Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[nmgauss]

When I was a kid, our schools were surrounded by chain link fences that were locked during off hours. Today the public school across the street from my home has no fences whatsoever. People freely use the parking lot and wander the school grounds at all hours. Have we become complacent about security in our schools?

Also, in my day, it was almost impossible for a stash of knives or guns and ammunition to be brought onto the school grounds without someone noticing. In Central California, we had no back packs and nobody wore heavy trench coats to school. We carried our books in our hands. Young women cradled their books in their elbows when carrying them.

How times have changed. Now kids haul large loads of paraphernalia on their backs and some are experiencing back pain because of it. There is a lot of room for guns and ammo in those back packs.

 

[Rau]

Fear? No.

Realism, understanding of human history, and the resolve to remain free. Yes.

Our founding fathers understood human history as well. It is why they provided for the continuation of a right which preceded the constitution for the people to have weapons to oppose government tyranny. A government acting in the people’s interest has no reason to fear an armed public.

It is very encouraging the number of states which have increased public safety through legislation providing for shall-issue concealed carry and respecting the US citizens right to defend themselves, and have the effective means to do so.

States which respect life, and don’t fear their own citizens. Who act in accordance with the Catholic view on life and the right to self-defense.

But, will it always be the case? I don’t know. But is it my right, is it social justice for me to give away, dispose of a right for future generations, to strip them of self-defense simply because I trust the government now?

Read the Declaration of Independence-- it is a justification for taking up arms and violently overthrowing the existing government. In particular the following:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Government and the people running the government do change. They are supsceptible to corruption and abuse of power. It is social justice that the people retain the capability to oppose government power in the eventuality that the evil becomes intolerable…

Incredible - I had no idea this was the thinking behind arming the people.

But if so, why are the guns not used to stop the aborters and the government that enables them? Is that not sufficient evil? One wonders what would be sufficient? An increase in tax perhaps?

The idea that says you control your Government through the possession of weapons is extraordinary. It anticipates the destruction of your society and prepares for it. And it pays a high price for that preparation. I can understand now the need for multiple guns, ammo stores under the house and for increasingly powerful weaponry to be amassed. The Government too has a lot of guns.

 

[LongingSoul]

Childish? Not the way I would have worded it, but I wanted to credit the author for the concept. The gun control advocates in the US aren’t pushing for the police to be disarmed, or for their weapons to have the same restrictions as the public. They definitely push for the consolidation of physical power in the government— increasing the disparity which obviously already favors the government.

I think if you are a genuine devotee of Stefan Molyneux, that speaks for itself. His view of society and humanity is as far from the Catholic/Christian one you can get.

Yes. Gun control is anti-gun, unless you are proposing placing the same restrictions on the police or law enforcement organizations that you do on the citizen.

You’re joking I assume. There are already hundreds more controls and restrictions applied to police officers than to individual citizens. They have procedures and backup and experts all available to deal with crime in order to minimise carnage and see justice done.

Secondly, firearms are used far more often by the public to prevent crime than to commit them. So guns save lives. Literally.

Your reasoning displays the complete blindspot of an addict of drugs. He believes his drug of choice is doing him more good than harm because it brings relief to his ills. He completely denies that his ills are being brought on by the use of the drug in the first place. Without the drug in his life, his ills are reduced 10 fold.

I would hate for the US to experience say, the same rate of rape that Australia has for example. Crime has dropped considerably as the states have expanded concealed carry laws and gun ownership has increased.

You do not protect people by disarming them. You just make them more vulnerable victims.

The rape statistics have been roundly debunked from the moment they were raised. In Australia we don’t have a category for rape alone… it is all considered as ‘sexual assault’. The crime stats include all sexual assault incidences along a spectrum. Australia has a good record of charging and prosecuting for sexual assault and women especially are encouraged to report with the confidence of being heard and believed. In countries with a poorer rate of believing the woman and proceding with charges…. fewer women are inclined to report.

“Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history”. Well, they didn’t protect the freed slaves in the south particularly well. (The first gun control laws were enacted in the south directed at the newly freed slaves. The gun control laws in the 60’s were directed at the civil right movement. The 'small political elite and their minions like the democrats/KKK in the south weren’t keen on safeguarding the black population. Gun control in the US is racist in nature). Otherwise, yes, with a strong respect for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It’s not the governments job to keep people safe. It’s the government’s job to keep them free, retain their liberty. By the way, thats actually the law according to US precedent. The police have no duty/responsibility to protect an individual. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves;

Gun rights are far more discriminatory now than ever before since there is no obligation on those who are qualified to own guns, to protect the vulnerable barred from ownership by age or some kind of infirmity or even foreign citizenship. The fundamental justification for the weapon is to protect me. Me, me, me. Me alone against the world. Maybe my family if I’m so inclined. But why should I care about the vulnerable. Tough for them. Survival of the fittest here.

If gun owners were genuinely concerned for the general welfare, their ‘right to bear arms’ would first and foremost be obligated to national defense of the entire community, not each man for himself.

Insane logic? Mass mental illness. Please review world history, heck just since 1900, and observe the number of governments who slaughtered their people after disarming them. (or allowed criminal element as in Mexico to slaughter/intimidate etc. Look at the movements in Mexico and Kenya-- where folks have taken up arms to defend their communities despite it being illegal. The safest areas in Mexico right now are those where the citizens have formed militias.)

Are you saying the Mexican militias are fighting the government? Don’t you mean that there are some groups of citizens fighting against other groups of citizens who envisage life in the country differently from themselves? Same with the Kenyan militia. They don’t target government members. They target other citizens. Is that what you are envisioning for the American militia? Civil war.

Its nice that you believe Americans and their politicians are so pure and noble that we are immune to the temptations which have plagued mankind. That we alone in human history could never, ever, have those kinds of things occur-- that we have evolved such that our very nature is better than all of the preceeding generations. my somewhat skeptical but wiser self tends to believe we’re just human beings like everyone else.

It can happen here.

Never again.

I really think you should research the likes of Stefan Molyneux more deeply before conforming to his view of society.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think if you are a genuine devotee of Stefan Molyneux, that speaks for itself. His view of society and humanity is as far from the Catholic/Christian one you can get.

You’re joking I assume. There are already hundreds more controls and restrictions applied to police officers than to individual citizens. They have procedures and backup and experts all available to deal with crime in order to minimise carnage and see justice done.

Your reasoning displays the complete blindspot of an addict of drugs. He believes his drug of choice is doing him more good than harm because it brings relief to his ills. He completely denies that his ills are being brought on by the use of the drug in the first place. Without the drug in his life, his ills are reduced 10 fold.

The rape statistics have been roundly debunked from the moment they were raised. In Australia we don’t have a category for rape alone… it is all considered as ‘sexual assault’. The crime stats include all sexual assault incidences along a spectrum. Australia has a good record of charging and prosecuting for sexual assault and women especially are encouraged to report with the confidence of being heard and believed. In countries with a poorer rate of believing the woman and proceding with charges…. fewer women are inclined to report.

Gun rights are far more discriminatory now than ever before since there is no obligation on those who are qualified to own guns, to protect the vulnerable barred from ownership by age or some kind of infirmity or even foreign citizenship. The fundamental justification for the weapon is to protect me. Me, me, me. Me alone against the world. Maybe my family if I’m so inclined. But why should I care about the vulnerable. Tough for them. Survival of the fittest here.

If gun owners were genuinely concerned for the general welfare, their ‘right to bear arms’ would first and foremost be obligated to national defense of the entire community, not each man for himself.

Are you saying the Mexican militias are fighting the government? Don’t you mean that there are some groups of citizens fighting against other groups of citizens who envisage life in the country differently from themselves? Same with the Kenyan militia. They don’t target government members. They target other citizens. Is that what you are envisioning for the American militia? Civil war.

I really think you should research the likes of Stefan Molyneux more deeply before conforming to his view of society.

You are still here on this thread and making less sense…I can’t believe it.

Let us take a look at the real, honest, scientific proof that should end this anti gun blathering once and for all…the poll of this thread.

Follow along while I dissect the results so far.

As of this post the majority of respondents indicate that they are pro gun and gun owners.
25.11% indicate they are anti gun and do not own a gun.
I do not consider the undecided or the three who claim they are anti gun but own guns. They are either hypocrites of a perfect example of people who should not be allowed access to sharp instruments.

The remarkable figures are the 27.85% who are “Pro gun but do not own a gun” group.
It is my opinion that this group is expressing their positive attitude toward freedom and individual rights. " I don’t own a gun, but I value my right to own one if I choose."

Bear in mind that is is a Catholic forum. I would expect some non - Catholics to be here. Also, this is primarily an American forum but I know there are folks here from non-exceptional countries…even taking this into consideration I find the results, so far, to be conclusive. Americans love their freedoms, and are not interested in giving them up…

 

[Rau]

… I find the results, so far, to be conclusive. Americans love their freedoms, and are not interested in giving them up…

Just a few posts earlier, we learned that Americans are yet to find their freedom. They feel they need to arm themselves in anticipation of the evils (as yet unspecified) of their government one day coming to the fore. How incredibly lacking in hope that sounds.

 

[pnewton]

You are still here on this thread and making less sense…I can’t believe it.

Let us take a look at the real, honest, scientific proof that should end this anti gun blathering once and for all…the poll of this thread.
…even taking this into consideration I find the results, so far, to be conclusive. Americans love their freedoms, and are not interested in giving them up…

I find this the funniest post yet. Our little poll is not only considered as evidence, but proof!

 

[pnewton]

Childish? Not the way I would have worded it, but I wanted to credit the author for the concept. The gun control advocates in the US aren’t pushing for the police to be disarmed, or for their weapons to have the same restrictions as the public.

“Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history”.

Calling police “minions” does nothing but perpetuate the stereotype of avid gun owners as an anarchistic, mentally questionable fringe. Do citizens need to be armed as well as everyone else, perhaps with their own armored divisions and air support? If you can not see the difference, then do not be surprised if you have little success in garnering support. Most gun owners are solid citizens and support both the military and the police. They want the ability to protect themselves against crime, not to be on equal war footing with political “minions”, which by the way are always under the control of democratically elected civilians. Perhaps democracy does not suit you?

 

[styrgwillidar]

I think if you are a genuine devotee of Stefan Molyneux, that speaks for itself. His view of society and humanity is as far from the Catholic/Christian one you can get.

Nope, never heard of him before seeing this quote. But I do agree with the point that argument centers on whether you believe power should be consolidated and under the exclusive purview of the government. Interesting that this was the view of most of dictators throughout history.

You’re joking I assume. There are already hundreds more controls and restrictions applied to police officers than to individual citizens. They have procedures and backup and experts all available to deal with crime in order to minimise carnage and see justice done.

No joke. Review the statistics from the FBI, the study done under the Clinton administration determined guns are used by private citizens 3 times more often to prevent crime than to commit it. A good read is Lott’s “More guns, Less Crime”. Perhaps in your country police are better trained. It fluctuates wildly in the US, many police departments have very minimal requirements for training in the use of firearms. But many jurisdictions, again interstingly enough those with the most onerous regulations in all aspects of life, severly limit the types of weapons available to the general public while placing no restrictions on the police. In fact, it has gotten to the point that the disparity is so great some manufacturers have refused to sell to the state government entities weapons prohibited to the general public.

Your reasoning displays the complete blindspot of an addict of drugs. He believes his drug of choice is doing him more good than harm because it brings relief to his ills. He completely denies that his ills are being brought on by the use of the drug in the first place. Without the drug in his life, his ills are reduced 10 fold.

Your comment is completely contrary to the actual data. The places with the highest gun violence in the US have the greatest gun restrictions on the public. The places where the restrictions are the least, tend to have the lowest rates of gun violence. However, there’s a lot more to do with in terms of demographics, social structures, breakdown of the family. But restrictions on guns simply make victims more vulnerable.

 

[styrgwillidar]

continued-

The rape statistics have been roundly debunked from the moment they were raised. In Australia we don’t have a category for rape alone… it is all considered as ‘sexual assault’. The crime stats include all sexual assault incidences along a spectrum. Australia has a good record of charging and prosecuting for sexual assault and women especially are encouraged to report with the confidence of being heard and believed. In countries with a poorer rate of believing the woman and proceding with charges…. fewer women are inclined to report.

ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

My apologies for mixing sexual assault with rape. However, the fact is according to data from the Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research:

" Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault – Australia’s equivalent term for rape – increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States – where no gun-ban exists – both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

•Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
•During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault – Australia’s equivalent term for rape – increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
•At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
•Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women."

Gun rights are far more discriminatory now than ever before since there is no obligation on those who are qualified to own guns, to protect the vulnerable barred from ownership by age or some kind of infirmity or even foreign citizenship. The fundamental justification for the weapon is to protect me. Me, me, me. Me alone against the world. Maybe my family if I’m so inclined. But why should I care about the vulnerable. Tough for them. Survival of the fittest here.

Well, legally someone carrying a gun isn’t a law enforcement person and doesn’t have powers of arrest, or the training on criminal procedures as you noted above. Would you propose they do? That they should be required to protect others and act like policemen? Who, as noted previously, at least in the US, are not legally obligated to protect an individual. I know when I’m being attacked, or someone close to me but I certainly don’t know what is going on in a situation I stumbled upon- who’s attacking who? I do have to comply with the law.

Think of it like insurance. A preparation for a low probablity but catastrophic event. I have fire insurance, property insurance, life insurance, fire extinguishers, escape ladder, motorcycle safety equipment, car insurance, etc. etc. etc.

I don’t want my home to burn, my car to crash, to come off the motorcycle at speed, die, have my stuff stolen. But those are all reasonable precautions to take.

If gun owners were genuinely concerned for the general welfare, their ‘right to bear arms’ would first and foremost be obligated to national defense of the entire community, not each man for himself.

Agreed. Our founding fathers certainly would agree. Provide for the common defense, the threat of government tryanny. Yet you discount that possibility despite all of human history where it has in fact occurred. Last centruy to the tune of between 170 to 300 million people (depending on who you read/believe) killed by their own governments. Something you seem to discount.

Are you saying the Mexican militias are fighting the government? Don’t you mean that there are some groups of citizens fighting against other groups of citizens who envisage life in the country differently from themselves? Same with the Kenyan militia. They don’t target government members. They target other citizens. Is that what you are envisioning for the American militia? Civil war.

No, I clearly indicated they are fighting the cartels. Fellow citizens, yet their actions are illegal, they legally are stripped of the means of self-defense. The well-intended gun control laws of Mexico made them defenseless, those laws made them more vulnerable, they did nothing to protect them. Similarly in Kenya, the well intended gun laws strip the people of the means of defenese, they made them more vulnerable to having their daughters kidnapped. To being slaughtered watching the World Cup. The gun control laws made it easier for them to be victimized and did nothing to protect them.

I really think you should research the likes of Stefan Molyneux more deeply before conforming to his view of society.

I will look into him, as I said, I’ve only seen this quote and believe although poorly worded its a valid point.

I’m not an anarchist, I’m not anti-government, or anti-police. I have many friends and relatives in law enforcement. I do see the government as a necessary evil- we do have to organize under some structure and agree to rules of behavior and order. Any society is going to have some restrictions on conduct/freedom. A consequence of living in a group.

.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Incredible - I had no idea this was the thinking behind arming the people.

But if so, why are the guns not used to stop the aborters and the government that enables them? Is that not sufficient evil? One wonders what would be sufficient? An increase in tax perhaps?

Do you think it is sufficient evil? Do you think the political avenues have been exhausted to affect change? Do you believe that initiating a civil war over abortion would be reasonable, or even effective in achieving the goal? Are you advocating the violent over throw of the government?

The idea that says you control your Government through the possession of weapons is extraordinary. It anticipates the destruction of your society and prepares for it. And it pays a high price for that preparation. I can understand now the need for multiple guns, ammo stores under the house and for increasingly powerful weaponry to be amassed. The Government too has a lot of guns.

It certainly does make a government think twice. A complicating factor, which must be considered. Its notable that here in the US, those states with the most onerous regulations on business, environmental regulations, food restrictions and labeling, the highest taxes, etc. etc. also happen to be those with the most severe restrictions on firearms.

What it anticipates is that US citizens and their politicians will be no better and no worse than the rest of humanity which has come before us, exists with us, and will continue after us. It acknowledges the reality of things like Germany and the holocaust, Cambodia’s killing fields, the Soviets mass starvation to enforce collectivization, the Chinese killing of their folks in the Great Leap Forward, and during the Cultural Revolution.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just a few posts earlier, we learned that Americans are yet to find their freedom. They feel they need to arm themselves in anticipation of the evils (as yet unspecified) of their government one day coming to the fore. How incredibly lacking in hope that sounds.

Americans do not have a need to arm themselves…they have a right to keep and bear arms.

Taking our little poll as “gospel”, we see that over 25% of respondents do not own a gun and don’t want anyone to have one. Americans are free to own a gun or not.

After we won our independence in a bloody revolution we established the best government ever. We decided to protect our right to keep and bear arms …just in case.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I find this the funniest post yet. Our little poll is not only considered as evidence, but proof!

Come on now, Pnewt, you know very well if this poll was going the other way, a bunch of forum members would be declaring it to be rock solid, scientific PROOF that guns should be confiscated and destroyed.

 

[nmgauss]

I think this issue is better understood from a probability standpoint.
What is the probability that the U. S. Government is going get the National Guard or Army to attack its own citizens on a mass scale? Also, what is the probability that there will be a civil war? If it is next to zero, does it really make sense to arm ourselves against such an eventuality?

How can we reduce the probability of being killed by gunfire? Reducing the number of guns in circulation is a viable option. The vast majority of homicides by gunfire in U.S. urban centers is precisely where there are the most guns. We hardly ever see news headlines blare out at us at the large number of gunfire fatalities in South Chicago or Oakland, CA. But one school or theater or shopping mall gunfire fatality is blown all out of proportion to its significance. The very low probability that your loved one will be shot while in school is forgotten in light of the sensationalist stories the news media throws at us. But increasing the total number of guns is what many people are opting for in the belief that this will be better for society. And we feel that more guns is going help South Chicago & Oakland.

Insisting that just because the Second amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees one’s right to bear arms, that it is OK to carry concealed guns:
Everyone knows that rifles, pistols, and shotguns are “arms,” but what about other weapons like clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction?1 Although this question sounds silly at first, Larry Arnn of the Claremont Institute once remarked that if the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons.2 Some scholars think this kind of reading of the Second Amendment means that “individuals may keep and bear … whatever ‘arms’ they desire.”3 So does our Constitution recognize your neighbor’s right to park a brand new M-1 Abrams main battle tank in his driveway? Should we permit gun shops to hold tent sales offering great low prices on military-grade flamethrowers and nerve-gas-tipped artillery shells? Must the U.S. Government allow you to carry a “suitcase nuke” to avoid violating your fundamental Constitutional rights, even if you might trip while carrying it and level a city block?

 

[styrgwillidar]

I think this issue is better understood from a probability standpoint.
What is the probability that the U. S. Government is going get the National Guard or Army to attack its own citizens on a mass scale? Also, what is the probability that there will be a civil war? If it is next to zero, does it really make sense to arm ourselves against such an eventuality?​

Insisting that just because the Second amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees one’s right to bear arms, that it is OK to carry concealed guns:
Everyone knows …COLOR]

If you’re interested you can read the dicta in the Heller and McDonald rulings. They centered on understanding the right as the founding fathers understood it, first starting with what right the colonsists had under English rule which the constitution was asserting would not be infringed on by the new government. It was a right which pre-existed the constitution based on an English citizen’s (well, protestants not Catholics. …) right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and in opposition to tyranny by the crown. Therefore, the court concluded it centered on weapons available to and in common use by the infantry/militaman. Now, there was civilian ownership of cannon, in fact privately owned ships were well armed. Interesting bit in the orals on Heller when the Solicitor General for the US (Clement) arguing in support of the DC ban indicated he would have a hard time justifiyng banning the machine gun due to it being the most commonly availbale infantry weapon used by the National Guard/Army. Note the court rejected the notion that the right is dependent on milita service or a state/government organization since the right was being protected for ‘the people’ seperately from the government. The Solicitor General commented that the lower court had referred to rights being independent of technology, the founding fathers (Jefferson, Franklin, Washington…etc.) were all educated men who understood the march of progress. The court had referred to modern handguns being lineal descendants of the colonial era pistol. Just as the 4th amendment applies to searches using technology unknown to the founding fathers like thermal imagery, the second protects modern equivalents to colonial era weapons. (By the way, up until the 1960s you could own a flame thrower, a rocket launcer, an anti-tank gun. But than the civil rights movement happened and the riots by African-Americans, the Black Panthers and congress enacted legislation …)

In your discussion of probablity you neglect consequences. In making a risk decision I have to ask two questions:

1. What could go wrong?
2. How bad will the results be if it goes wrong?

(again, for the disarmed citizens of the last century the cost was far greater than that lost to criminals. But it could never, ever happen again because we are superior human beings to those folks. I say history proves the probability is not zero and the consequences can be catastrophic)

Very, very low odds of my house catching fire and burning down. But its catastrophic if it occurs. Property insurance is a reasonable precaution. Its a sunk cost, I receive no benefit if the negative event doesn’t occur. You can analyze any negative event that way— its not just the odds, its the stakes.

So, I can and in fact do agree that the probability of the US government ‘attacking’ or oppressing its citizens is small currently. But events have occurred including abuse of government power recently that were unimaginable to me four decades ago. But what are the stakes? How bad could it be? What can be done to prevent it? A well armed population acts as a deterrent to that type of conduct by the government. Its definitely a complicating factor-- hence the history in the US of the government disarming blacks in the south to ensure they could be intimidated and controlled. The founding fathers envisioned the public as always being capable of armed rebellion—to keep the necessity for it from occurring in the first place. A damper on the ambitions of those in power.

Disarming the public makes them vulnerable to the depredations of both the government and criminals. Disarming the law abiding public in Chicago has the consequences of making them vulnerable to the criminals. It doesn’t protect them. Chicago doesn’t have a relatively high number of guns. In fact its quite the opposite-- there are far fewer guns in Chicago then most places in the US. The issue is the folks who have them and the folks who don’t. As well as the demographics and breakdown of the family and gang activity-- most of the violence is gang-related. Criminals have them, and until very, very, recently the law abiding couldn’t. Many places with far more guns in the US have far lower crime rates. Interesting thing about shall-issue concealed cary noted by Lott, overall crime doesn’t necessarily drop as legal ownership and carry of guns increase. Violent crime decreases while property crime often increases. More car theft, more break-ins of cars, more burglaries of unoccupied dwellings.

 

[Rau]

Americans do not have a need to arm themselves…they have a right to keep and bear arms.

Taking our little poll as “gospel”, we see that over 25% of respondents do not own a gun and don’t want anyone to have one. Americans are free to own a gun or not.

After we won our independence in a bloody revolution we established the best government ever. We decided to protect our right to keep and bear arms …just in case.

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

 

[Rau]

styrgwillidar:
You advocate for an armed society to use against the Government. So better if you tell us the scenarios that would see you in the USA rise up. I accept your statements that a law permitting murder of millions of helpless is not such a scenario. I’m not sure how you’d react to a tax rise or other government actions that threaten you or others

 

[styrgwillidar]

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

The absence of freedom would be indicated by the inability to choose.

 

[Rau]

I think this issue is better understood from a probability standpoint.
What is the probability that the U. S. Government is going get the National Guard or Army to attack its own citizens on a mass scale? Also, what is the probability that there will be a civil war? If it is next to zero, does it really make sense to arm ourselves against such an eventuality?

An invasion from space also needs to be considered! About the same probability as the US government turning its guns on you’all.

It makes a lot of sense for some folks who quite like the idea of shooting a gun!

 

[Rau]

The absence of freedom would be indicated by the inability to choose.

Look again at the choice you make, and the reason. You’re not going skeet shooting! Look at the bigger picture.

 

[styrgwillidar]

You advocate for an armed society to use against the Government. So better if you tell us the scenarios that would see you in the USA rise up. I accept your statements that a law permitting murder of millions of helpless is not such a scenario. I’m not sure how you’d react to a tax rise or other government actions that threaten you or others

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.

The nice thing about the US is there are 50 states. And we’re free to move among them, if I disagree with the tax rate where I live-- I’m free to move to somewhere more to my liking. The tax rates where I live are very high compared to the rest of the US— but— they were voted on. The majority of the folks here either voted directly for the taxes or the representatives who imposed them. I can’t really accuse the government of oppression of ignoring the will of the people if they’re supported by the majority of folks willing to vote.

What would it take? I honestly don’t know. Would I have been any better than the typical German in WWII seeing my neighbors marched away? In retrospect that would seem to be a case to rise up. The government forcibly removing people from their homes, confiscating their property, marching them into camps. Would I have been willing to interfere in the Soviet Union, when the government withheld services and support, forcing starvation upon millions?

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.

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.

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. I think there is still much that can be done politically. Again, the fact there are 50 states and we can see how different policies actually work out helps. We can see the states which are failing and why, turn away from those policies.

This will be my last post here for a while. Thanks for your time and discussion, I’ll wrap up by getting back to the point which initially intrigued me-

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.

God bless each and every one…