


Edited by Ganderath, 22 October 2015 - 08:48 PM.

9uDrnRm.png


#163 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,530 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 23 October 2015 - 01:10 AM


You have to be incredibly naive to believe that restricting legal purchase of guns would make it prohibitive for the black market to sell one, and therefore harder for the illegal owners (ie. criminals) from obtaining one. 

 

Prohibiting sales of guns could have an effect on black market prices that make it harder for criminals to acquire them, though.



#164 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 23 October 2015 - 01:41 AM

Prohibiting sales of guns could have an effect on black market prices that make it harder for criminals to acquire them, though.

depends on the type of gun. Some guns are quite easy to make, and are made from relatively cheap parts. So more than likely it would lead to a lot of cheap black market weapons, with a few variants that are more expensive being on there as well.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#165 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 07:50 AM

depends on the type of gun. Some guns are quite easy to make, and are made from relatively cheap parts. So more than likely it would lead to a lot of cheap black market weapons, with a few variants that are more expensive being on there as well.

 

Cheaper than other BM guns or cheaper than its legally buyable version? Or both?


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#166 Chillman

Chillman

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 09:36 AM

Prohibiting sales of guns could have an effect on black market prices that make it harder for criminals to acquire them, though.

How? Between the illegal guns already in circulation, the guns you can smuggle from different countries, and gun stores, criminals already have easy access.



#167 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 10:00 AM

Lack of legal domestic sales will bump up the price of existing stock. Access maybe easy but expensive.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#168 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 23 October 2015 - 10:07 AM

Cheaper than other BM guns or cheaper than its legally buyable version? Or both?

both actually. if you don't have the necessities you need with legalized guns it becomes much cheaper to make. >.> though it is more dangerous of course


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#169 Chillman

Chillman

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 10:35 AM

Lack of legal domestic sales will bump up the price of existing stock. Access maybe easy but expensive.

Guns are already expensive. Part of why people buy them illegally.

 

Someone make up a better analogy because the best I got is trying to make Oxycontin harder to get so people won't buy heroin as much.



#170 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,530 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 23 October 2015 - 11:51 AM

How? Between the illegal guns already in circulation, the guns you can smuggle from different countries, and gun stores, criminals already have easy access.

 

I wasn't talking about access, just cost. But given what @disastrousmaster said, that might not matter. I don't know much (or anything, really) about the situation in the United States, but from what little I've read, the fact that guns can be acquired legally without much difficulty actually makes it easier for criminals to get guns, either by stealing them or purchasing them when/if they are resold in unregulated markets. So, prima facie, prohibiting sales of guns would limit access to some degree and possibly act as a deterrent to potential or actual criminals.  

 


There are second strike capabilities in gun violence. For some reason, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that getting your hands on a gun makes you Solid Snakes all.  It's actually quite difficult to be that successful with a gun and would require training.  Many shots are fired every year that don't hit or miss vital marks.  All it takes is someone missing or failing to kill (quite common) for second strike via gun to be a possibility. 
 
They aren't nearly as powerful as nukes (obviously) and all metaphors break down eventually. But I don't see the second strike capability as the breaking point. 
 
As for your second point, yes, sometimes having a gun will make people immediately go further. But I would argue that is due to poor education on the topic of guns and handling due to the attached stigma and fear.
 
I'd argue if you made it a duty of a citizen to be trained in guns after a certain point and capable of operating them, that problem could be mitigated heavily.  

 

Still nitpicking. I swear I'll stop after this.

The breaking point (for me) isn't simply second strike capability, but the capacity of that capability to serve as a deterrent to potential preemptive attackers (its whole point in deterrence strategies). If it is true that most people incorrectly believe that guns don't have second strike capabilities, then I don't think it can be argued that guns are like nukes in their ability to deter other people with nukes/guns from attacking you.



#171 Chillman

Chillman

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 12:35 PM


the fact that guns can be acquired legally without much difficulty actually makes it easier for criminals to get guns, either by stealing them or purchasing them when/if they are resold in unregulated markets. So, prima facie, prohibiting sales of guns would limit access to some degree and possibly act as a deterrent to potential or actual criminals.  
 

 

So you're screwing over responsible gun owners, especially those who use them for self-defense for a possible deterrent for criminals? It's like trying to ban real porn because of revenge porn or child porn.



#172 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,530 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 23 October 2015 - 12:47 PM

So you're screwing over responsible gun owners, especially those who use them for self-defense for a possible deterrent for criminals? It's like trying to ban real porn because of revenge porn or child porn.

 

I didn't say I support the prohibition of gun sales. My post was limited to a comment about criminals having easier access to guns in the present environment and it doesn't imply that removing that access wouldn't have downsides.


Edited by Tale, 23 October 2015 - 12:48 PM.

  • disastrousmaster likes this

#173 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 01:14 PM


So you're screwing over responsible gun owners, especially those who use them for self-defense for a possible deterrent for criminals? It's like trying to ban real porn because of revenge porn or child porn.

 

Not the greatest analogy for the point you're trying to make.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#174 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 24 October 2015 - 07:38 AM

I didn't say I support the prohibition of gun sales. My post was limited to a comment about criminals having easier access to guns in the present environment and it doesn't imply that removing that access wouldn't have downsides.

gaaaaaaahhhhhh trying to show your point here was an hour long (providing links charts) post about the effects of prohibition on things in America down the drain by trying to make an approximate sign on my keyboard and accidentally hitting the num lock making me go to the home paaaaaage ;_;

 

 

long story short

 

prohibition of things within America historically leads to heavily increased violent crime rates as well as a largely increased tax strain. large amount of unregistered gun ownership within America. Freedom blah, blah. Americans gun owners lack of will to give over guns. etc.... Sorry for the lack of links and charts for proof about the American prohibition part of it but I am not doing that again.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#175 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 11 July 2016 - 01:19 PM

This article (at least the first half of it) almost sums up my feelings about the NRA, 2nd Amendment, and this ambiguous line that seems to be drawn everywhere when convenient between crazy and self-defense against a tyrannical government.
 
Seeing as certain news organizations and US Congressmen set the bar so low on exercising the 2nd Amendment (in its original, intended form) with Cliven Bundy, I'm honestly surprised no one tried this unfortunate and unwanted stunt earlier.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#176 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 11 July 2016 - 02:02 PM

This article (at least the first half of it) almost sums up my feelings about the NRA, 2nd Amendment, and this ambiguous line that seems to be drawn everywhere when convenient between crazy and self-defense against a tyrannical government.
 
Seeing as certain news organizations and US Congressmen set the bar so low on exercising the 2nd Amendment (in its original, intended form) with Cliven Bundy, I'm honestly surprised no one tried this unfortunate and unwanted stunt earlier.

That is not the proper reasoning for the second amendment as laid out in its original intended form. One person arming themselves against the police does not a militia make. Such a move requires the amount of forces necessary to begin a rebellion, and its intent is to overthrow a government as a people, not get into a firefight willy nilly on your own because you feel like it. Such a method is and should only be a last resort. What he did (if he believed his actions were legitimately fighting against the government) was foolhardy at best. Such small actions are tantamount to nothing. As they say, go big or go home, start a rebellion or don't. But if a rebellion starts, beware joining it means everything up to and including laying down your life for it.

That said, a rebellion would most likely only be won with the backing of a good portion of our own military. (or heavy weapon support from another country) Without that a rebellion of our people would probably only end in tragedy.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#177 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,823 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 11 July 2016 - 04:41 PM

That is not the proper reasoning for the second amendment as laid out in its original intended form. One person arming themselves against the police does not a militia make. Such a move requires the amount of forces necessary to begin a rebellion, and its intent is to overthrow a government as a people, not get into a firefight willy nilly on your own because you feel like it. Such a method is and should only be a last resort. What he did (if he believed his actions were legitimately fighting against the government) was foolhardy at best. Such small actions are tantamount to nothing. As they say, go big or go home, start a rebellion or don't. But if a rebellion starts, beware joining it means everything up to and including laying down your life for it.

That said, a rebellion would most likely only be won with the backing of a good portion of our own military. (or heavy weapon support from another country) Without that a rebellion of our people would probably only end in tragedy.

so instead of 1 it should be 100 or 1000 or even 1,000,000. All it is going to do is cost more lives.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#178 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 12 July 2016 - 06:26 AM

so instead of 1 it should be 100 or 1000 or even 1,000,000. All it is going to do is cost more lives.

indeed a rebellion would cost more lives, you missed the point of last resort though. :/


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#179 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 12 July 2016 - 08:39 AM


That is not the proper reasoning for the second amendment as laid out in its original intended form. One person arming themselves against the police does not a militia make.

 

So defense against a tyrannical government cannot be waged or exercised until a formal militia has been called for, assembled, and instituted. From a practical and pragmatic standpoint, I can understand that. But from a principle standpoint, I cannot.

 

Such a move requires the amount of forces necessary to begin a rebellion, and its intent is to overthrow a government as a people, not get into a firefight willy nilly on your own because you feel like it.

 

Overthrow the government is ambiguous depending on the situation. However, defending one's property and people from tyranny does not necessarily mean an overthrow of the government. But enough rebellion to cause a major change in the government. Magna Carta being an example.

 

Such a method is and should only be a last resort.

 

I agree with that wholly. It is a resort I personally neither look forward to nor want.


  • Petite Fleur likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#180 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 12 July 2016 - 11:13 AM

So defense against a tyrannical government cannot be waged or exercised until a formal militia has been called for, assembled, and instituted. From a practical and pragmatic standpoint, I can understand that. But from a principle standpoint, I cannot.

 

 

 

 

Overthrow the government is ambiguous depending on the situation. However, defending one's property and people from tyranny does not necessarily mean an overthrow of the government. But enough rebellion to cause a major change in the government. Magna Carta being an example.

 

 

 

 

I agree with that wholly. It is a resort I personally neither look forward to nor want.

1. If using weapons, yes. That is a war one person cannot and will not win alone. 

 

2. Aye. I suppose I worded that a bit wrong, but your example was a rebellion needing a rather sizable army.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users