stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[patriot1776]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

There were still major cities and the founders vision of America wasn't for every neighborhood to look the same.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

They've certainly been deified by some, but that doesn't mean the other extreme is valid, either. The vision of the Founding Fathers has set a foundation for American government for over two hundred years; it is not irrelevant today.

The point of the matter doesn't really change with time, with technology, or with society. The point of the Second Amendment is that a person has a fundamental right to defend himself, and the government does not have the right to revoke that capability. It's a matter of independence, of self-determination, and yes -- of thwarting tyrannical government. Red Dawn isn't coming, and if the government wants you dead, you're dead. But government going door to door to pull minorities and political dissenters out of their homes to be shot, as happened in multiple countries under multiple regimes in 20th century Europe? That's not happening with a well-armed populace.

Does that mean that everyone should be allowed to purchase napalm at Walgreens? Of course not. The specifics are very much an open discussion, one that has unfortunately been dominated mostly by extremists.

But it's far too simplistic to point to murder rates and say 'hey, they're doing it right, lower murder rate'. We could decrease our murder rate by banning guns, sure. We could also increase our life expectancy by banning soda -- and motorcycles. The question becomes one of liberty and the scope of government.

[Hitchens]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Red Dawn isn't coming, and if the government wants you dead, you're dead. But government going door to door to pull minorities and political dissenters out of their homes to be shot, as happened in multiple countries under multiple regimes in 20th century Europe? That's not happening with a well-armed populace.

I don't see any Fourth Reich rising in Australia after they banned automatic weapons in 1996.

I don't think concern about a possible future trumps concern about present day issues. I understand some do, and that's fine. I just don't see it that way.

inb4movetoaustralia

[Rikimeru]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't see any Fourth Reich rising in Australia after they banned automatic weapons in 1996.

I don't think concern about a possible future trumps concern about present day issues. I understand some do, and that's fine. I just don't see it that way.

inb4movetoaustralia

banning guns doesnt solve anything. your just trading shootings for other forms of murder/violent crimes(and even completely banning guns will not stop gun violence, because gun bans dont effect criminals). instead of school shootings we will have school bombings(ya that sounds a lot better!!!) radical gun control is the equivalent of treating the symptoms of an illness and ignoring the illness itself. that gets you nowhere.

[Hitchens]

Originally Posted by Rikimeru [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

banning guns doesnt solve anything. your just trading shootings for other forms of murder/violent crimes(and even completely banning guns will not stop gun violence, because gun bans dont effect criminals). instead of school shootings we will have school bombings(ya that sounds a lot better!!!) radical gun control is the equivalent of treating the symptoms of an illness and ignoring the illness itself. that gets you nowhere.

No one said anything about banning guns. Australia banned certain types and hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur.

This isn't an all or nothing discussion unless you want it to be.

[Rikimeru]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No one said anything about banning guns. Australia banned certain types and hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur.

This isn't an all or nothing discussion unless you want it to be.

there were mass shootings in the united states before there were self loading firearms, so i dont see how the ban of any semi automatic weapon will help. hell the first documented school shooting in the united states happened in 1764 where a teacher and 10 students were shot to death(3 students survived).

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't see any Fourth Reich rising in Australia after they banned automatic weapons in 1996.

I don't think concern about a possible future trumps concern about present day issues. I understand some do, and that's fine. I just don't see it that way.

inb4movetoaustralia

I'm not defending automatic weaponry. Like I said, the specifics are open for discussion. I'm speaking in generalities -- the right to bear arms. The right to own a gun. I'm not breaking down what types of guns, in particular. That's a different debate.

But aside from that, it's not really evidence of anything that one country has managed to avoid catastrophic tyranny for 16 years without an armed populace. Tyranny isn't an inevitability with an unarmed populace, and certainly not within a timeframe of a decade or two. It's merely a possibility, which is too much for some.

I'd also quibble with the notion that this is a matter of possible future issues vs. present day issues. Many people would disagree that there is an issue in America. Committing a violent act with a gun is illegal. Violators are prosecuted. Law abiding citizens are free to own firearms. To many, that is perfectly acceptable and the fact that murder rates are higher in the United States is an unfortunate side effect of greater degrees of liberty. Many Americans would see it as a bigger issue that citizens of other countries are legally incapable of defending themselves -- whether from crime or government.

[Hitchens]

@Daldoma,

I would not advocate for a blanket gun ban. I just don't think certain guns should be in the hands of civilians merely for the sake of protection against a tyrannical government when the guns in the hands of civilians wouldn't really stop a tyrannical government.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

@Daldoma,

I would not advocate for a blanket gun ban. I just don't think certain guns should be in the hands of civilians merely for the sake of protection against a tyrannical government when the guns in the hands of civilians wouldn't really stop a tyrannical government.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Well that's very different, and doesn't put you at odds with the Founding Fathers. They supported the right to bear arms -- not the right to own an arsenal of AK-47s.

I believe a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Sufficient weaponry to protect oneself is a necessary extension of such a right.

But where the bounds of 'sufficient weaponry' end is a matter of legitimate debate. Obviously, things like grenades and mines do not qualify. Neither should automatic weaponry. I think extended magazines should absolutely be on the table for a possible ban. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to be Rambo.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the right to bear arms

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]