What is your opinion on the right to bear arms?

may i ask why you think they should put higher restrictions on hand guns?

Idk. Ask the little boy who’s brother got a hold of his dads gun and shot him.

I hate that people in America have the right to own a dangerous weapon. I know it’s how things go over there (I’m not hating one anyone) but there’s a significant coincidence in the fact that more people die of being shot in America than other countries don’t you think?

yeah i agree with u, it’s kinda scary in US to honk at people too cause u never know the guy in the car might have a RPG or an AK47 and go bezerk.

i don’t like it all because if people didn’t have guns there would be less deaths during a confrontation. thats what i believe it’s better to have people fight with baseball bats and knives than to have them fight with semiautomatic guns and shotguns. this is just what i believe but i am 100% sure it’s not gonna work because of the huge illegal market for guns thats gonna rise if the amendment act were to be abolished. not that thre isn’t on already but its just gonna rise exponentially.

I believe the right to bear arms is very important. People need to be able to protect themselves from bad situations. My dad has guns, and he told me ever since I was little not to go near them, and I didn’t. You have to be a responsible gun owner in order to avoid terrible accidents.

It’s ridiculous :\

I think that the only thing that justifies this right is the thought that ppl will be able to defend themselves against their own government if that is ever necessary.

Other than that, i can spot only downsides… People will have weapons even though they can’t handle them. There will be accidents. People will be careless and have weapons lying around where their children can get them. Or where they can be stolen. Some people will use weapons in fights that would otherwise have ended with someone having a black eye. Criminals will be able to get weapons very easily. People who want to do harm to themselves will have easy access to weapons.

I don’t think that you are safer from criminals if you own a gun. It will only lead to the criminals killing you as soon as you make a false move. If they think that you are unarmed, they will take your moneys and run. Which is bad enough. But better for you than shooting you dead and then taking your cash. You will not be able to draw and ready a gun and kill them faster than they kill you in any such situation. Unless, maybe you have special training as police officers or a soldiers have.

Here, in Canada, we don’t have that privilege. Many people still have guns for the purpose of hunting and each gun is registered, but things like hand pistols are generally only carried by police. Do people still get their hands on illegal weapons? Sure they do … but the difficulty of doing so means less people with unregistered guns. (1994 statistic) Canada had a rate of death by gun at about 4%, compared to the US, which has the highest rate of death at over 14%. Coincidence? Source: http://funadvice.com/r/bjokuss7n50

The statistics don’t lie. Unregulated gun ownership causes far more deaths than people being saved using one in self defense. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in this country are by accidental shootings, or committed by people who know the victim, Many times it is an out of control incident between family, friends or neighbors that lead to a shooting. A shooting that probably would not happen if guns weren’t as easily obtainable as a pair of shoes. It is no coincidence that countries with strict gun control laws have a tiny fraction of the gun deaths that the US has. Up until a few years ago, the Supreme Court had always interpreted the 2nd Amendment as, not referring to individual gun ownership, but referring to the need for state militias. At the time of the constitution, if you were called to serve in a militia, you were expected to report with your own gun. That was the reason for the amendment in the first place. Since we no longer have state militias, the 2nd Amendment should be moot. But the current Supreme Court over reached (as they have many times) in their last decision overturning the DC handgun ban, and reversed over a century worth of precedent. I doubt the founders ever intended to say government can not regulate the type of modern weaponry we have now. No one needs an assault rifle to hunt with…

Much of the motivation for the 2nd amendment was southern states fear that the the new government would not allow them to form armed posies to chase down runaway slaves. For most of the 20th century the supreme court held that the 2nd amendment protected collective and state rights rather than individual ones. Moreover, since most gun laws were state or local the federal constitution didn’t apply. Now that the Supreme Court is packed with conservative ideologues they overturned nearly a century of jurisprudence that held that the 2nd amendment did not guaranty an individual right to bear arms and in DC v Heller decided that it did and the equal protection clause of our constitution invalidated many local statutes. The full impact of this decision will not be known for a while but if the balance of the SC changes it could change course and go back to it’s earlier interpretation. Handguns are rather dangerous and not particularly effective to prevent violent crimes. Privately owned handguns are more likely to kill the owner, a friend or family member than any attacker. If you want a weapon to protect your domicile you are better off with a shotgun and otherwise handguns are more likely to get you into trouble or dangerous situations than they are to get you out.

lets say if the united states did end up making gun ower ship illegal, what are they going to do, take all 90 million guns away? and even if they do take all those guns away there are still a large handful of unregistered guns they will never find. and another thing if they make guns illegal in my opinion it will make violence increase. for example when the government made alcohol illegal witch was prohibition with the use of the 18th amendment, this made crime rise as people tried to import alcohol through the black market. imagine how bad it will get when people start doing this with GUNS. it bad as it is now

I know of no one suggesting we make gun ownership illegal. It just needs to be heavily regulated. The only guns that should be completely illegal are weapons that have no use other than killing a lot of people, like assault rifles. They have no use for sport of self defense. But all guns should be registered, and all gun owners should be licensed.

There is a lot of [ridiculous] hyperbole on display here. Some of it may be supported through cherry picked statistics. For example… gun control advocates include su!cides, shootings in self defense, shootings by law enforcement, along with murder and accidental shootings in an effort to inflate their statistics of gun deaths. According to a 2006 study by the Bureau Of Justice Statistics… over half of American gun deaths are su!cides… 2/3s a combination of su!cide and drug related shootings. Gun control advocates like to inflate the statistics of the child gun death rate by including 18 and 19 year olds in the count who are in the highest demographic for violence of any sort. While this tactic isn’t an outright lie… it isn’t exactly an honest portrayal of the argument. Though judging by some of the incredible comments here… objectivity isn’t particularly high on the list of criteria for commenting.

As far as the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it applied to the states… this was all tied into the absurd position of the Non-Incorporation doctrine that held that the American Bill of Rights could not be applied to the individual states. This selective interpretation completely ignored the will of the framers of the Constitution and the expressed mandate of the Constitution. The argument of the Non-Incorporation adherents is that the Bill of Rights is not binding to the States… in other words… that there are no guaranteed rights. So take the referral to this doctrine with a grain of salt.

I have listed the citations of many of the framers who expressed the purposes for the 2nd amendment at other questions here… to resist tyranny and to ensure the right to self defense.

But really… IDK… ask the millions who were eradicated in genocide following draconian gun control measures when their government’s guns shot them. http://funadvice.com/r/155onkfp8es

What took you so long? Just one comment. Are the only ones to cherry pick stats the gun control advocates? Are the NRA and the gun lobby always honest and forthright? I really don’t care how they categorize the death’s by guns. They still happen. And just because there are a lot of gun deaths that are suic!des does change anything. In fact I think easy access to guns increases the number of suic!des. Yes, people can kill themselves in a myriad of ways, but none as easy as pulling a trigger. This is close to my heart, as I had a nephew kill himself with a gun he bought without any license or registration required. If know if he didn’t have a gun, he would be alive today.

What took me so long? The paucity of decent questions… nothing really piques my interest lately… so I haven’t checked in often. My grandfather was the chief of police in the town I grew up in. He was larger than life. He is the only man I have ever known to be absolutely fearless. Being the chief… he was accustomed to guns. He owned a number of handguns… rifles… shotguns… and even a few assault rifles. All that time on the beat… all those years owning guns… the only person he ever pulled the trigger on was himself… two years ago. I don’t blame the gun… that is irrational. Reality can be cruel. Such is life. I’ve had three friends hang themselves. Two of which I know owned handguns. Most everyone I know own handguns. Yet… aside from self inflicted deaths… I don’t know any who have shot anyone. This notion that people are running around mowing each other down is a fable that those people unfamiliar with gun ownership dream up. The untold millions who died unable to fend for themselves is a nightmare that is all too true and one I would rather not see recur.

I do not think, nor do I know anyone who thinks, “that people are running around mowing each other down”. I don’t blame the gun either. It would be quite futile to lay blame an inanimate object. Just like I don’t blame the car when a drunk driver kills someone. I do lay some blame on those who think that absolutely no gun regulation is necessary, like the NRA, who are really just the propaganda arm for the gun industry. And just as we have laws that regulate driving to make the public safer, we need laws to regulate guns to make the public safer. I am sorry for your losses. I am not suggesting that by regulating guns we are going to eliminate gun violence or suic!des. But they will be reduced, and less people will die. The founders could never have imagined a fully automatic assault weapon, and the killing power it has. I doubt very seriously they thought government should have no right to regulate such weaponry. Far more people die because of a lack of gun control than die when there is restrictions. The stats don’t lie. But I don’t expect you to agree with me. Tell me, is there any type of weapon that you think the government has a right to regulate? Assault rifles? Hand grenades? RPGs? Bazookas? Missile launchers? Where does it end?

I believe the framers of the Constitution envisaged a populace capable of repelling a tyrannical government… as they had just done. To repel such a force would require comparable weaponry. That they could not conceive of future weaponry is irrelevant. The intention is to provide the people the ability to keep an overarching government in check… and that is only accomplished by permitting the people access to weaponry of equal magnitude. The stitches in the argument that you routinely fail to address or even acknowledge… are the massacres that have resulted following the disarming of populations. It’s a blaring cognitive dissonance. I have listed them… but you continue to argue how many fewer deaths there would be if guns were only in the hands of an established authority. This is a thoroughly ignorant argument to make. It stems from a conviction in the benevolence of such authority. History and the prudence of realizations such as “Power corrupts… absolute power corrupts absolutely”… teach us otherwise. What makes you so trusting of authority that you would willingly relinquish any power to resist it? Why do you argue that the unfortunate but relatively few deaths that inevitably result from the free access to weapons outweigh the massacres of millions resulting from their prohibition? This is nonsensical to the point of insane.

We are a unique country in the history of the world. I don’t think your examples of other countries and cultures disarming the populace necessarily apply to us, for various reasons. Call me an idealistic dreamer, but that is how I feel. Comparable weapons? So should people be allowed to own surface to air missiles? Or fighter jets? Or nuclear warheads? In my opinion there is no reasonable way the people could prevail over the power and weaponry of the US military. And certainly the types of weapons most gun owners have would be completely useless. If insurrection becomes necessary, it will not be achieved through the might of arms as we could never compete. We would do far better following in the footsteps of MLK and Gandhi. 300 million people do have power, even if unarmed. That is why the powers that be want to keep us divided and sniping at one another. If the framers meant to allow the populace to be armed against a tyrannical government, why does the Constitution have provisions for the government to deal with acts of treason and rebellion? If rebellion was a right, as you are suggesting, than why would they put something in there to protect the government against such. And nowhere, other than the 2nd amendment, are weapons even mentioned, and in that instance it is clear that it was only referring to the maintenance of a well regulated militia. It is not that I am trusting of authority. I just think that to live every day of our lives in danger due to rampant gun violence (especially in urban areas), just in case we need to take arms against a US military that we have no chance of defeating anyway, is ridiculous. I know that people are dying right now due to the excessive proliferation of guns in this country, and I can not see how we as a people can continue to let that happen with only the flimsiest of excuses that we may need to protect ourselves from the most powerful military in the world at some unknown point in the future. Sorry, but you have not made your case.

Special pleading. It has happened numerous times in the last century… but never again… or if so… nothing we could do about it anyway..? Really?… I would not call this idealism… Idiocy fits better. Insanity has been defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Perhaps you’re not familiar with the Declaration of Independence… here is a quote… “…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.” I’m sure you will try to mince these words too… but you’re only fooling yourself. I’ve made my case… you are unwilling to concede it.

Idiocy? Really? So which is it? Am I an Idiot, or unwilling? Or maybe just an unwilling idiot? You seem to be just as “unwilling” to concede my case. Was MLK an idiot? Was Gandhi an idiot? I am an idiot? You are so ready to grab a gun and join a violent revolution, yet you completely ignore the power of non-violent revolution, which has its own examples in the past century. And still no answer about the types of weapons, if any, that American citizen should not be allowed to own? Are there any at all?

No… you’re right…I don’t know what I was thinking. Those Armenians and Cambodians being marched to their death really should have tried some civil disobedience… if only that thought would have occurred to them… if only you could have been there to set them straight. Makes it that much more tragic in hindsight. I don’t discount the power of civil disobedience. I think that it should be the first course of resistance. I think that it is the natural inclination for the oppressed to at first disobey tyrannical laws. I support those acts of civil disobedience in this country that are occurring now… much more vocally than any other here I would say. To assume that the same massacres couldn’t happen here… if we relinquish the means to forcefully resist… is a case of special pleading. To actually believe this is idiotic… not rooted in reality or backed by precedent.

Please stop calling my beliefs idiotic. We can usually have these discussions with a modicum of respect. Lets keep it that way. I assumed nothing. I merely stated we are unique, and I do not believe something like what happened to the Armenians and Cambodians is not likely to happen here. And if it did, I would try to leave before I would attempt something so futile as trying to fight the most powerful military in the history of the world. Again, you are still avoiding the answer to my questions. Is there any type of weapon that the average citizen should not have access to?

Your argument is irrational. You maintain spurious arguments despite having them pointed out to you. I get that you disagree with me… but simply dismissing my argument because you disagree with it isnt exactly a discussion. It is you incessantly trying to shout me down. I thought that an assumption was taking some presupposed outcome for granted. This is exactly what you have been arguing… though its only semantics… but you like to play that game. I disagree with the futility of taking on the “Greatest Military in History” This can be debated. I would much rather take my chances than to acquiesce to the certainty that results from surrendering my right to resist… for some negligible effect on gun related homicides that isnt exactly supported by the numbers. You made a case of the lifting of the DC handgun ban at your post. Homicides dropped by 25% following the repeal of the ban… though I suppose we should include one extra casualty resulting from the repeal… your stance on prohibition. You ask which weapons the people should be permitted to own… I have answered you… but you seem to be aching for me to say something outlandish so that you can continue in your superficial polemics. A better question… which weapons should have been permitted those millions massacred that thought it would never happen to them? My answer… the weapons that would have kept the most alive.

My argument is only irrational because you disagree with it… See, I can do that too. You are dismissing my arguments just as much as I am dismissing yours. So lets just move on. In my view, just because something happened at another time and place does not mean it can happen here and now. While I admit I could be completely wrong, so might you. And please, I have not shouted you down, nor have I called your arguments idiotic, like you have mine. And I haven’t engaged in biting sarcasm either. The problem with you wanting to take your chances in fighting the US military, is that it leaves the entire populace in more danger right now. All just so you can satisfy a fear of some future event that might never happen. I have not seen the statistics on the drop in homicides in DC. I only see it mentioned on pro-gun websites. I am not disputing it, it is just that I can’t verify it. I did find an ABC report that said there was no change in the crime rate. But homicides are not the only classification for gun related deaths. There are many accidental shootings and suic!des. And there are many shootings that only maim. Talk about cherry picking data. And you have not come close to answering me about the type of guns people should be allowed to own. The only answer given was “comparable weapons”. That is not an answer, that is a duck. Does that include nuclear warheads? You say I am trying get you to give some outlandish answer. If you fear it might sound outlandish, maybe that’s because it is. Yes, I want you to tell me specifically if there is any weapon that a citizen of this country should not be allowed to own? Or should there be absolutely no limits? Do you feel that public safety is not relevant in this discussion?

I call your argument irrational because you maintain logical fallacies… and I provide the specific example of why it is fallacious. It is fallacious because you have engaged in special pleading. You simply disagree with my argument. It may not fit your rationale… but this is not the criteria to judge the legitimacy of a position… if it were then… yeah… we could all call each other’s positions irrational. I may be wrong about the scenario unfolding too. The difference is in the contingency in the unfortunate event it ever happens. It’s called a safeguard. I have one. You don’t. I don’t think it’s prudent to hope it never happens. I disagree with the position that gun rights contribute to increased homicide rates. It’s counterintuitive to believe that a would be assailant is anything but emboldened by the fact that his victim is unable to protect himself. In Kennesaw, Georgia… when the populace were mandated to keep at least one firearm in their home… the assault crime rates dropped about 75% in one year. It dropped more in subsequent years. Homicide rates were practically non-existent. In the 15 year interim from the enactment of the law until the source article… there had only been three murders… two of which were committed by stabbing. I don’t believe a state or town has the right to require a citizen to own a gun… but I think it illustrates the point that gun ownership deters crime. Feel free to be as sarcastic as you want in your replies… if you abstain… that is a self-imposed restriction. I can take it.

You are right, the lack of sarcasm on my part is self-imposed. But I will continue to abstain because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. My arguments being fallacious is just your opinion, not a fact. I disagree with your arguments because it doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe that is because it doesn’t fit my rationale, but the same can be said about your disagreement with me. Trying to tell me you have proven my arguments to be false is non-productive, since both of our arguments are largely based on opinion. And you keep only referring to gun ownership in relation to crime, and completely ignore the accidental and self inflicted shootings, as if they don’t matter. I call regulating gun ownership a safeguard also. One that is going to have an effect right now. Not one that might or might not help for some future event that we don’t know will happen. That is great for Kennesaw, but what if we had that kind of rampant gun ownership in NYC. Do you really think gun violence and death’s would drop? Did the article mention how many accidental shootings there were in Kennesaw, or how many kids got a hold of a gun? And again, you still are avoiding answering my questions about the type of weapons Americans should or should not be allowed to own. Why is that? I will ask it again: can you tell me specifically if there is any weapon that a citizen of this country should not be allowed to own? Or should there be absolutely no limits? Do you feel that public safety is not relevant in this discussion?

Your argument is fallacious because it is based in the logical fallacy known as special pleading. This is the fifth time I have pointed this out. You can deny it all you wish but it will never make it any less true. Let me explain it for you because your inane denial has run its pathological course. Simple concept. Special pleading is an argument that refers to some unspecified unique or “special” attributes that somehow indemnify the premise from being subject to conditions that should otherwise affect it. You referred to some unquantified… unique attributes in the United States that make it exempt from the conditions that plagued the other nations I mentioned. This is special pleading… a logical fallacy. Therefore your argument is fallacious. I can’t explain it any better. You will deny it. This is your modus operandi. Deny those facts presented you as inherently false without giving a reason. Back track from the positions you feel have been compromised. Refuse to concede any point of fact. Which weapons would you have denied those millions massacred? I think public safety is of the utmost importance… which is why I advocate the freedom to exercise gun rights for self defense.

I see being condescending comes easy for you. I understand special pleading, and yes, I deny my argument falls into that category. Do you think your prediction of my denial somehow makes it less valid? It is not special pleading because I have not arbitrarily included or excluded evidence. It is no more special pleading than you saying because it happened in Cambodia, it can happen here. I am not saying it can never happen here, just as you are not saying it will definitely happen here. I just think that the risks of it happening here are less based on our history and system of governance, plus the unique make-up of our populace. And I think that allowing unrestricted proliferation of weapons is a far greater risk to people right now. “Which weapons would you have denied those millions massacred?” That is irrelevant to the question I asked, because I think, as I have already pointed out, attempting to prevail over the US military is futile. Why can’t you answer a direct and rather simple question? Should there be any restrictions whatsoever on the type of weapons Americans are allowed to own? Just a simple yes or no would suffice. Not that I expect you could answer any question with just one word (neither could I BTW).

You’re a hard person to pin down. First you say: “We are a unique country in the history of the world. I don’t think your examples of other countries and cultures disarming the populace necessarily apply to us, for various reasons. Call me an idealistic dreamer, but that is how I feel.” …followed by: “I merely stated we are unique, and I do not believe something like what happened to the Armenians and Cambodians is not likely to happen here.”… then: “In my view, just because something happened at another time and place does not mean it can happen here and now.”… and now: “I understand special pleading, and yes, I deny my argument falls into that category…I am not saying it can never happen here”

Similar to the earlier backtrack when u originally stated: “If know if he didn’t have a gun, he would be alive today.”… and then said: “I don’t blame the gun either. It would be quite futile to lay blame an inanimate object.”

I am not so certain you do understand the concepts of special pleading or backtracking.

First off, I see I have a typo in one of my posts. On the second quote, I did not mean to say “is not likely to happen here”. That made my response a double negative. I meant to say “I merely stated we are unique, and I do not believe something like what happened to the Armenians and Cambodians is likely to happen here.” Not sure if that is why you think I contradicted myself, because other than that, I see nothing inconsistent in what I said. I never once said it is impossible for it to happen here, just that is was unlikely… in my opinion. And that I thought the risk factor in allowing unrestricted gun ownership was much higher than the risk of mass murder by our government and military. What I said about my nephew and not blaming the gun is also consistent if you include my comments in full context. You forgot to include the part where is said: “I do lay some blame on those who think that absolutely no gun regulation is necessary”. I don’t blame the gun, but I do blame the lack of gun regulations. I have been very consistent in this discussion, and have not engaged in fallacies or special pleading and I have not backtracked on anything I said. Now that that is behind us, should there be any restrictions whatsoever on the type of weapons Americans are allowed to own?

my family has owned guns for generations without incident. We have never had burgulars either. I personally love to shoot. I carry a .45 semi-auto most everywhere I go. That is the way it is now, and that is the way it will be when I am gone. My liberal friends and my conservative friends both own guns. This is something that other countries dont understand, and most far-left liberals dont either. My friend Jimahl stated that our government is too big to over throw with an armed militia, because armed militia’s dont have nukes. That is beside the point. Our United States armed forces is made up of individual free-thinking Americans such as myself. I got to get back to class, but I def want to share more on this.

I would have corrected the double negative for you… but I could not be certain it wasn’t intended… though… going by context… it is the only reasonable conclustion to draw. No… I never intended to refer to the double negative as you contradicting your former statement. I intended the plurality of the statements to illustrate your position regarding a tyrannical US government. That this country is immune the condition because it is unique. You wish to dismiss the special pleading charge because you are not firm in your position… by admitting it is an unlikely possibility. I charge you with special pleading because of your reasons why you discount my argument. That you feel the US is “unique.” This is a perfect example of special pleading. How can you not see this? Sure…you haven’t backtracked. Black is white… up is down… war is peace… Whatever… it is pointless to argue.

Jeeez louis. Cant we all just get along. lol. I am a gun owner. You want to take them, take them away from the criminals. That is what we try to do here in Oregon. They get melted down in our state Capital, mean while I get to Keep my .45 acp in my pants while I am at the malll and know one will ever no. Been doingW it for quite a while now. Jimahl, you are under the assumption that if we want to over throw thiis Government that everyone in this government will side with the government and that is simply not true. I am sure it would be split down the middle, and I dont ever want to see that day. We want the same things for the most part. I wish that we used guns to kill game, and that is it. I have had many courses on how to kill another human being with a gun. I have not killed anyone outside of combat, and I hope it stays that way. But if I am ever at a mall, and some wacked out kid thinks he is in a video game, and starts shooting up everyone around him and I am within 100 feet of him he wont get far. I would use it to save the lives of others in a heart beat. Probably not God’s will for me to step in like that. Oops.

Special pleading, as I understand it, refers to something that is introduced to a debate as an exemption to an accepted practice, rule, principle, etc… And that this exemption is not justified, or quantifiable. If I am wrong, I am sure you will correct me. But if that is a proper understanding, your claim (opinion) that the US government/military might start mass murdering its citizenry is certainly not a an accepted nor even probable practice. And my contention that it is not probable, (also just an opinion) is based on our history, since we have never seen anything even remotely close to such actions by our government, and I think that is due to our form of government which makes something like that extremely difficult to occur. The basis of my opinion is not much different than yours, as both are based on historical precedents. So no, it is far from a perfect example. While we are talking about debating tactics, what do you call your tactic of avoiding questions directly asked of you? There have been numerous ones.

“Are the only ones to cherry pick stats the gun control advocates?” “Are the NRA and the gun lobby always honest and forthright?” “Tell me, is there any type of weapon that you think the government has a right to regulate? Assault rifles? Hand grenades? RPGs? Bazookas? Missile launchers? Where does it end?” “So should people be allowed to own surface to air missiles? Or fighter jets? Or nuclear warheads?” “If the framers meant to allow the populace to be armed against a tyrannical government, why does the Constitution have provisions for the government to deal with acts of treason and rebellion? If rebellion was a right, as you are suggesting, than why would they put something in there to protect the government against such.” “And still no answer about the types of weapons, if any, that American citizen should not be allowed to own? Are there any at all?” “Is there any type of weapon that the average citizen should not have access to?” “Yes, I want you to tell me specifically if there is any weapon that a citizen of this country should not be allowed to own? Or should there be absolutely no limits?” “That is great for Kennesaw, but what if we had that kind of rampant gun ownership in NYC. Do you really think gun violence and death’s would drop? Did the article mention how many accidental shootings there were in Kennesaw, or how many kids got a hold of a gun?” “can you tell me specifically if there is any weapon that a citizen of this country should not be allowed to own? Or should there be absolutely no limits?” “Should there be any restrictions whatsoever on the type of weapons Americans are allowed to own?” (asked multiple times).

While some of these are repetitive, it is only because you have refused to answer. A debate should include questioning your opponents claims and opinions, and then having your opponent answer those questions, and then ask his/her own. You asked me very few questions, but when you did, I answered them directly. It seems you would rather engage in pontificating, with out being challenged in what you say. Of all the questions I have asked the only one you actually answered was about the importance of public safety. That is not debating, that is preaching…

Freefromself, you are putting words in my mouth. Please show me where I said that I want to take away your guns? Regulation does not mean prohibition. Also please show me where I made the assumption about who would be on what side in a government overthrow? This is not about you, or me, it is about society and what is best for it. Because you think it is ok in Oregon, does not mean it is good for a place like NYC or LA. I don’t buy the “only criminals will have guns” argument. The statistics do not support it. The number of accidental shootings and shootings resulting from a family or neighbor dispute, are far more numerous than cases where a crime is prevented. In fact many shootings that happen during a crime, leave the victim dead BECAUSE they had a gun. Had they not, the criminal would not have used his gun. Your mall scenario is such a rare occurrence that it is virtually irrelevant. And with proper gun regulation, that whacked out kid would not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.

Your understanding of special pleading is as confused as your comprehension of American history. I’ll make this brief. Trail of Tears… Japanese Internment Camps… Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus. Look them up. Though… this has nothing to do with special pleading. No Idea where you come up with these explanations. You have asked me impossible questions that I don’t know the answer to. “Are the only ones to cherry pick stats the gun control advocates?” “Are the NRA and the gun lobby always honest and forthright” You should have no reasonable expectations for me to answer these… but… look who I am talking to… reason is out the window. You ask me questions that should have been assumed from my position: “That is great for Kennesaw, but what if we had that kind of rampant gun ownership in NYC. Do you really think gun violence and death’s would drop?” Your other questions I have addressed… not to your liking… Your contention that they werent addressed is as frivolous as your contention that you directly responded to all of mine put to you. Your position that the framers of the Constitution included provisions to deal with insurrections was meant to discount my contention that the framers intended the people to have a right to overthrow their leaders when it became necessary for their welfare. I countered this position of yours by citing their expressed intention in the Declaration of Independence. I have also quoted the founders opinions on the right to rebel at other threads we have argued at before. You act like that never happened. Here is one such quote from Jefferson: “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure… God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion… Let them take arms.” I have asked which weapon you would deny the millions massacred. The conclusion I would hope most people would draw from my response is that a stance that prohibits people the means to protect themselves is infinitely more perilous to the people than the threat emanating from someone in possession of a bazooka or missile launcher who owns it or even an arsenal of them with the intention of staving off a rogue tyrannical government. These types of weapons can be acquired on the black market… however. I suppose that expecting you to acknowledge my redress of your recurring question would be to make an assumption not keeping with your unwillingness to acknowledge any probelematic contention you are presented. Anything that pulls the rug out from under your soapbox is a lecture you would rather not hear.

@ Jimahl: I dont mean to try to put words in your mouth, but when you say” semi-auto” or “pistol” I get a little nervous. You will take mine, but mark my words, you will not take them from criminals. This country is bigger than UK. Any ways, it is a moot point. It wont happen, sorry. And I am sorry about your loss.

Do you think the only way to make points in this discussion is through insults? I will ask you again to please keep this civil? You tell me my understanding of special pleading is confused, yet do not tell me where I am wrong? You don’t like the fact that I am refuting your contention that mass murders by other regimes in other countries in the past is absolute proof that it can or will happen here. THAT is you making the case for special pleading. Trail of tears, while a tragedy and crime, occurred 180 years ago. So tell me, since then have we become more aggressive to native Americans, or more tolerant and shameful of our treatment of them? Is it logical or reasonable to assume that such an atrocity against native Americans is possible today? I don’t think so, which only supports my view that government sponsored mass murders are highly unlikely now. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus had at least some basis in constitutional law. And I see nothing in that action that reveals any intention to mass murder people. It was a time of war, and I believe congress slapped him down over it. And Japanese interment was also a tragedy and a crime. It was and is a dark spot on our history, along with slavery, fight for women’s suffrage, and Jim Crow. Do you think there is more or less of a chance of something like that happening today? None of these examples reveal anything to support your contentions that a tyrannical US government will start mass murdering Americans in the near or even distant future. In fact it think it shows how we have learned and grown from such events, thus making them less likely to happen again.

If there is a question you have asked that I didn’t answer, please show me, and I will answer. You say; “You ask me questions that should have been assumed from my position:”. I try to assume nothing. I asked these questions with the expectation of an answer. They were not rhetorical. This was a legitimate question: Do you think rampant gun ownership in NYC will reduce gun deaths? The answer to this is critical to the point at hand. Public safety over the need for self defense over a tyrannical US government. And you have not addressed my specific questions other than with blanket comments like “comparable weapons”. That is not an answer. It is rhetoric. “I have asked which weapon you would deny the millions massacred.” Again, you asked this as an answer to my question. Not to sound childish, but I asked you first. But I will answer this, I would have given all the help that could have been given to save lives. But that is irrelevant to my views on gun ownership, because as I have stated, it is unlikely to happen here (in my opinion). “The conclusion I would hope most people would draw from my response is that a stance that prohibits people the means to protect themselves is infinitely more perilous to the people than the threat emanating from someone in possession of a bazooka or missile launcher who owns it or even an arsenal of them with the intention of staving off a rogue tyrannical government.” Does this mean you think there should be no restrictions on the type of weapons that Americans should be allowed to own? Again, I will assume nothing. It is really a simple yes or no question. “These types of weapons can be acquired on the black market… however.” But they are still illegal. Are you suggesting that Americans should be encouraged to obtain illegal weapons?

As far as the framers are concerned, while the Declaration of Independence is an important document, it is not the basis of our laws. The constitution is, and it is the constitution that forbids rebellion. If the founders intentions were that rebellion would be a right, they would not have included that provision. In fact that is the only time suspension of habeas corpus is permitted, thus Lincoln’s justification. That completely flies in the face of you contention that the founders wanted an armed populace in case rebellion became necessary.

“Anything that pulls the rug out from under your soapbox is a lecture you would rather not hear.”

Wow, are you really suggesting I am the only one on a soapbox? I am more than willing to hear and discuss your views. However, I am not going to listen to a lecture when it is supposed to be a discussion.

Freefromself, as I already stated, regulation does not mean prohibition. All guns are legal to start with. The problems occur when criminals get a hold of them. As long as there is no restrictions on them, criminals will be able to get them as easily as buying a pair of shoes. Thank you for your kind words.

Obviously… you will not acknowledge any points I make. I’ve explicitly explained how your misconception of special pleading is wrong numerous times. You continue to confuse the argument… either intentionally or unwittingly. Neither of these possibilites offer much incentive for me to continue to attempt to address your illogical notions. Suggesting that a conditional is possible is not special pleading. This notion makes me think that you still do not understand what special pleading is. I could endlessly parse the argument into individual tangential veins running in a thousand direstions as you have to attempt to win points when I dismiss any and all points of fact as irrelevant. For example… you make the statement that “…we have never seen anything even remotely close to such actions by our government.” When I offer examples of tyranny… you discount each as irrelevant. First… the historical precedent is set by the actions of other tyrants. Tyranny is a distinct possibility of any form of government… especially those more centralized. Rome became an empire after having been a republic for centuries. Tyranny is that much bigger a threat when the people become less vigilant to thwart it. I think that forfeiting the means to resist tyranny is an open invitation for it. You think that the laws of the people can prevent it from happening even if the teeth to enforce the laws have been relinquished. At least it is somewhat consistent with your belief that criminals will obey gun prohibitions. Your position that it can’t happen here is special pleading. My example of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was in regards to executive tyranny. The executive cannot suspend habeas corpus. I was giving an example of the usurpation of powers by the executive indicative of a tyrant. You are correct that the Constitution provides congress the ability to quell an insurrection. Congress does not have the authority to cede those powers to the executive. I don’t think the power to quell an insurrection is synonymous with a prohibition on the right to revolt. To believe that this clause in the Constitution expresses the intention of the founders that their descendants submit to any abhorrent manifestation the government may take is to ignore their words in the Declaration of Independence… numerous statements they made elsewhere to the contrary… and numerous rights of rebellion clauses in the individual state constitutions. You cannot consider this a discussion when you summarily dismiss everything I say.

“Obviously… you will not acknowledge any points I make.” Right back at ya, bro… “I’ve explicitly explained how your misconception of special pleading is wrong numerous times.” And I have disagreed with your explanation numerous times. “Suggesting that a conditional is possible is not special pleading.” But suggesting that a conditional might not be possible is? C’mon man, you’re just playing a semantics game here. And you keep moving the goal posts. First it is mass murdering of citizens we had to fear, now it is only a government who temporarily denies habeas corpus during a civil war as the reason we need to reduce public safety to the equivalent of the wild wild west.

While neither are desirable, there is a big difference between massive loss of life, and a temporary loss of liberty. Your original examples given for the need to keep ourselves armed were the Armenians and the Cambodians. Not Lincoln.

“Tyranny is a distinct possibility of any form of government… especially those more centralized.”

Maybe, but it doesn’t mean that the only means to fight it is to have to live in constant fear of gun violence, like many do in today’s cities. All just so we can be prepared for some possible future extremely violent tyrannical government coming to power. There has to be a better way. I already suggested one, but you summarily dismissed that as only civil disobedience. I meant to address this earlier, but got sidetracked in the convo. I was not talking about just civil disobedience. I was talking about non-violent revolution. There are many instances where non-violent approaches have worked quite well to oust regimes without bloodshed, or at least with little bloodshed. Most notably India, and more recently the soviet union and eastern block nations. The Philippines in the mid 80s also. And of course our own civil rights movement, which was not really a revolution, but it did address abuses and needed change without taking up arms against the government.

You expect me to accept the idea that a violent tyrannical government coming to power here as a very real possibility. But when I say that I think it is not likely, it is an invalid argument due to special pleading that you have basically created out of whole cloth. I looked up special pleading and found this description on Wikipedia:

“Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.”

What “generally accepted rule, principle, etc.” did you provide that I gave an exemption for. Because if you think the idea that our government could start mass murdering people falls into that category, that is ridiculous. I am not saying it is impossible, but it not a given as you seem to be saying, and as the definition of special pleading calls for.

This is obviously a touchy subject for both of us. So I think we need to just move on, because you will never convince me that the massive proliferation of guns, and the extremely high gun violence we see in this country has any positive side. And I will never convince you that the need for gun control is a real public safety issue, and will save hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions.

Your disagreeing with my explanation doesn’t negate the fact that I offered an explanation… several times. It doesn’t discount my explanation either… to anyone other than you. However… your charge was that I never proffered one. “You tell me my understanding of special pleading is confused, yet do not tell me where I am wrong?” So now… the charge is adapted to fit the facts. “…I have disagreed with your explanation numerous times.” This same bait and switch has been your theme throughout the debate. I’ve given examples of this tactic in previous posts. To help simplify… here is an example of special pleading that is directly analogous to your argument. Cancer is a disease that poses a threat to everyone. When someone argues that they are “UNIQUELY” immune to the disease… this is special pleading… because it is claiming an exception to the accepted rule that cancer can afflict anyone without providing a reason of why they are immune. Their genes are derived from the same source as every other cancer victim’s. That cancer has never afflicted them before is no reason that it can’t in the future. You’re attempting to bend the definition of special pleading to make it somehow conform to your assertion that I have engaged in it. This is why your argument has deteriorated into the absurd. That you take exception to my having pointed out the absurdity belies your inability to own up to your irrational logic. I’m sorry that you cannot deal with it… but that is neither here nor there. We are left with the conclusion that tens of millions of people living under gun prohibition during the 20th century were systematically murdered. You have the unfortunate task of attempting to argue that these tens of millions don’t count… otherwise your argument looks extremely weak. You have given your best shot to do just this… and I have pointed out the flaws in your logic. To maintain that gun rights are a much bigger threat to humanity is a cognitive dissonance in a belief unfounded in anything other than your particular idealism.

“Your disagreeing with my explanation doesn’t negate the fact that I offered an explanation” Never said it did. “It doesn’t discount my explanation either… to anyone other than you.” That is probably true, but only because I am sure no one else but us is paying attention. “Cancer is a disease that poses a threat to everyone. When someone argues that they are “UNIQUELY” immune to the disease… this is special pleading” Finally we can agree on what special pleading is. Now let me show you why I think my argument is not special pleading. Cancer is a disease that poses a threat to everyone. But not equally. Some people through heredity or genetics are more predisposed to it. So if someone claims they are less likely to get cancer because they have no history of it in their family, and have no genetic markers for it. Is that still special pleading? They still can get cancer, but they ARE less likely. So in our argument, you state the Cambodians and Armenians were victims of genocide. And I contend that we as a country are different and less likely to have a government that would commit such atrocities. I subsequently gave you reason why I thought that. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn’t change what I said. I never once used the word immune. Do you now accept I was not engaging in special pleading? Somehow I doubt you will and continue to twist what I said so you can still make your claim. It really just comes down to measuring the risks. You think that having an unarmed citizenry is unacceptable due to the risk of our government becoming tyrannical. I think that having an armed citizenry is far more risky to the entire populace then the spectre of a tyrannical government mass murdering the citizenry. But I am sure you will say I am still wrong. That is all you seem to want from me, to admit my OPINION is wrong.

The thought occurs to me… or occurred… that YOU cannot abide any dissenting opinion. After all… you sought my post out to respond to… I didn’t comment on yours. I have continuously reasserted my same premises. I have defended my original position. Why is it odd that I would seek to defend my position? Do you find it troubling that I don’t roll over and accept your admitted idealistic polity? This must be the case… if not… then why keep this debate going? You don’t believe anyone else will read it… you find my responses abusive… their must be some reason to continue it. Perhaps you’re as hard headed as I am… or moreso… because I have at last succumb to the law of diminshing returns. I see no reason to continue to restate my case. It hasn’t changed. I disagree with parts of your last post… but I won’t get into it. I apologize for taking certain criticisms too far. I take this issue seriously enough that I pull no punches in defending it. Yeah… it comes down to measuring the risks… I hope that any objective observer realizes this… there is no real comparison to make.

While gun policy is often painted as a conservative vs liberal debate it is really metropolitan vs rural. You will notice that most rural liberals are pro-gun while most metropolitan conservatives are pro-gun control. Since Rural folks are more likely to be conservative and metropolitan folks are more likely to be liberal it often looks like a liberal vs conservative but where someone lives or grew up is a better predictor of their position on guns than their political party.

That is perhaps mostly true, except I have some liberal friends here in portland that own handguns, quite a few actually. I think the average non gun toting portlander would be awestruck at how many armed individuals are out there with conceal-carry permits. But you are right, the percentage of gun-owners among rural people is probably higher.

I am not sure what you mean by “abide”. I can accept your differing opinion, but I obviously disagree. It is no different than your not abiding with my dissenting opinion. Look we are both opinionated and on opposites sides of an issue that we are both passionate about, so it is bound to get heated. I have no problem with that, I just don’t like to make it personal. I am not so sure I sought out your post as much as I was just expecting one, given the subject matter. I don’t find it troubling that you disagree with me. I expect it. What I found troubling in this discussion was your descent into this semantics war over debate tactics. It appeared to me that you were more concerned in attempting to paint my argument as invalid on a technicality, rather than the merits of it. You might have avoided a lot of this if you had simply asked me why we were unique, and why it made it less likely, but instead you went into the special pleading argument and then it disintegrated into us just talking past one another. I respect your opinion, whether you think that or not, and I respect intellect, but sometimes you can be a bit condescending and overly sarcastic. But I am far from perfect myself. The bottom line is, what we say here will have little to no effect on anything, so lets not make too much of any of this.