Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 2/2


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 151 of 310 (669281)
07-28-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by New Cat's Eye
07-27-2012 3:35 PM


Re: Inclusive
Rights aren't determined by need. Its the restriction of rights that's determined by need. And there's no need for an unarmed cililian population.
This is what always happens when any kind of conversation about guns takes place, you tend to take it as someone's taking all your rights away. I was even called Hitler!
I'm just talking about handguns because of their concealment ability. I love hunting (wish I could do it more often, it's been years). I love rifles, bows, crossbows, shotguns (every type), and the big boys too (50 cal, etc.) There are plenty of ways to bear arms. I'm just talking about one.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2012 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 152 of 310 (669282)
07-28-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Hyroglyphx
07-27-2012 6:36 PM


Hitler!
First of all, you better have celebrated that Miami Heat win, dude.
So because it's within the realm of possibility that people get accidently shot that necessitates unilateral disarmament?
No, not at all. I'm just saying get rid of handguns. That was an aside argument I was having with crash about my own personal take, not that it should be the law. Don't misunderstand or not read the whole argument.
All I was calling for was making handguns (manufacturing, distribution, and sales) illegal. I have throughout the thread said, rifles and shotguns are fine. My concern is in the ability to conceal.
Well said, Hitler.
You're a Hitler.
As long as force and coercion exists, there is always a need for an armed civilian population.
You don't need handguns for all that rising up stuff, employee of the government. You're the first one's these hillbillies with guns are coming after.
And really, at the end of the day, America will never be disarmed willingly.
I think it's quite possible to easily get rid of handguns or at the very least stop the manufacturing and distribution, and legal sales.
You can arm up with rifles, and shotguns, crossbows and assault rifles and go get them yanks at Capitol Hill. Should be easy to shoot, they're all 90 years old.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2012 6:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 153 of 310 (669283)
07-28-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
07-26-2012 6:51 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
I'm actually a strong supporter of unlimited open carry, and wish it were legal to open carry all over the US.
What a terrible idea!
I live in Queens, I take the subway everyday with hundreds of thousands of maniac New Yorkers. You want to arm us all? By the time we got to our stop everyone would be dead.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 6:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 07-28-2012 6:32 PM onifre has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 154 of 310 (669285)
07-28-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by onifre
07-28-2012 6:27 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
Actually, read what I write.
No where did I say anything about arming everyone.
What I said was that I prefer open carry, having any firearms out where everyone can see them.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:27 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:36 PM jar has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 155 of 310 (669287)
07-28-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
07-28-2012 6:32 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
I did read what you write.
You said unlimited open carry everywhere in the US. New York city is not a good place to allow that, that is way it is currently illegal to do so. You'd like to see that different.
That's what you said.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 07-28-2012 6:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 07-28-2012 6:44 PM onifre has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 156 of 310 (669289)
07-28-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by onifre
07-28-2012 6:36 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
I see that YOU think it is not a good idea.
I disagree.
Unlimited Open Carry does not mean that there must be no limitation, but it does mean that if someone carries it should be open, displayed.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:49 PM jar has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 157 of 310 (669291)
07-28-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by jar
07-28-2012 6:44 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
I see that YOU think it is not a good idea.
I disagree.
Have you seen the subways? Have you seen the amount of people in those things daily? Can you not see how maybe in this particular case, unlimited open carry (like in a holster) is a terrible idea?
Unlimited Open Carry does not mean that there must be no limitation.
Hmmm...
but it does mean that if someone carries it should be open, displayed.
Again, that's a terrible idea where I live. You're being stubborn about it, that's all.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 07-28-2012 6:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 07-28-2012 6:52 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 158 of 310 (669292)
07-28-2012 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by onifre
07-28-2012 6:49 PM


on open carry
I just disagree with you.
I see someone openly carrying a firearm as less a threat than someone carrying a concealed firearm.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by onifre, posted 07-28-2012 6:49 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 700 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(2)
Message 159 of 310 (669301)
07-28-2012 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ringo
07-28-2012 12:30 PM


Re: Breivik used legally obtained firearms
You contradict yourself. The current regime in China came to power by guerrilla warfare. It is always possible to become armed, should the need arise.
As an aside, are you under the impression that the people of China want to overthrow their government?
It came to power by guerilla warfare and that was made possible because the citizenry was allowed to have weapons. It is not always possible to become armed should the need arise. That is next to impossible in a strongly armed police state like the former soviet union. Any suspicion of revolt would have millions executed on the spot. A great portion of the people of China DID want to overthrow their government early on when they found out how repressive it was. As time wore on and as the state systematically brainwashed its people , sometimes by force in reeducation camps, the desire to overthrow the state became less and less but many people there would love to have something other than totalitarian communism as a form of government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 07-28-2012 12:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 9:53 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 07-30-2012 12:09 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 700 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 160 of 310 (669302)
07-28-2012 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Modulous
07-28-2012 1:41 PM


Re: overthrowing a tyranny
If there is a market for guerilla warfare, there will almost certainly be willing weapons salesman. But I don't think the people of China want to overthrow their government.
A willing weapons salesman will not get very far in a very strong and repressive police state. Millions will get executed in the process. As for the people of China not wanting to overthrow their
government, read my comments to Ringo.
That's hardly the only way to acquire weapons. One could simply bribe, persuade or otherwise coerce the inspectors, or use methods that circumvent legitimate import channels entirely - such as smuggling or secret air drops. Killing basically innocent government employees should be last resort, not the first option.
Like I said before, persuading and coercing inspectors or circumventing legitimate import channels in a state like the former Soviet Union would be snuffed out before it got started. A strong police state is good at preventing rebellion. For example, it would be impossible to smuggle weapons into China or conduct secret air drops. The government would find out quickly and snuff it out even quicker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 1:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 10:20 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 175 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2012 9:53 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 700 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(2)
Message 161 of 310 (669303)
07-28-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by RAZD
07-28-2012 2:41 PM


Re: armed overthrow not the only option
Curiously unarmed non-violent protest "overthew" the British colonial government of India and resulted in democratic self-rule by the Indian population: perhaps you should read about some history, including Ghandi.
I am aware of that history. The non violent protest worked because the british colonial government was not a repressive police state like the former soviet union. Regardless of popular opinion on the subject, not all colonialists were vile,evil people. The british colonial rulers could be affected by such tactics as gandhi applied. Edi Amin or Stalin would have annihilated Chandi and anyone who spoke even positively about him.
South Africa has recently changed government through unarmed non-violent protest and now has democratic populist government.
How non violent is filling truck tires with gasoline and putting them on government sympathizers and lighting them on fire- a procedure known as necklacing?
Egypt has recently changed government through unarmed non-violent protest and now is working to build a democratic populist government.
Its amazing what a huge media spotlight that puts your every move under a microscope and broadcasts it to every media outlet in the world can do isn't it?
The emancipation of women voters in the US was accomplished through unarmed non-violent protest.
I cant think of a single president or administration during that time that even remotely resembled a police state like the former soviet union or China.
The civil rights movement in the US accomplished it's goals through unarmed non-violent protest.
Again, the United States is not a brutal police force.
Currently we have unarmed non-violent protest in the form of the Occupy Wallstreet movement and it's branches around the world to change the way banking and big money investing is done to a manner that is more fair and just.
Its funny watching a bunch of smelly, college graduates with worthless degrees who have never worked a day in their lives try to take away money from productive individuals, isn't it? They may get their way with the obama administration but it will only serve to limit the financial freedom people currently have within the banking system and make it more expensive to do so.
Using guns just allows governments to justify using guns in return.
Governments already use guns on the populace without justification, so your point is moot.
Armed insurrections often result in replacing one despotic government with another.
I agree, but it is foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It is possible to live without guns.
Yes it is, but it is not possible to live in freedom in a totalitarian police state without guns.
Unarmed non-violent protest creates change by evolution of government rather than by revolution.[/qs]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2012 2:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 10:01 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2012 6:29 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 162 of 310 (669304)
07-28-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 9:23 PM


Re: Breivik used legally obtained firearms
It came to power by guerilla warfare and that was made possible because the citizenry was allowed to have weapons. It is not always possible to become armed should the need arise. That is next to impossible in a strongly armed police state like the former soviet union.
Yes, but note the word "former" in there.
Any suspicion of revolt would have millions executed on the spot. A great portion of the people of China DID want to overthrow their government early on when they found out how repressive it was. As time wore on and as the state systematically brainwashed its people , sometimes by force in reeducation camps, the desire to overthrow the state became less and less but many people there would love to have something other than totalitarian communism as a form of government.
On a point of fact, China is about as communist as my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 9:23 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 163 of 310 (669305)
07-28-2012 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 9:48 PM


Re: armed overthrow not the only option
How non violent is filling truck tires with gasoline and putting them on government sympathizers and lighting them on fire- a procedure known as necklacing?
If it was that, rather than all the non-violent protest, that overthrew apartheid, then please bear in mind that we are talking about gun control; even if the government was to deprive you of your guns, you would still have trucks tires and the secret of fire.
Its funny watching a bunch of smelly, college graduates with worthless degrees who have never worked a day in their lives ...
... most of whom, back in the real world, had jobs. And I don't believe you've ever sniffed a statistically significant sample of them. However, if you want to be wrong about the Occupy Movement, I'm sure there are already threads on which you could do so.
I agree, but it is foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, which is baby and which is bathwater? Has anyone been keeping score? How often have guns been used to overthrow a tyranny, and how often a democracy? Does anyone know?
In the US, as I pointed out in a previous post, they could only presently be used to overthrow a democratic republic, since that is in fact what we have.
As you yourself say:
Again, the United States is not a brutal police force.
(I think you meant the last word to be "state".) So we couldn't use guns to overthrow such an institution, 'cos of it not existing. But if it is possible to overthrow the government using guns, then it would be possible to institute a brutal police state by such means.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 9:48 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 700 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 164 of 310 (669306)
07-28-2012 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2012 10:01 PM


Re: armed overthrow not the only option
voltaire30 writes:
Again, the United States is not a brutal police force.
Dr Adequate writes:
(I think you meant the last word to be "state".) So we couldn't use guns to overthrow such an institution, 'cos of it not existing. But if it is possible to overthrow the government using guns, then it would be possible to institute a brutal police state by such means.
You cannot overthrow a brutal police state without guns. I agree that you can overthrow a democracy with guns and institute a police state. You can also prevent a democracy from turning into a police state with guns. A democracy that is morphing into a police state won't get very far at removing undesirables from their property and home when they get blown away by 45 calibers when they attempt to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 10:30 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 310 (669307)
07-28-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by foreveryoung
07-28-2012 9:30 PM


Re: overthrowing a tyranny
A willing weapons salesman will not get very far in a very strong and repressive police state. Millions will get executed in the process.
So it would be a good idea for repressive police states to allow their citizens to have easy access to guns, the better to overthrow them.
Will you tell them, or shall I?
Really, if we're going to daydream about rewriting the Chinese constitution, we could skip over the Second Amendment and go straight for Article I. Instead of fantasizing about them having enough guns to institute a representative democracy, we could just fantasize about them having a representative democracy: it's quicker, and no more futile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by foreveryoung, posted 07-28-2012 9:30 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024