gun question - I would like to understand this

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

All this aside, you are not exactly coming from a libertarian perspective. From the timbre of many of your posts on firearms, on rights generally, on security, and on privacy, it has always seemed to me that you would not naturally understand any of these things, and that's fine. Rational people may disagree.

The one thing I imagine we might agree on is this (and I really have no good answers for this one): People in this country are becoming stupider, less responsible, less rational, and far, far too shortsighted. Almost a state of suspended adolescence through adulthood, and that really worries me.

~ H


hunt, thanks for your thoughtful answers.

yes, I think that my take on government is very differnt from some here. my basic feel is that government is about "providing for the common defense" more than anything else. I feel that the best way to defend ones self, ones family and ones possitions is to form a union with others to provide common defense, and that is the essense of a state. to me, taking the practial steps to best protect my self, my family and my possetions involve working with others, and dividing labor - effectivly - I protect them when I am at my peak, then they protect me. I don't think that it is a good solution to expect that a person can protect himself 24/7/365

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

thanks, fair enough. I think that you have given me the best answre that I am going to get here. I have to say, though, that it strikes me as obvious that this is another example of people finding an excuse - there are plenty of other rights that nobody seems to be worried about protecting - it would seem to me that everyone interested in protecting his rights would have blog, for instance, to protect the right of free speech. anyway, thank you for your answer.
No probs, FWIW. Few people care about all their rights. In fact, few these days 'care' in more than a superficial sense, about any of them in a way that shows understanding of what they actually are and mean -- because Americans are spoiled by what they have they cannot conceive of not having it. On the flip side, a blog is not the only way to exercise 1st Amendment rights (No governmental establishment of religion, freedoms of speech, religion, press, right to assemble, right to petition). Choosing a church to go to (or to not go at all) exercises 1st Amendment rights; my comments in this thread exercise 1st Amendment rights, reading a newspaper exercises 1st Amendment rights, joining a march exercises 1st Amendment rights -- these things are all so obvious and taken for granted that even you have fallen into the trap of not realizing that you are exercising them daily! Any abridgement of those rights are always quiet and subtle else people do tend to get up in arms about it. However, that usually ends with the 1st Amendment. Most people don't even know the 3rd Amendment, though some might know the 4th -- protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I've spoken as passionately here on that topic (especially as relates to privacy) as I do about firearms, and I exercise that right in a variety of ways also. However, I'm afraid that those rights were curtailed under the Patriot Act, and for the most part, except some folks at the ACLU and the EFF, most people didn't really care. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments all have to do with various aspects of crimes, trials, and punishments. For the most part the lawyers look after those and most people are oblivious. Violations of rights under those Amendments have occurred, and typically always do in wartime ("the Constitution has not greatly bothered any wartime President" -- Attorney General Francis Biddle). The important point about the 2nd Amendment is that there is a large contingent of people in the U.S. who actually do care about that one, and are thus active in trying to preserve it. There are groups for aspects of the 1st, also, but that's the flagship amendment, the one everybody more or less cares about. The Press has professional associations and PACs, religions almost all encourage political action, the ACLU stands for freedom to assemble and petition, but apart from that, have you heard of any 3rd Amendment activism group....uh no. People have to care about something, and feel that it's threatened before they make a stand. Those conditions exist for the 2nd Amendment moreso that the others, so it does stand to reason that people are standing up for that right; it's not just an after-the-fact excuse.

Originally Posted by suited

Your posts are getting less and less logical. Please explain to me what rights that us Americans have that "we are not worried about protecting"...
It's not a question of logic, for one thing. For another, I question your knowledge and understanding. Americans talk much of rights, but I don't see that they (we) really understand them for having had their ease so long, and I do see a great deal of casual lack of concern amongst the people.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
~ Huntsman

 

[Ludeykrus]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

in a very limited way - I can think of a handful of times when the proper assasination with a handgun changed history - lincoln, the archduke and rabin. but in an actual army a handgun is usually very limited in use - there are a lot of disputes as to the value - the best use is when your primary weapon is jammed, and then the question comes down to is it better to train more in unjamming your weapon or in the use of a second weapon? pistols have good use in combat indoors and in hostage situations, but those are extremly limited cases. also, in those instances where military or secutiry personal want to blend in with the population.

all very limited uses

I believe you made my point for me. In today's day and age, a sudden allout war for liberty by the People against the government is unlikely. Unlike in a modern day battlefield, handguns have a very prominent role in today's world for defense and 'in the defense of liberty'.

Originally Posted by globetrotter

we may very well understand "logical" differently - here goes

or, let me clarify this -

if you say "I bought this gun to protect my 2nd amendment rights" I would ask "what are you doing to protect your right to petition?"

if you say "I bought this gun to protect my family" I would ask "did you first chose a safe neighborhood, by good doors and alarms, and make sure you have the right fire and first aid equipment in the house?"

What do you do to protect the Right to a fair and speedy trial?
What do you do to protect the Right to a jury of unbiased peers?
What do you do to protect the Right to habeas corpus?
What do you do to protect the Right to unreasonable search and seizure?
What do you do to protect the Right to protect citizens against quartering of troops?


I do protest. I do write my legislators and representatives. I do participate in political (not the normal 'I'm red/blue, so let's have a social club' kind of thing) clubs, debates, and events. I write, I read, and I do my best to not just talk, but to also DO something.

The fact remains that some things just aren't practical, reasonable, or hell...even interesting for most people to take an active interest. They simply have too many other things to do in their little lives, right or wrong. Due to this, the vast majority of people strictly focus on a core group of Rights that they wish to actively support.

An argument for the strong support of the Right to own and bear arms is this: The first ammendment is the most important ammendment, almost anyone will agree. But why was the 'gun' ammendment the second ammendment, ahead of the Right to jury trial, speedy trial, safety against unreasonable search and seizure, etc...? Because it defends the other ammendments.

The first ammendment protects the mind from enslavement; the second ammendment protects the body.

 

[countdemoney]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

in a very limited way - I can think of a handful of times when the proper assasination with a handgun changed history - lincoln, the archduke and rabin. but in an actual army a handgun is usually very limited in use - there are a lot of disputes as to the value - the best use is when your primary weapon is jammed, and then the question comes down to is it better to train more in unjamming your weapon or in the use of a second weapon? pistols have good use in combat indoors and in hostage situations, but those are extremly limited cases. also, in those instances where military or secutiry personal want to blend in with the population.

all very limited uses

You forgot one of their more common uses - officers shooting troops who refuse to face the enemy. Not saying its a good use of them, but to ignore it is to ignore a certain portion of military and especially soviet history.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by countdemoney

You forgot one of their more common uses - officers shooting troops who refuse to face the enemy. Not saying its a good use of them, but to ignore it is to ignore a certain portion of military and especially soviet history.

you're right, hard to remember everything

 

[VKK3450]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

.... my respect and 3 bucks will buy you a cup of cofee.

Coffee is expensive these days for something which costs very little to make

K

 

[dtmt]

I don't have a problem with gun ownership, but I think ALL guns should be required to be registered; if a person has any criminal record they should not be allowed to even hunt squirrels with a .22. Have a few months grace period for people to either register or surrender their guns, after which being in possession of an unregistered firearm would be a felony.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by BDC2823

Let's see. I want to be able to protect myself and family as a means of self-defense. So I must decide what the best, practical, and affordable tool this must be. What a shock, it's a gun. Yeah, that thought process doesn't appear rational.

Guns are used for self-defense all the time. Not, "can be and have been used". That implies that they may be useful for self-defense and cases documented where they were used but they aren't the most common or effective manner. If you were talking about an axe I could agree. But guns are the single most useful tool for self-defense and the overwhelmingly most utilized and successful form.

To show an example of a society capable of being able to stand up for itself vs. a tyrant one must not look much further than Switzerland in WWI. But you say they weren't actually attacked. That is correct. There's a reason for this. Make no mistake about it, Hitler hated the Swiss and wanted to conquer them. He spoke ill of them and devised many ways as to attack them. But Hitler never did. The Swiss as a whole were greatly outnumbered by the Germans and didn't have the military or militaristic technology that the Nazis had. On paper, the Swiss were no match for the Germans. But he never attacked them. So why? The answer. The Swiss populace was armed to the teeth. They accepted resistance with such furosity as the American revolutionaries did. All Swiss males were issued a rifle, kept it at home, and were excellent marksmen. It wasn't a question as to how many were armed or who they were as it was with other groups or nations. The answer was obvious. Everyone was. The whole nation. They didn't need a standing army. They had a militia...and that was the whole country. Before WWI the German Kaiser asked this to a Swiss militiaman, "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home." Hitler knew he would suffer a great loss in blood if he attacked them. It wasn't worth it. If he did conquer them what would he have done anyways? It's tough to govern people through dictatorship when there isn't anyone to govern...as the Swiss would have battled to the death...for their freedom. Ordinary men fighting for their rights. Today, the Swiss are still armed to the teeth. There is no gun control. Gun laws just don't exist. Everyone owns one and they are everywhere. They're as prevalent as shoes. They don't have much security at public buildings and their politicians don't have protection. Oh yeah, their crime rate is nearly non-existent. Just a coincidence?


hahahahahahaha. You don't know **** about WWII.

 

[BDC2823]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

^Fair enough; and of course I wasn't lumping you in there with the idiots who shot that kid... I should have put a smiley to let you know I was joking.

Anyway, I tend to stay out of gun threads, religious threads, or threads about Allen-Edmonds. Nevertheless, in this case, I just wanted to say my two cents, for whatever they are worth.

Cheers!

Edit: this isn't directed at you, but just a thought I had. It seems to me that the government really isn't very scared of its population; it's instead figured out how it can keep its citizens scared... of "A-rabs," "economic peril," etc. while it does whatever it wants. Not exactly what Jefferson had in mind.

So, it is perhaps unsurprising why then the same people who talk about having guns "to fight a tyrannical government" nevertheless were also often the same people who supported Bush 100% in the single largest infringement of our freedoms and the largest expansion of government in recent history. Again, WWJD? (What would Jefferson do?)

"When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the goverment there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

I completely agree with your assessment. I don't understand either how most people just let Bush do what he wanted and pass whatever legislation as well, even as it directly defied the Constitution. As for Jefferson, I highly doubt he would of done anything Bush did, but the complete opposite in most all regards.

 

[BDC2823]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

hahahahahahaha. You don't know **** about WWII.

I wasn't talking about WWII.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by BDC2823

I wasn't talking about WWII.

You weren't, you mean that was about the 1235 Nazi uprising when Hilter the fourth earle of Cognitzer nearly conquered Bologna?

PS: Swiss guns had nothing to do with the Nazis not attacking Switzerland, the Swiss pro-german "neutrality" was a factor though...

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

You weren't, you mean that was about the 1235 Nazi uprising when Hilter the fourth earle of Cognitzer nearly conquered Bologna?

Wait... that's the one I was talking about. Which one did HE mean????

 

[Piobaire]

Is the thread not officially over, now that Nazis have been brought into it?

 

[RJmanbearpig]

Originally Posted by BDC2823

I wasn't talking about WWII.

Am I reading this correctly, and this guy is talking about how Hitler was the leader of Germany and didn't want to attack Switzerland in World War ONE? This must be that alternate universe where America was discovered in 1942.

 

[kakemono]

Here in the south, I know a few guys with a pretty sizable arsenal. I worked with a guy in a factory who claims to have around 120 guns. Why? Who knows... but he did say that no government will ever take them from him - even if guns are outlawed. This is the attitude of most people here is they will be keeping all their firearms whether or not they become outlawed. They take pride in claiming that the south will not and can not be disarmed.

I think that having an armed citizenship makes it a heck of a lot harder to fathom a country like China making a land invasion. I know, it sounds ridiculous anyways, but it is even more ridiculous considering that the ratio of guns to citizens is more than 1:1. I mean, think of trying to move through the Rockies or Appalachan mountains against a native people who are fully armed.