Gun Control (warning: heated arguments could happen)

You're not quite getting what a tyrannical government is.
A tirant, whether individual or group of individuals, doesn't care about it citizens beyond how they can be best exploited.
If a tyrant has to kill a 1000 people to prove a point, he will, with whatever means necesarry.

Comparing a civil war in the U.S. vs the war on terror in the east isn't an accurate comparison.
The U.S. has info on virtually all it's citizens, it has vritually all it's weaponry and command centers there, instead of having to move them in.

Unless you're already part of some fringe group militia, there is no element of surprise as the U.S. government knows pretty much everything about you.
Do you know how many militia groups in the U.S. have already been stopped?

Daily Kos: Guns = A Defense Against Tyranny?

Semantic point.

 

Anti. Obviously. It's absolutely ridiculous to allow people to carry a gun. Just.. no words for that.

 

Okay... I don't care how many militia you have or how many guns you've stockpiled. One tank rolls through your town and your entire revolution is over. We've passed the day and age where mass gun violence would split the nation. The United States Military has a bigger budget than every other nation combined, do you really believe you're going to even pose a threat?

I just find that argument odd.

 

Gay bashing? Racist violence? What are we supposed to do... call the cops and hope they come by before we're beaten to death?

 

There are a lot of weapons out there. From tasers and pepper spray to key chains built to stab people. All mostly legal, and less deadly and dangerous than a gun.

 

That article is about half sound reasoning and half groundless emotion, but the comments are some pretty good reading for both kinds of opinions.

Fugs, it's getting into an almost philosophical territory here, but some would say that when you're even a *little* bit worried that your life is in danger, all bets are off, and all force is necessary. Tasers and pepper spray represent restraint, which has no place in what is presumably a deadly struggle already.

 

I'm more in favor of people carrying a bow and arrow.

Much quieter. I've always disliked how noisy guns are, and archery seems so much more refined.

And guns for 'protection' in dense urban areas is a foolish notion; far too many people get caught in stray gunfire, whether by police or criminals, as it is.

Better to stay alert, and learn some kind of self defense technique such as martial arts.

 

For me, what it really comes down to is that I dont trust that the government will protect me against people who wish to steal from me or, god forbid, murder me and my partner.

Our premises was burgled when I was away and only my partner was here. They stole very expensive things such as laptops etc. We're not rich people. And when we called the police, they accused us of faking the burglary to try and get insurance money. No one was apprehended and we didnt have insurance, so we never got anything back.

Next time, we wont rely on the law (words on paper) to protect us. We now have our own protection. And, next time, the thieves will be apprehended and, trust me when I say, the police wont be called.

 

His point about the power of militia is irrefutable though.

 

I can't take a simple pro or anti stance. I'm a gun owner and a soon to be licensed concealed weapons permit owner.

While I believe in the right to bare arms, I also believe that steps should be taken to make sure mass shooting (or shootings in general) are prevented.

My anger comes from the two extreme side refusing to compromise.

why must it be all guns or no guns.

The proposal not allowing private citizens to own automatic weapons was shot down, I don't think you need an Uzi to protect your home.
But the idea that making no one guns at all will stop criminals from getting them is also ludicrous.

The fact that adults can't sit down and have an intelligent discussion and this matter is infuriating.

 

I have no intention of using a non-lethal weapon to defend myself or anyone else, and I don't see why I should have to downgrade from the 5" dagger I have. If it's non-lethal, it's less effective.

And what of unfit people or people with disabilities???

 

Yep, that's the sound reasoning part. I wouldn't dare join an openly-militarized group, nor would I recommend that anyone should. I'd still support peaceful resistance over a violent one any day, lawful guns or not.

I'm a big fan of tank tops myself But in a way, you're right. Most arguments come down to a showdown between the two extreme views, when the sensible solution is in the middle. Total banning of gun possession except by the state is something I wouldn't tolerate, but I do support background checks and prohibiting convicted felons/patients with certain mental disorders from owning them. Just as long as the records from those checks are destroyed after clearance is given.

 

I'm too lazy to read through the whole thread but I'll just say that I do really sympathise with people who sincerely feel that they need to own a gun to be safe, I think that's a sad inditement on the place they live and the society they live in tbh.

I will say though, the idea that the gun owners of america would be a match for the best funded and most powerful military in the world to be pretty hilarious, really clutching at straws for arguments here.

 

In the US, guns are a part of the culture because our country codified that right in our founding document (2nd Amendment) and has been upheld as a right for over 200 years (District of Columbia v. Heller). While there should be some regulation to them, such as background checks, guns are as American as apple pie. Sure, we should prevent criminals from carrying guns, if you can do that, but there is no rationale as to why ordinary citizens should be denied the right to defend themselves and enjoy the leisurely activities that can be derived from them (e.g. hunting, clay pigeon shooting).

As the quote goes, "An armed society is a polite society."

 

If you are so paranoid that somebody is going to shoot you then buy a bullet proof vest. I'm pretty sure they're legal, and you don't run the risk of killing somebody with it. What makes more sense, pulling a gun on somebody that's already pointing one at you or running away? It's already hard enough to hit a moving target, throw a vest in the mix and there you go.

Edit: I'm all for handguns, but that's where it should stop in my opinion.

 

Because this rarely happens, in fact as shown earlier, more accidents and rage-induced killings occur than actual self-defense cases.

These activities don't require the gun to be at home.

Which is a blind assertion, refuted by reality.

 

Why do people always assume that the entire US military would be on the side of the US government?

Also, the Taliban seem to have kicked the USAs asses pretty well in Afghanistan - and before that, the Soviet Union. Just saying.

 

And the US army has kicked the asses of every para-military and militia group in the US.

 

Your point?

 

Well, that hasn't actually happened. They've managed to stall peace in their country in spite of the occupying US and allied force which is not, I don't think, for the benefit of the Afghan people and can hardly be called a victory. Seen it here in Northern Ireland aswell, if there is the political will from the state (lacking from the US in Afghanistan, not from the UK in Northern Ireland) then there will be no outright victory for the militia and the only resolution will be a political one.

Essentially, it's not like the US military could 'pull out' from the US like they can from Afghanistan. To imagine a militia taking on the US army on the US mainland and winning is pretty ridiculous and deserves no consideration in this debate really.