People getting guns to protect against people with guns to protect against people with guns to protect against people with guns to protect......................

Yeah, that was a bit what i was getting at.

To me a large part of being a free individual is being able to protect yourself, your property and your loved ones. I'm not out to kill anyone or anything I don't even eat meat or even kill bugs or anything, but I'll be damned if I let someone have a huge advantage over me, that is trying to take my freedom, my property or my life away.

exactly.

That's a good argument.
But it doesn't apply to the government, unless you're willing to specify the argument to only one branch of the governmend and you're willing to accept that you in the end will have to leave the final judgement on whether or not your way of exercising that essential right was justified, in the hands of the court of law.

in many places, it is justified... self-defense, case-closed.
(cites previously cited case)

"McManus said no charges will be filed against the woman and that burglary charges will likely be filed against the surviving robbers."

What i'm talking about is not self-defense in thát way. I'm referring to the idea of people vs the government, and that guns ensure 'checks and balances' in that sense. The idea that guns ensure a good and stable democracy.

I think that was obvious since i was referring to the arizona shooting.
How many other lunatic's have been hinting at shooting politicians or other people involved in the government, referring to the 2nd amendement.

The idea that the people need to have guns to 'keep the government in check'.

Tháts a flawed notion of checks and balances, since it cannot rule out the fact that people will use the 2nd amendement to shoot any government official they don't like.
The major flaw is that it gives people a right, without any restriction but their own judgement.
While every right including the rights given to every branch of the government, if you speak of checks and balances, would have to be restricted by some form of controll.

If you can shoot anybody who's given the authority to see to such mechanisms of controll than you basically have a totalitarian regime. The only difference is that this imply's a totalitarian regime of 'the people'.

If you're allowed to use gun's against the government as means of ensuring 'checks and balances', then who's doing the checking up on you?

And the whole point is ofcourse that if you're already misinterpreting the 2nd amendement like that loughner moron in arizona did, inspired by jeff beck and sarah palin, then you'll certainly feel justified to also use guns against anybody who would want to hold you acountable afterwards, wich basically means that the 2nd amendement would give you the right to just shoot anybody you disagree with.

So people who come up with the idea of gun posession as primal part of any democratic system should also come up with a way of keeping the right to keep the government in check, in check.

What about drugs? How is this not the exact same fascist mindset that makes you a criminal for living life how you think it should be lived?

I don't think you got the point of what i was saying.

prot-pax let me know where you are living man, it sounds like some utopia I've never thought possible, I'm not meaning to sound sarcastic, arrogant or even naive, the world I'm from demands equal force if you want to be on equal footing.

polytrip, we're kicking this horse like it's a sport.
there's always going to be a "loner moron" or a "lunatic" that doesn't agree with status quo. it won't matter if you take guns out of the equation. people will strap bombs to their chests, or even have a little kid deliver one, it really doesn't matter.
would you rather have someone drive a runaway truck into a rally instead of shooting people? would that make you feel better?

It isn't the guns that sparked me to rebooth this thread. It's the arguments used in favor of them.

If there is a widespread belief among people in america that the 2nd amendement endorses violence against the government, then i feel that the people who think like that haven't though it through. Or they have and they just don't care that it doesn't add up.

i don't care about guns. if i where living in a place where they where common, i would maybe have one two.

There is a straight line between this interpretation of the 2nd amendement, and incidents like in arizona and oklahoma.

The point is the jsutification of violence without any restrain. There should always be if's and but's.
This interpretation of the 2nd amendement doesn't allow for if's and but's.

ok, just making sure
I agree with this sentiment, as do others who are proponents of the second amendment...we do not necessarily advocate the exercise of this right to carry out anarchist agendas, it's just not a wise move. These radicals do not reflect the views of the populace at large, which is mostly moderate.
Of course, people who commit crimes against the state are usually prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law i.e. capital punishment. that will likely be the fate of the arizona gunman.

I'm not sure what you mean.....

http://motherjones.com/m...ited-loughers-death-toll

This is the kind of legislation I can support.

Anyone who knows much about guns can reload a clip in a matter of seconds. It also looks like his gun jamming is the main reason he was tackled. Reducing clip sizes to me isn't really an issue I find particularly important in anycase though, as long as it doesn't go to like 5 or 6 round ones, It's a non-issue for me.

The second amendment is not justification for murder. Sure part of the framing of the amendment was to set up a situation where people could resist government invasion of their property and rights. But that's completely different from murdering people you don't like who are not threatening you so directly. This kind of rule was for when armies run up in your town and start rounding people up for no reason etc that kind of thing.

Going out into the street with a gun and firing at people is pre-meditated murder. Thats it.

In the Netherlands this guy Theo van Gogh was killed on the street. He was killed because of his ideas. The guy that did it used a gun. In the east of europe one can fairly easily buy an ak. Or landmines if you like polytrip. About 10000 euro it costs to hire a stranger from eastern europe to do it for you.

Not so very long ago in the Netherlands a guy lost his job, got frustrated and decided to drive into a crowd. I believe it was on queensday. The queen was there to witnes the event, perhaps she was the target.

Some weeks ago there were some firefights between drugsdealers, also in the Netherlands. Automatics were used, most probably ak or other black market second hand cheap stuff from the east. The government has set up a special task force (=more guns, police, power, industry) to fight the ongoing violence and shooting. I wonder if the task force will remain (funded) when the accidents are over. I think we need it. The media has clearly shown us that we need it to fight terror and drugs and also drugsterror and terrordrugs.

In the Netherlands a civilian is not allowed to carry a gun on the street. You can own a semi-auto weapon and certain military calibers, an amount of gunpowder, bullets etc IF you have a permit. (all sorts of silly rules included here like; no more magnum because it isnt military caliber?? come on ffs) For a permit one needs to be a member of an official shootingclub for at least one year. Good behaviour and stuff, all very safe and well organized truly. Despite all these restrictions on guns, there is still much violence going on in the Netherlands. They are using all sorts of measures to that end.

No amount of police will ever stop organized crime when there is money to be made. Just take one look at America and it should be painfully obvious. Gangs are usually fighting over drugs, legalizing drugs is the only sustainable solution.

^ i was being cynical of course.
and you are right.