But would you agree that there should be a line drawn somewhere?

The argument of self-defence obviously doesn't count in the case of owning bazooka's, or at least i don't see how any ordinary citizen could need a bazooka for self-defence.

So would anybody of you agree that there are at least certain types of fire-arms to wich this self-defence argument simply doesn't apply because no-one would ever realistically speaking need that much firepower?

And would anybody who's in favor of unlimited availability of firepower want to respond to the mexican situation, where the government is suffering from the overavailability of extreme powerfull guns from america as a result of wich the fight against organized crime is escalating into almost a civil war?

i want to open other views for everyone.

"But would you agree that there should be a line drawn somewhere?

The argument of self-defence obviously doesn't count in the case of owning bazooka's, or at least i don't see how any ordinary citizen could need a bazooka for self-defence."

"fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"


Now, look at my gandhi comment as an alternative for not caring weather humans make it or not, but if you do care about human evolution then here we go.

---

Put yourself, the reader, in a hypothetical situation. Say you are in control of a strong military force, you want peace on earth, you have an opposing military force who wants to continue wars to continue their power over others. say your USA, the opposing is japan(remember, hypothetical).

If you stand down and refuse to goto war or have arms of anykind for protection, then you basically just handed over your freedom to japan, despite your nobel act, they will crush you and continue to slave humanity as they rule. They will just now rule over you and will have succeeded in dominating the world, keeping themselves in power and killing any opposing force. Your only hope will be that the people band together to fight back and win back freedom, the only means of doing so is war. If you don't have weapons atleast close to strength as the opposing, your probably not going to win, and will once again be crushed out.


Say your nobel military understands this, there is hope if you can defeat the opposing and free their people, but you will never kill all the bad guys, they will try to gain strenght to try to get back their power.

So whats worse, to fight a war in hopes to gain peace....or to let the bad guys rule in hopes that they one day become good? Though it is a lovely thought, its really a coin toss, people don't have to eventually turn good, they can remain bad and live in power. We can lead to our exstinction by letting the bad guys, who only care about themselves and not the future of humanity, take over. Or maybe they do care about their future, as long as their in control and slaving others.

self defence does count, if you want peace to win. Lots of people are out for power, not peace.

Honestly, I think the Mexican example is a fantastic demonstration of how citizens owning these firearms does much more good than the militarized police. The extensive corruption of police and military in Mexico has laid fertile ground for the current problems. Perfect demonstration of how the Devil's Pact with the State in a globalized world is a fool's bargain. From what I understand, in Argentina, the police and military actually carry out a large amount of break-in's and kidnapping.

the latter dilemma is irrelevant. their gov't operates completely differently; the local police take bribe money, the legal system basically nonexistent. it's a struggle for resources and power, like any war. corruption reigns supreme

and if you want to talk bazookas, grenade launchers, etc...such items are legal in some states as Class III weapons, along with machineguns and silencers. so there is regulation for such things.

in the grand-scheme, it doesn't matter. you can limit a person's arsenal..but a resourceful person will fabricate explosives, booby-traps, and what have you. you cannot suppress the beast.

Hmm, when i come to think of it, if there's ANY place on earth where the people should NEVER EVER get the oportunity to revolt against tehir government it must be america, since the revolt would sooner or later be hijacked by those teaparty-nazi-clowns who would always be worse opressors than the current federal government could ever be.
They would make adolf hitler and josef stalin look like modest, nice decent fellows with just a 'bit off' temper now and then.

On the other hand, it's your violence-fetishistic nation and not mine, since you rightfully stole it from the indians you killed afterwards, so if you so badly want to have it spiralling into a civil war with raping and plundering evangelicals using childsoldiers to kill their own parents and eating them afterwards like they do in africa, well who am i to object.

The rest of us may have to ask the russians and the chinese to pre-emptively nuke the place down, just so the evangelicals don't start causing havoc elsewhere, since then it would become our business as well, or we would have to ask the chinese if we could hide behind the missile defece shield they would have build by then, that would ofcourse be technologically superiour to the american version. But ofcourse we still would have to take care the american nuclear arsenal wouldn't fall into the hands of religious fundamentalist terrorist groups that would threaten the peace on earth.

See, they would want to destroy our way of living because they hate freedom so much and they have a religion that preaches violence and intolerance. Besides a failed state with a great nuclear arsenal is just too dangerous for the inetrnational community to accept.

casting stones at glass houses, grass is always greener, holier than thou, (insert cliche here) etc.

the same could be said about Israel, and how europe basically displaced its original inhabitants.

americans took notes from you guys, don't let selective memory make you forget that.

I'm sorry, i have these flashes of sarcasm...can't help it.

it's a sign of the human condition, not limited to any geographic location.
the tendency of man to disagree vehemently against perceived threat and oppressive forces


anyone who doesn't lay down in agreement like good sheep is a potential 'terrorist'.
but alas..the collective mind is very ignorant, and ignorance is bliss.

I take it you hate america?

Why must everyone insist that its the people of a country who runs things. I didn't kill indians, i don't want our troops to be in war right now, so i hsven't done anything to anyone. What about your country, do they do what you want them to? From the history i read, there is no innocent nation, so debating whos better is really pointless.

Well, you took the wrong notes.
We've mixed them up. Those where the notes for new-zealand, you where supposed to do the sheep and the kiwi's.

I couldn't agree more.

Which of the two people lives freely:

The one who owns the gun, or the one who is shot by one?

Not only is the subject volatile, but as much a conundrum as the idea of freedom itself: the underlying irony behind freedom is that the more there is of it, the more rules are required to assure its persistence. IOW, you cannot have freedom without taking freedom away, and I will gladly support the removal of the "right" to firearms if it assures my right to the freedom to live without the fear of being shot by someone with a lethal & legal, registered weapon.

So the choice, obviously, is whose freedom do you support removing?

Put that in your barrel and smoke it.

JBArk

You should look into things that kill more people then guns, you will be banning a lot of things you probably wouldn't want to ban if that is your only reason for saying you would gladly remove the "right" to own firearms. Life is dangerous you could slip falling down the steps tomorrow morning, should we ban steps?

Really? I mean, I wasn't aware the sole purpose for the manufacturing of steps was to KILL PEOPLE! With all due respect, i think you can do MUCH better than that at refuting my point. After all, following your logic, why have ANY laws when you could trip on the stairs and die, dragging your whole family and all your friends and loved ones with you?

JBArk

It is actually a very good logical analogy.

My mistake then. Count my vote for the banning of firearms AND the AFIBS (Alliance for the International Banning of Steps).

JBArk

nice, though sarcastic, at least you are being consistent now.

ahh jbark, the king of circular arguments.
so you suggest, that if everyone has the right to posess a firearm, that automatically means he/she is going to use it against someone else?

you do know that people kill more people with automobiles than guns, eh?

The United States has diverse geography; it is a large country. There are 50 states, each with different constitutions and varying cultural attitudes. Any assumptions concerning the efficacy of gun ownership would only be valid on a local or state level.

And just a couple of comments:



We don't have anything resembling a free market in the United States. Even in the throes of supposed laissez faire capitalism the tycoons consolidated their illegitimate financial power through state interference and central banking (i.e. manipulation of currency).

Also, it is incorrect to say that America worships the free market. We had a Democratic president and majority in the senate and house. The Democrats and their constituents (the largest proportion of registered voters in the States) are looking to Europe for financial/social models.

And automobiles are manufactured for the sole purpose of relieving a living thing of life? Your life, and everyone else's on the planet who relies on transportation for goods and services and livelihood, NEEDS combustion engine transportation (or its next novel manifestation), whether they like it or not. Is the possession of a gun a need? And what TRULY suffers, on the level of the abolition of the combustion engine vehicle (your analogy, not mine), if guns are prohibited? Are the two truly analagous?

And how exactly is this "circular", Benzyme? Because you cannot logically oppose it?

And out of the sincerest curiosity, can you name some uses of a gun that are not (even indirectly) related to the killing of a living being?

JBArk the stickinthemud