Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[LongingSoul]

That was a good point earlier-- isn’t abortion and the level of murder sufficient cause to rise up? If we truly believe its murder- why don’t all Catholics use force to defend the unborn. I agree with our founding fathers that the political process should be followed, organize, voter drives, marches to show support, attempt to convince the other side. Violence is always a last resort. I asked the question of – would violence actually resolve the situation? Would it convince anyone? Part of the problem is, it’s an issue that our country is fairly evenly divided on in terms of whether it should still be available in some situations. (Not as much agreement on it being available for convenience) I’m not going to start a successful movement, might even damage the cause in introducing violence to impose my will (or my interpretation of God’s will) on others.

Who were the founding fathers… as in who did they identify as? Were they ‘the government’ of the time? When they created the constitution guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms for ‘the American people’… were they literally advocating against their own natural authority to govern?

I understood the circumstances to be very much an act against the reach of imperialist foreign control over the citizens of the new country of America. Why is it now interpreted as an act of non-elected citizens of America against elected **citizens **of America.

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t think there is any resistance to responsible use of arms. It’s the hotheads, drunkards and paranoids that I am concerned about. Just look how often disputes arise when alcohol is in the mix. Throwing a few punches is a lot less catastrophic than pulling a gun out and shooting it.

Look at the movie scenes where one of the opponents pulls out a knife. This is no longer a simple brawl but a matter of life and death. Technically speaking a knife qualifies as a weapon in the same league as a gun. If one settles a dispute with a few punches, there is usually no great harm. Losing a knife or gun fight can cost you your life.

If we want to facilitate lethal settlements of disputes, put lethal weapons in the hands of the opponents.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Look at the reasons given to “choose” to be armed. It reflects the absence of freedom.

Nonsense,

A RIGHT to do or not do something is the essence of FREEDOM.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Who were the founding fathers… as in who did they identify as? Were they ‘the government’ of the time? When they created the constitution guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms for ‘the American people’… were they literally advocating against their own natural authority to govern?

I understood the circumstances to be very much an act against the reach of imperialist foreign control over the citizens of the new country of America. Why is it now interpreted as an act of non-elected citizens of America against elected **citizens **of America.

The only reason I bother with this is that young people read this forum and they need to know the truth.

Who were the founding fathers… as in who did they identify as?

British subjects,

Were they ‘the government’ of the time?

No. they outlined what the government would be and allowed the electoral process to go to work.

When they created the constitution guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms for ‘the American people’… were they literally advocating against their own natural authority to govern?

That is a typical European type of question. They are so conditioned to SERVING their governments that they fail to see the EXCEPTIONALISM of American. The government serves us.

The Founding Fathers were not the government. They were above that. Some of them went on to serve in elected positions but overall they simply created the best government the world has ever known.

 

[Rau]

Nonsense,

A RIGHT to do or not do something is the essence of FREEDOM.

Nonsense . You don’t want the gun for skeet shooting - you want it for protection! What a life!

 

[Rau]

The only reason I bother with this is that young people read this forum and they need to know the truth.

Who were the founding fathers… as in who did they identify as?

British subjects,

Were they ‘the government’ of the time?

No. they outlined what the government would be and allowed the electoral process to go to work.

When they created the constitution guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms for ‘the American people’… were they literally advocating against their own natural authority to govern?

That is a typical European type of question. They are so conditioned to SERVING their governments that they fail to see the EXCEPTIONALISM of American. The government serves us.

The Founding Fathers were not the government. They were above that. Some of them went on to serve in elected positions but overall they simply created the best government the world has ever known.

Now this is funny! Concern for our young readers moves you to post!

But not as funny as the assertion that the American government is exceptional in the service it delivers to the people. I suppose, if you measure the level of service by the amount of debt and money printing - that would be exceptional!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Nonsense . You don’t want the gun for skeet shooting - you want it for protection! What a life!

Actually I enjoy using my guns for Trap Shooting.

Anything horribly evil and threatening about that?

 

[LongingSoul]

The only reason I bother with this is that young people read this forum and they need to know the truth.

Who were the founding fathers… as in who did they identify as?

British subjects,

Were they ‘the government’ of the time?

No. they outlined what the government would be and allowed the electoral process to go to work.

When they created the constitution guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms for ‘the American people’… were they literally advocating against their own natural authority to govern?

That is a typical European type of question. They are so conditioned to SERVING their governments that they fail to see the EXCEPTIONALISM of American. The government serves us.

The Founding Fathers were not the government. They were above that. Some of them went on to serve in elected positions but overall they simply created the best government the world has ever known.

“The Founding Fathers were not the government. They were above that.”

But what does that even mean… above the government? Are they divine or something? If they then went on to creat the best government the world has ever known, how come that same government it is such a threat that its people are the only citizens in the free world that need to be armed to the teeth against them? What happens when the citizens topple the next tyannical government? Will there be a new government made from these citizens? Will they in turn be faithful to their vision of society and disarm themselves and allow the non-elected citizens to be fully armed against them?

"That is a typical European type of question. They are so conditioned to SERVING their governments that they fail to see the EXCEPTIONALISM of American. "

What a load of delusional tripe. I don’t believe that this is Americas true belief. It sounds like an extremist version of 18th century British Imperialism but even scarier…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Now this is funny! Concern for our young readers moves you to post!

But not as funny as the assertion that the American government is exceptional in the service it delivers to the people. I suppose, if you measure the level of service by the amount of debt and money printing - that would be exceptional!

Not really, Rau.

Our government simply allows Americans to serve themselves. “Rugged Individualism”…don’t you know. A far cry from our European cousins who rely on their “governments” to care for them from cradle to the grave.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“The Founding Fathers were not the government. They were above that.”

But what does that even mean… above the government? Are they divine or something?

It simply means that the INDIVIDUAL comes first. Not the state. Not the collective. Not the monarch.

If they then went on to creat the best government the world has ever known, how come that same government it is such a threat that its people are the only citizens in the free world that need to be armed to the teeth against them?

Well it has not happened yet. Maybe the concept is working, I think a government that fears its citizens is better than a government that is feared by its subjects.

What happens when the citizens topple the next tyannical government? Will there be a new government made from these citizens? Will they in turn be faithful to their vision of society and disarm themselves and allow the non-elected citizens to be fully armed against them?

There are peaceful and lawful ways of changing our government if ever necessary. But if
another Revolution is required, the people will have a fair chance. Remember, in a revolution, right and wrong is decided by the winner.

"That is a typical European type of question. They are so conditioned to SERVING their governments that they fail to see the EXCEPTIONALISM of American. "

What a load of delusional tripe. I don’t believe that this is Americas true belief. It sounds like an extremist version of 18th century British Imperialism but even scarier…

Of course it seems like tripe to you. You are still a “prisoner of mother England”. You have no concept of Individualism, liberty or freedom. You would be speaking Japanese today if it were not for delusional Americans…you are welcome.

 

[migueltojose]

“The Founding Fathers were not the government. They were above that.”

But what does that even mean… above the government? Are they divine or something? If they then went on to creat the best government the world has ever known, how come that same government it is such a threat that its people are the only citizens in the free world that need to be armed to the teeth against them? What happens when the citizens topple the next tyannical government? Will there be a new government made from these citizens? Will they in turn be faithful to their vision of society and disarm themselves and allow the non-elected citizens to be fully armed against them?

"That is a typical European type of question. They are so conditioned to SERVING their governments that they fail to see the EXCEPTIONALISM of American. "

What a load of delusional tripe. I don’t believe that this is Americas true belief. It sounds like an extremist version of 18th century British Imperialism but even scarier…

This is ridiculous. It illustrates the issue we have as a nation. You listen to me… but don’t hear and I listen to you… but don’t hear. I am, in your opinion, paranoid and delusional and you are in my opinion, naïve and delusional. Except of course, I am right. At this point, and I am tired of this this never ending détente of a thread… I concede that I am not going to change your mind… and you are not going to change my mind… so to continue is merely grandstanding, especially for the smart ones, who obviously have an advantage in putting there thoughts in writing. But what they say and think is no better than those who aren’t quite as smart and eloquent. You can lead a horse to water… And then they’ll blame me for dying of thirst… Very frustrating. Some of you ‘anti-gun’ come across as very arrogant and smug… even smarmy… Not attractive. Not endearing… and certainly not appealing.

Now if we could all be given pistols and walk off ten paces, we could settle this… “happiness is a warm gun… bang bang shoot shoot”. --John Lennon.

 

[Rau]

…
Our government simply allows Americans to serve themselves. “Rugged Individualism”…don’t you know. A far cry from our European cousins who rely on their “governments” to care for them from cradle to the grave.

Now, there you have a point! Some European Governments/societies certainly long for the easy life. But a little bit of care and concern is a good thing. These days, US Society is a little bit too tilted to serve the rich, and seems to exhibit no end of leniency in dealing with the crimes and misdemeanors of the very well off on Wall Street.

 

[Rau]

That was a good point earlier-- isn’t abortion and the level of murder sufficient cause to rise up? If we truly believe its murder- why don’t all Catholics use force to defend the unborn. I agree with our founding fathers that the political process should be followed, organize, voter drives, marches to show support, attempt to convince the other side. Violence is always a last resort. I asked the question of – would violence actually resolve the situation? Would it convince anyone? Part of the problem is, it’s an issue that our country is fairly evenly divided on in terms of whether it should still be available in some situations. (Not as much agreement on it being available for convenience) I’m not going to start a successful movement, might even damage the cause in introducing violence to impose my will (or my interpretation of God’s will) on others.

You are right. Even this murderous behaviour (abortion) does not justify an armed uprising. But embodied in your response is an even more illuminating point - at the end of the day, the “fight” won’t be with your “government” - it will be among groups of “the people”. One group favours abortion, another does not. One favours the patriot act and intrusive governmental eavesdropping and security powers, and another does not. One worships Allah, another Jahweh. One demands daughters behave according to longstanding, restrictive customs, another (many of the daughters) want to live their own lives. And on and on. Until one person or group decides to impose their will, and shoots the other. Brilliant.

What would it take [to justify use of guns against governmental authority]? I honestly don’t know.

Yet you conclude that your gun laws are just the appropriate measure?

As much as I intellectually understand the issues, the concerns of the founding fathers, and acknowledge the reality of history’s lessons-- I know it can happen here but I have a hard time believing it ever would.** But if my generation gives that up, it will likely never be restored for future generations, I don’t believe my generation has the right to abandon a core civil right for future generations.**

A “core civil right”? What is that? Is it more core than others? Is it like the right to worship God - or more core than that? If and when you feel free, you’ll be happy to give up the right to own lethal weapons. It would be a sign of great courage and faith. Leave it to future generations to restore the “right”, if they see fit.

I am concerned about the US right now. The breakdown in the rule of law-- an example which might suprise you. A couple of states passed anti-gun legislation. In those states groups of sheriffs put out statements that they would not enforce the laws as they saw them as being unconstitutional. That concerns me. Law enforcement selectively deciding which laws to enforce. I agree with their view of the law but-- I don’t want that precedent. They’re sworn to uphold the constitution, and they see these laws as violations, but I think they should resign vice refuse to enforce the law. Let the courts decide constitutionality. Imagine the possible anarchy of individual sheriff’s enforcing the law based on their conscience on various issues.

Quite right, and what an odd governmental system this is that tolerates anarchic law enforcement officials. That even the local sheriff is a politician may have something to do with this strange behaviour. He may be sworn to uphold the law (and/or the constitution), but his first duty is to get elected next time!

The AG of the US released a statement that state AGs shouldn’t defend the laws of their states on marriage in the courts. What? The laws which were passed with the support of the people in those states aren’t going to be defended in accordance with our legal process? One of the core duties of a state AG. Gay marriage is legal in CA because the California Attorney General, Harris, refused to defend it in court-- it went to SCOTUS and was dismissed for lack of standing, only the AG could defend it and that was her job. It never got a fair hearing at SCOTUS because of her refusing to do her duty. Would SCOTUS have overturned the lower court? No way to know now.

Many of the states and the past couple of administrations have been undermining the laws on immigration. Literally actively aiding and abetting the violation of immigration laws on a massive scale, against the will of the majority of Americans. The chickens have come home to roost with this latest debacle. But the ones paying the price are kids. Kids drawn to the US, suffering dangers along the way, by politicians maneuvering, making irresponsible statementst and a history of not enforcing the law.

Our current administration, or so we’re told, has ignored or violated various laws. Even using several government agencies illegally to inhibit the efforts of their opponents in organizing.

**Does any of the above warrant a violent rebellion? No. **

Correct. It’s looking less and less likely that we can justify arming the community on the grounds of defending itself against a wayward government.

Folks who want a disarmed public require and support an armed government to make that happen. So, nobody is anti-gun. We just differ about who can be trusted with them and whether a large disparity in the balance of power is an acceptable risk.

Concentrating the guns in groups who operate in a disciplined way (mostly), and which are established for the purposes of serving and protecting, seems much preferable to handing them out like candy to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

 

[Rau]

Actually I enjoy using my guns for Trap Shooting.

Anything horribly evil and threatening about that?

No, that’s a freedom I’d be happy to enjoy too, but I don’t think it’s the issue about which the pro-/anti- gun dispute revolves!

 

[LongingSoul]

There are peaceful and lawful ways of changing our government if ever necessary. But if
another Revolution is required, the people will have a fair chance. Remember, in a revolution, right and wrong is decided by the winner.

Give me an example of what situation might warrant a revolution? We normally change the government by election. We pick people from among us to govern. There’s no royal family or truly distinct class lines (outside of the dollar). What would possibly be the dichotomy that would pit ‘the people’ against plain other people who happen to be elected into office by the rest of us?

Of course it seems like tripe to you. You are still a “prisoner of mother England”. You have no concept of Individualism, liberty or freedom. You would be speaking Japanese today if it were not for delusional Americans…you are welcome.

Do you really think that Commonwealth countries are controlled by England? Perhaps you do. You may not have taken modern history at high school or mayby it’s just not taught in the US.

And wait a minute there… I didn’t say Americans are delusional. I said your idea of what America is, is. The US government and her ‘minions’ (as the army and police are referred to by certain people), came to Australias and other countries aid during the war and for the last few years the US troops have been marching in Darwins ANZAC parades alongside us. That’s a whole different issue. Here you addressing ‘the people’… not the US army and other government forces.

 

[pnewton]

An invasion from space also needs to be considered!

Yes! I have stock-piled bags of rock salt and used tissues from my last flu.

 

[Richard_White]

The real issue here is not whether or not we should be allowed to have guns but instead the overbearing nature of the federal government, who shouldn’t be telling us what to do in regard to a constitutional right.

I mean, I don’t want to walk around and see everyone carrying guns, but I just don’t want ths government to tell me if I can or can’t have one (legally of course) when they prove to be effective in certain situations (break-ins, right to revolution, etc).

May God bless you all!

 

[Rau]

The real issue here is not whether or not we should be allowed to have guns but instead the overbearing nature of the federal government, who shouldn’t be telling us what to do in regard to a constitutional right.

I mean, I don’t want to walk around and see everyone carrying guns, but I just don’t want ths government to tell me if I can or can’t have one (legally of course) when they prove to be effective in certain situations (break-ins, right to revolution, etc).

May God bless you all!

I note your view, but the issue under discussion is the wisdom and necessity of ready access to weaponry for citizens.

The government must interpret the constitution - eg. Decide whether a bazooka is covered, and make law and regulation accordingly. It may decide you can’t have a bazooka. Nothing wrong with that in principle, and the courts will oversee those decisions when called on to do so.

As has been said, the people are free to seek to change the constitution - it is not, or should not, be viewed as fixed forever, like fundamental moral truths. However, I think some Americans see their constitution in just that way - as though it were God-given, rather than man-made.

 

[TEPO]

Let’s get us a poll and some data as to whether or not CAF members are pro-gun. I will not define “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” in my survey.

That’s about it. And, since the poll is anonymous, unless you want to specifically state in your posts, I think I’ll attach gun ownership in there as well.

I’m anti everything the Democratic Party promotes. So I guess that makes me pro gun.

 

[nmgauss]

The argument that we need to have guns in order to defend ourselves against a rogue government is ludicrous. Can you see a pitched battle between a militia with primarily handguns and hunting rifles against a sophisticated army with tanks, howitzers and air power? Look at what happened in Syria where government forces with their superior arms have rolled over local fighters.