Security Analyst anti-gun?

[Cruentus]

Jerry -

1. I disagree with you regarding fascism. Whether or not you choose to give it merit, I think it has value to examine the methods of fascist regimes that have existed in the past to learn from the methods and behaviors of these regimes, so we don't turn into one of them.

What is inherent in fascism is the stripping away of rights and civil liberties of the people to support some sort of collective good.

And this phenom is inherently present in all forms of fascism. Just because one fascist regime uses a weapons ban to control (such as the Nazi's) and another does not (such as the Taliban), is incidental. They all use the method of stripping away individual rights for a "collective good," and that is what we are talking about here.

This is why we have stuff like "the bill of rights." A democratic-republic is not a perfect system, in that the masses or the wealthy/powerful can influence leaders to make decisions that over-ride the rights of the people. We need to have in mind the rights of the individual when we run our democratic-republic, or we run the risk of becoming a fascist system. As we progress, I see more and more of our civil liberties being stripped from us.

Whether you choose to believe so or not, I believe that the rights to carry a firearm is one of those liberties.

Furthermore, no one cannot make the same arguement for owning small pox bacteria, or owning a nuclear weapon, or any such other ridicules example that gun control advocates often try to bring into the arguement.

The reasoning goes back to WHY someone owns a potentially dangerous thing. For firearms, the reasoning goes back to self-defense. The only thing that will equalize a firearm is another firearm, and since criminals have them, it takes away our rights to self-defense if we don't allow the private citizen to have them. Now, if I claimed that I owned a firearm because I wanted to go kill my friend with it, and I Law Enforcement had probable cause that this was true, I could have my firearm taken away, and I could face charges.

Nuclear weapons, or small pox, are not something that can equalize anything for self-defense.

However, people can own small pox. An individual person would have difficulties justifying WHY they would need it to get authorized. However, currently there are corporations which are considered an individual person under case law and the 14th amendment (which is something I actually disagree with, incidentally, but now it stands), and they are authorized to own the material for the purpose of study.

So, WHY someone owns something, and if that reasoning could be to harm other INDIVIDUALS, comes to play. However, NO ONE IS GOING TO REGISTER THEIR FIREARM, AND GET A CONCEALED PISTOLS LICENSE TO GO CAUSE HARM TO SOMEONE ELSE. If that was their intent, they would simply obtain a pistol illegally, just as most criminals do. This is an important point that many people, for whatever reason, fail to realize.

As to libertarianism, incidentally, I am not an extreme libertarian by any stretch of the means. If we were having a discussion about health care, the environment, or corporate influence on the government, you'd think I was far left from libertarian. I can agree with you that an extremist view usually is a flawed ideology.

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

Well, then congratulations for being directly insulting.

Yet, I am familiar with "prejudicial language fallacy," however, sadly for you and the position you've put yourself in. I have explained inumerable times how I believe the essence of "gun control" fits in with fascist ideology. You can feel free to disagree, but just because you don't agree, that doesn't mean that I am being illogical. To think so is being guilty of illogic in and of itself.

And...IS "gun control" antithetical to combat arts? Well to ignore the reality of guns in training a world where guns are commonly used to cause violence on others, then I would say yes. To believe that the law abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to carry the one thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal would also create the same dilemma. This has been said over and over now, and you have only been able to "disagree," but you haven't been able to make a compelling arguement.

However, despite this, I am glad that you fall into the "pro-firearm" category that you claim. I just don't understand why, being in the category, you would legitimize the"gun control" position at all. I myself, as I said before, can respect the decision to not carry a gun, and I can respect people not liking guns in general. It is when one feels that they should impose their beliefs on to everyone via gun control that I have the problem. And...I just can't see how it would be legitimate to do this.

Paul

 

[Andrew Green]

That law doesn't allow them for personal self-defence, but for maintaining a militia in order to prevent a standing army from taking too much control.

If the reason they are to be allowed is because of that right shouldn't citizens be allowed the types of weapons they would actually need to do this?

 

[Cruentus]

That law doesn't allow them for personal self-defence, but for maintaining a militia in order to prevent a standing army from taking too much control.

If the reason they are to be allowed is because of that right shouldn't citizens be allowed the types of weapons they would actually need to do this?

Although I disagree with your first statement, your second statement is true.

So....it does beg the question, I would say.

Paul

 

[Brother Grimm]

Hello eveyone, I don't post often as usually someone has already expressed my feelings. However, something an old friend of mine once told me has stuck with me and seems appropriate to the original post. " If you were able to put a big magnet above the earth , and take away all the guns and knives and such. The strong and evil would stil prey on the weak and good with whatever was available at the time. It is therefore neccesary, that we be as prepared, if not better prepared to defend against such violence." Also in reference to looking up statistics about gun violence in other countries, I would suggest that one also looks at the numbers on knife violence in those places. In most cases it rivals the gun violence statistics in the U.S.

 

[kenpochad]

Her: No...but they have a capacity for violence.
Paul

I heard an interview on the radio where the laid giving the interview said something along these lines . To a us marine he was talking about teching the proper
ways to use a fire arm to the boy scouts . And the laid said something like your
giving them all the tools to be a violent crimanil.
The Marine said the the laid well you have all the tools to be a prostitute
But your not one are you
that was the end of the interview they cut to a commercial and came back with another guest

 

[KenpoTex]

I heard an interview on the radio where the laid giving the interview said something along these lines . To a us marine he was talking about teching the proper
ways to use a fire arm to the boy scouts . And the laid said something like your
giving them all the tools to be a violent crimanil.
The Marine said the the laid well you have all the tools to be a prostitute
But your not one are you
that was the end of the interview they cut to a commercial and came back with another guest

Great story (and argument ) but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be true.
http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm