Security Analyst anti-gun?

[Cruentus]

Andrew...

In my opinion, governments should only serve one function: Protection. However, protection spans over a lot of ground.

Governments are there to keep us safe via the services provided (court system, police and fire dept., military, etc.). In some cases, such as with health care and wage slavery, I feel that our U.S. government is falling short here.

They are to protect our individual rights. In some cases, all governments fall short of this as well.

You have to understand the nature of individual rights before you make a ridicules statement like "What about public sex acts...is that fascist?"

Individual rights only go as far as not infringing on the rights of others, or endangering others.

So, drunkeness, or even drug use (for example), if done in private should not be illegal. But, if you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk or high, then you are endangering others. The arguement behind making drugs illegal is that drug use leads to other behaviors that are infringements on others rights and safety. I don't fully agree with the arguement, but that is what currently justifies making harmful drugs illegal.

People have the rights to be in public without forecably being exposed to behavior that is generally considered indecent or offensive. This is why things like public nudity, or public disturbance for that matter, is illegal.

The rights to carry a gun in public does not fall into the category of infringing on the rights of others. If I am trained and comply with firearm safety standards (and the permit or LE credentials are there to prove this) and I am not displaying my firearm in a threatning manner, then I am not infringing on anyones rights or jeoprodizing the safety of others. Actually, it is statistically, logically, and anecdotally proven that by having the rights to carry and doing so, I actually am helping to increase the safety of others by being a deterent to crime if it occurs in my pressance.

Paul

 

[Flatlander]

Some of those are illegal for moral reasons... Does the government have any right to dictate morals? I'd say that is a bigger issue then allowing you to carry a gun..

Some are for public safety, and that is where guns fall under.

Here, it would need to be demonstrated that there is a corresponding reduction in violent crime with the restriction of firearms. Is this the case?

 

[Cruentus]

I think the line is fine where it currently is.....

For the most part I agree, but I would tweak some of the rules.

One thing I would like to see is looser requirements for a fedaral carry license. I just don't feel that one should lose their rights to self-defense because they crossed state lines.

I also don't agree with the "you can't carry in a bar or tavern" rule that many states have. I think that you shouldn't be allowed to carry if your blood alcahol content is over a legal limit, like with driving a car, rather then limiting it to what establishment you are in.

So, there are parts that I would like to see tweaked in general, but that is just my personal feelings on that...

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

Here, it would need to be demonstrated that there is a corresponding reduction in violent crime with the restriction of firearms. Is this the case?

No...and in fact the opposite has been proven a number of times.

And, as to whether the government should dictate morality that Andrew brought up....I would say that no, that should NEVER be the role of government any more then dictating religion or beliefs.

 

[Andrew Green]

People have the rights to be in public without forecably being exposed to behavior that is generally considered indecent or offensive. This is why things like public nudity, or public disturbance for that matter, is illegal.

So a chicken and the egg thing. Was it indecent or offensive and then made illegal, or made illegal and then determined to be indecent or offensive?

Go to some Middle East countries and a woman showing her face is indecent and offensive. So I assume you would argue that a law againt that is just?

In countries where carrying a gun in public is not legal chances are there will be a good many people that would find it offensive if someone was carrying one.

Actually, it is statistically, logically, and anecdotally proven that by having the rights to carry and doing so, I actually am helping to increase the safety of others by being a deterent to crime if it occurs in my pressance.

It can also be logically, statistically and anecdotally proven that guns increase violence and accidental deaths. One of the wonders of Statistics is that you can proove just about anything if you look in the right places.

Guns are a cultural thing in the US. The rest of us do just fine without them, and most of us feel no reason at all to allow them. We also have no problem training in martial arts and fitting the two together.

 

[Cruentus]

First of all, no it cannot be logically or statistically proven that allowing private citizens to carry increases violence; and if you disagree, then prove logically and statistally. You will find this a lost cause.

As to your arguement that it is "offensive" to some that one might carry a gun...your reaching to carry an analogy over that doesn't apply at all to gun control, and everyone knows it.

Lastly, I think that it is great that other people do fine without carrying a firearm. Yet, the fact still remains that having that choice and being forced into that choice is the difference between freedom and fascism.

Paul

 

[47MartialMan]

Of course, you're quite right about the definition of "arms." We all should be allowed machine guns-I want my Thompson!):supcool:

I have mine!
Really-

Why not-the bad guys get and use their illegally.

So when they officials come to take theirs aways, they will allow me to keep mine. Thats the right I want-to be armed as the bad guys and legal

 

[Jerry]

Tulisan,

1. I appriciate your position, but that's not in the definition of the word fascist.

2. I still cannot agree... though we risk getting into a bunch of "what-ifs" ranging from a very close-range encounter with one opponent where a tazer would be as effective as a firearm for personal defense, to a guy trying to snipe you where the fact that we don't allow you to drive APCs is taking away your best defense.

To make a potentially horrible analogy: a firearm is a 5-year-old's best defense against most everything. Would handing them out in school be productive or counter-productive?

3. This is the crux of what I'm discussing. I believe you and I draw the line at a similar point... the woman you are discussing draws it somewhere else. It's not that she is limitiing and you are not, it's that you two have put the cut-off points in different spots.

4. Obviously, if you've niglected a tool of your job, while on you job, and that had negative consequences; then the guilt is justified. I've not meant to imply it would be un-understandable in any case.

5. Perhaps poor wording on my part. "Pacifist" comes to mind. Nor did I mean to imply that people who disavowed or didn't carry firearms were pacifists. I meerely stated that pacifisim (an unwillingness to hurt others, even at cost to yourself) would be a valid ground on which to be opposed to carrying a firearm, while still being concerned about other aspects and methods of self-defense.

I don't think they are inclusive or exclusive.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

In my opinion, governments should only serve one function: Protection. However, protection spans over a lot of ground.

Sounds almost exactly like the beginning of a rant I've given more than one person. You and I agree, it sounds, on the purpose of civil authority.

 

[Andrew Green]

First of all, no it cannot be logically or statistically proven that allowing private citizens to carry increases violence; and if you disagree, then prove logically and statistally. You will find this a lost cause.

Look outside the US for studies.

As to your arguement that it is "offensive" to some that one might carry a gun...your reaching to carry an analogy over that doesn't apply at all to gun control, and everyone knows it.

In the US, and to you no it doesn't. But opinions on gun control in the US are rather "unique".

Lastly, I think that it is great that other people do fine without carrying a firearm. Yet, the fact still remains that having that choice and being forced into that choice is the difference between freedom and fascism.

And I think that is trying to associate something (gun control) with something that is considered "evil" (fascism) in order to make the first thing also look evil.

Gun control is pretty standard in modern countries, with the exception of the US. Many of which go a good deal further left on that spectrum then the US, and Fascism is a extreme right stand point.

 

[Knarfan]

Look outside the US for studies.


In the US, and to you no it doesn't. But opinions on gun control in the US are rather "unique".

There is alot that is rather "unique" about the US .

Another point that your missing is the people that are going to be taken advantage of & vitimized are the vulnerable . Woman , children , the elderly . It happens all the time in this country the US ! Check the stats . These attacks don't happen because Paul has a lisense to carry a gun ! They happen because for every thousand decent people out there there is one a scum bag ready to victimize the vulnerable ! If we didn't have firearms it would be another weapon . Like a box cutter on an airplane ! Remember we open our gates to the rest of the world . People come to the US for FREEDEM ! Being conditioned to think like a victim isn't going to save innocent peoples lives . Thats why most of the people attacked lose ! CHECK THE STATS ! If you want to use all your stats for your arguments put them all on the table . It is a differant situation here !

 

[dearnis.com]

Wow...thread drift.

Paul, just enjoy the free entertainment that will come with weeks of tormenting her.

 

[Knarfan]

Wow...thread drift.

:idunno: :mp5::whip:

 

[Cruentus]

Jerry:

You are incorrect about my assessment not encompassing the definition of fascism. From YOUR source, read the bold:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

If the government is going to take away someones rights to self-defense via gun control for the collective good, especially due to an anti-gun ideology, that is putting "the nation" above the individual. It is inherently fascist.

Now, although marriam-webster is a a great source, obviously it is not going to get in depth as to what fascism really is. But, one can see how even in its most simplistic definition, taking away the rights of the individual due to an ideology of the masses is encompassed by the definition.

But, if one looks deeper into the nature of fascism vs. the democratic-republic that the U.S. is supposed to be, beyond the simplistic definitions, one would find that a major component of what the U.S. was founded on is protection of the minority over the majority, and the protection of individual rights from the masses. And, one would find that a major component of fascism is the stripping of individual rights for some sort of "collective good".

That's all for now!

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

Wow...thread drift.

Paul, just enjoy the free entertainment that will come with weeks of tormenting her.

Oh...I am. And...I can't wait until she trys to have this debate with me!! :rofl:

 

[Jerry]

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Firstly, the conjunctive "and" makes both a requirement. Secondly, I don't believe gun control qualifies as exalting a nation above an individual.

Firstly, you are arbitrarily assuming what "right" is. "Gun ownership" is only a right because someone said it is, and driving is not a right because the preverbial someone hasn't said so. Removing someone's right to own a handgun, drive on a road, sell crack to their neighbor, walk on whose-ever property they please, or exclude people from walking on their property could be put in the same post.

The government is not headed by a dictitorial leader, there is no severe socal or economic regimentation inhereint in gun control, and there is no supression of the opposition (your assistant was not planning on rounding up and executing the NRA was she?). This is, therefore, not facist in any sense of the word. You are merely using prejudicial language and I can't same I'm pleased the negative light that casts on those of us who are pro-firearm.

But, if one looks deeper into the nature of fascism vs. the democratic-republic that the U.S. is supposed to be, beyond the simplistic definitions, one would find that a major component of what the U.S. was founded on is protection of the minority over the majority, and the protection of individual rights from the masses. And, one would find that a major component of fascism is the stripping of individual rights for some sort of "collective good".

You mean like "gathering taxes" takes away your right to the produce of your labors, or conscription takes away your liberty, or any of the many other activities I listed above?

You said that the purpose of law was protection... that was what it should serve. Those who are anti-gun believe that the removal of firearms will server the public good and protect people (a case can indeed be made for this, though I find the counter-case more compelling).

Finally, you again use prejudicial language. An elected congress passing anti-firearm legislation is indeed the proper functioning of a democratic-republic. How dare you use such rhetoric as calling it otherwise!

If you want to know what reaks of the beginnings of facisism to me, it's someone taking a simple debate of whether control of a product should be proscribed or not, and covering his side in the American flag, calling anyone with a different view "facist" and himself "democratic". THAT is equivelant to nationalism, and THAT is how actual factism starts!!!

 

[Cruentus]

For the sake of time...I am replying by breaking your post up. I hate doing that though...so I apologize in advance...

Firstly, the conjunctive "and" makes both a requirement. Secondly, I don't believe gun control qualifies as exalting a nation above an individual.

You are talking about a political ideology that encompasses MANY things that a simplistic dictionary definition cannot cover. Being an advocate for nationalized gun control or banning is inherently fascist; that doesn't make the person advocating the idea or the government system fascist, just the idea.

That said, we disagree in that I believe gun control is exalting a nation above an individual as I have previously (in other replies) described.

Firstly, you are arbitrarily assuming what "right" is. "Gun ownership" is only a right because someone said it is, and driving is not a right because the preverbial someone hasn't said so. Removing someone's right to own a handgun, drive on a road, sell crack to their neighbor, walk on whose-ever property they please, or exclude people from walking on their property could be put in the same post.

Considering that I am really coming from a libertarian viewpoint, I believe that people should have the rights to do whatever they please, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights or safety of others. Getting behind the wheel of a car is a safety issue, just as carrying a gun is. That is why we have liscensng standards that require training for both. However, to ban gun carry is just as irresponsable and an infringement to our rights as it would be to ban driving because "driving is dangerous."

The government is not headed by a dictitorial leader, there is no severe socal or economic regimentation inhereint in gun control, and there is no supression of the opposition (your assistant was not planning on rounding up and executing the NRA was she?). This is, therefore, not facist in any sense of the word. You are merely using prejudicial language and I can't same I'm pleased the negative light that casts on those of us who are pro-firearm.

Please....

Don't try to paint a negative picture of me. I have been nothing but civil in this conversation, so don't try to pretend that I am representing gun owners in a negative light. To insinuate that is insulting.

I never said that she was a fascist, or that you are a fascist, or that people who advocate gun control are facsists. I did not call anyone a name, nor was I "prejudicial" towards anyone.

I simply stated that outlawing the right to carry is a fascist idea. It is when you look at the simplistic definition, it is moreso when you look at the ideal in its complexity, and it is when you look at hisorical examples of fascist or nationalist regimes. Most (if not all) have banned weapons as a means to control the populus.

You mean like "gathering taxes" takes away your right to the produce of your labors, or conscription takes away your liberty, or any of the many other activities I listed above?

You said that the purpose of law was protection... that was what it should serve. Those who are anti-gun believe that the removal of firearms will server the public good and protect people (a case can indeed be made for this, though I find the counter-case more compelling).

Finally, you again use prejudicial language. An elected congress passing anti-firearm legislation is indeed the proper functioning of a democratic-republic. How dare you use such rhetoric as calling it otherwise!

If you want to know what reaks of the beginnings of facisism to me, it's someone taking a simple debate of whether control of a product should be proscribed or not, and covering his side in the American flag, calling anyone with a different view "facist" and himself "democratic". THAT is equivelant to nationalism, and THAT is how actual factism starts!!!

Well, I am sorry that the whole idea pisses you off. Sometimes, the truth, or losing in a debate pisses people off, yet there is not a whole lot I can do about that. But I say again, I haven't called anyone anything, as I explained previously. You insinuating that I have, and insinuating that I have been somehow prejeduce to others is insulting to me.

As far as gathering taxes are concerned, or doing certian things for the "public good," I am not so libertarian (and this is where I often get into debates with libertarians) where I believe that we shouldn't have taxes or public services or yadayadayada. I realize that as humans we are social beings, and that we don't live in a vacuum. There are some things that we need to do "Collectively" to ensure our rights and safety, and taxes pay for those things.

I don't believe that "gun control" is one of those things. There is no proof, or even compelling arguement that I can see that states that by controlling our right to carry a weapon, we make society safer. If one has a compelling arguement, then I say present it to me instead of getting upset because I called an idea what it is....fascist.

And...as far as "democratic-republic" goes, the U.S. isn't supposed to be just a democratic-republic. We wouldn't need our constitution or our bill of rights if we were to go with whatever the most rich and powerful, or the masses dictates to our elected officials. We are also supposed to be protecting our individual rights, regardless of what the majority thinks.

lastly, as to your last paragraph...come on dude....that's just silly and nonsensicle bantering, and I know you're a way better then that.

Paul

P.S. I am logging off and running my region now until the end of the day....and with a firearm seminar this weekend, I may not be able to reply timely. Just be advised... :asian:

 

[Jerry]

You are talking about a political ideology that encompasses MANY things that a simplistic dictionary definition cannot cover.

While I can certainly think of terms with more detailed specific meanings than one generally finds in a dictionary, you've given me no reason to accept that your defintion, which you have not enumerated specifically, and which does not fall into the correct meaning of the English word as I've managed to ascertain, should be accepted.

Further, "it's fascist" has no probative value... it's a purely prejudicial remark intended to inflame an emotional response rather than argue a real issue.

Considering that I am really coming from a libertarian viewpoint, I believe that people should have the rights to do whatever they please, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights or safety of others. Getting behind the wheel of a car is a safety issue, just as carrying a gun is. That is why we have liscensng standards that require training for both. However, to ban gun carry is just as irresponsable and an infringement to our rights as it would be to ban driving because "driving is dangerous."

One could make the same argument for owing live small-pox bacteria. Just because one person may wish to release it in mass, killing millions, is no reason to deny the public posession of it.

I would say extreme libertarianism, like most other extreme or fundamentalist viewpoints, is inherently both flawed and dangerous. I really like laws which include words like "reasonable".

Don't try to paint a negative picture of me. I have been nothing but civil in this conversation, so don't try to pretend that I am representing gun owners in a negative light. To insinuate that is insulting.

Insinuation would be passive/aggressive. I had/have a beef and stated it directly. There was no insinuation.

I never said that she was a fascist, or that you are a fascist, or that people who advocate gun control are facsists. I did not call anyone a name, nor was I "prejudicial" towards anyone.

Speaking of dictionary definitions, you may want to google a few websites on debate and find out what a "prejudicial language fallacy" is. When you tied your argument with words which have no probative value to the topic, and yet carry an emotional weight, you created one. In this specific case, you called gun control both "fascist" and not indicitive of "a democratic-republic".

These two clames really make no argument over whether a position on firearms control is or is not antithetical to any study of combative arts... which I believe is the topic at hand.

I simply stated that outlawing the right to carry is a fascist idea. It is when you look at the simplistic definition, it is moreso when you look at the ideal in its complexity, and it is when you look at hisorical examples of fascist or nationalist regimes. Most (if not all) have banned weapons as a means to control the populus.

If we are discussing weapons, *all* governemnts have denied their populations access to some weapons while allowing others.

Speaking more specifically on firearms, most non-fascist countries have banned or severely restricted the posession of fireams as well, so your implied causal relation is not actually there. I could point to Engliand, Canada, Australia, and a score of other countries and say that firearms bans were republican, but it would be equally false.

Similarly, the city in Arizona which banned firearms is no more or less fascist than Kennisaw which requires them. California is not more fascist than Florida, and

Covnersely, Saddam's Iraq had very lax gun laws, the government being known to have actually distributed firearms to civillians... I believe (not sure) that the Taliban was also very pro-gun.

In short, and though you may not agree, your tying of firearms control to fascism is entirely unwarranted.

I don't believe that "gun control" is one of those things. There is no proof, or even compelling arguement that I can see that states that by controlling our right to carry a weapon, we make society safer.

While I believe in some level of firearms control, I'm very much in the "pro-firearms" group. I don't think that there is a compelling argument for stringent firearms restriction in the US. That is not and never has been my point.

And...as far as "democratic-republic" goes, the U.S. isn't supposed to be just a democratic-republic. We wouldn't need our constitution or our bill of rights if we were to go with whatever the most rich and powerful, or the masses dictates to our elected officials. We are also supposed to be protecting our individual rights, regardless of what the majority thinks.

I'm not clear that there is a "supposed to" inherent to the deomcratic-republican system... and which rights we are supposed to be protecting is the central issue of gun-control laws.

*My* point is that being in favor of firearms control is a legetimate position, which can be entierly consistant with security work of many types. I don't think it's the preferred tack, but that's not what the thread was about.

 

[Tgace]

Where is the line between "control" and infringement on our 2nd amendment rights?

 

[TonyM.]

I believe that being in private security work and antigun is a self fulfilling prophesy viewpoint.