Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Radar]

In Iraq, American soldiers went door-to-door kicking them in and took all weapons they could find. Now the Iraqi people are all easy victims of insurgents. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany but the Nazis had gun registration to help them out so they'd know which homes had guns.

If they had weapons, things would most likely be a lot more stable and peaceful in Iraq.

You know the old saying, "If everyone's got a gun, people are more polite".

The indisputable fact remains that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and this right didn't come from government. We were born with this right. No person or group of people, regardless of their number or what they call themselves (including government) has any legitimate right or authority to infringe upon this or any of our other individual rights.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

The indisputable fact remains that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and this right didn't come from government. We were born with this right. No person or group of people, regardless of their number or what they call themselves (including government) has any legitimate right or authority to infringe upon this or any of our other individual rights.

Were people born with that "right" before the gun was invented too? just askin.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by classicman

Were people born with that "right" before the gun was invented too? just askin.

Yes, they were. People were born with the right to use any weapon that they can honestly acquire for DEFENSE. This is true whether the weapons of the time are bows & arrows, guns, or death ray guns in the future.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

In Iraq, American soldiers went door-to-door kicking them in and took all weapons they could find. Now the Iraqi people are all easy victims of insurgents.

When you have to create an outrageous and bizarre narrative to support your point of view, that's not critical thinking.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When you have to create an outrageous and bizarre narrative to support your point of view, that's not critical thinking.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't create an outrageous and bizarre narrative and merely made a statement of fact.

[classicman]

excellent answer, thanks.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

"Gun -- sword -- we all die the same way." --Red Sun

[Aliantha]

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel free.

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel safe.

it's such a shame UG thinks he's a great philosopher on the virtues of guns and it's a shame that he thinks people have to be pro gun to be anti genocide. That is just the most stupid thing I've seen on this place all day.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel free.

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel safe.

it's such a shame UG thinks he's a great philosopher on the virtues of guns and it's a shame that he thinks people have to be pro gun to be anti genocide. That is just the most stupid thing I've seen on this place all day.

No, Aliantha; there is no shame in this, and I am a philosopher if I am nothing else. Human history proves beyond any reasonable doubt that mine is the correct view, and the correct view would be the one taken by intelligent people. We cannot see eye to eye on this until you undergo some sort of epiphany. For your sake I pray it will not be traumatic. After all, I did not have to be traumatized to get it. The same road is open to you.

Correct does not necessarily mean "nice" or "pleasant." There is sorrow in this correctness. But it's the people who don't expect the genocide that get devoured by it. Genocides ambush populations; always they begin in deception, in concealment.

History tells us, well, what can be summed up in very few words: People Ruin Everything. There are times when mankind is not kind at all, but behaves like a monster. If you do not wish nor deserve to be devoured by monsters, just what do you do? It seems your choices would be essentially three: die, flee, or prevail over them regardless of anything.

I like option three.

Freedom is never a thing of shame, therefore killing tools used as instruments of freedom are not things of shame either, but are instead ennobled.

It is rather a pity that you got so worked up by your misunderstanding of what is good and moral that you forgot to capitalize, if you're looking around for things of shame.

[Edit] I would go so far as to add, Aliantha, that there is no argument you could make that would carry the day for your point of view -- not against those who understand crime and genocide, how genocides begin, on what groundwork, and how vulnerable the genocidal groundwork is to being undone by eliminating one of its three preconditions: that of disarmament by law or in fact. Discountenance that, and genocide stops, or at the very least becomes so immensely difficult that it may instead consume the ones who start it. And where's the big loss in that, I ask you?

[Radar]

It's a shame when some people think that the freedom of others is a shame.

It's a shame when some people think they know better than others how they should exercise freedom.

It's a shame when people are so naive they think bad people will suddenly stop having guns if good people are prevented from exercising their right to own them.

It's a shame when anti-gun/anti-rights people don't realize that they are safer because of pro-gun/pro-freedom people.

It's a shame when anti-gun people give people a death sentence by infringing on their right to keep and carry guns. For instance Sean Taylor of the Washington Redskins was told he could not have a gun for his own protection after using a gun to defend his property earlier. When criminals broke into his house, he had only a machete to defend himself and was killed by guns. If he had a gun, he would have probably scared them away and would still be alive. Several women have died because they were sentenced to death by a 3 day waiting period so they couldn't get a gun to protect them from stalkers and didn't have enough evidence to be put in protective custody.

Sadly, Aliantha doesn't live in a free country so she doesn't understand such concepts. The people of Australia and the nations who didn't break away from the British Empire on their own like America, are used to being "subjects" rather than citizens.

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject because he is subject to whatever control the people with the guns (government) tell him to do. These subjects can have their earnings, property, and even their lives taken from them and have no recourse or way to prevent it.

[Ibby]

When fighting the government, the only difference between a man with a gun and a man without one, is that the man with a gun goes down shooting.

[Aliantha]

Sadly, Aliantha doesn't live in a free country so she doesn't understand such concepts. The people of Australia and the nations who didn't break away from the British Empire on their own like America, are used to being "subjects" rather than citizens.

Australia is a member of the Commonwealth. We are a nation in our own right and we legislate ourselves.

We are a free country. We just define freedom in terms other than whether or not we can walk down the street carrying a gun.

I see nothing wrong with our ties to the UK. More than half of the citizens of Australia have family still living there or are less than one generation removed. Rather I am proud of the fact that my country could evolve without the need to go to war to prove we had earned it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Just kiss the Queens ass until she cuts you loose. Slackers.

[Aliantha]

UG, if my country is ever in a state where genocide is likely, then yeah I'd arm myself just like the kurds did, and the people of Rwanda...and and and... Guns did them no good, although I'm sure they were glad they went down fighting.

I'm not entering into the gun debate. I was interested in your new path about genocide UG. I think the statement you made is stupid and there's no argument you could possibly put forth which would change my view on it. To suggest that simply because someone doesn't believe one needs to carry a gun when they go to pick up their kids from school means they're pro genocide is pure lunacy. You've lost the plot mate.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

UG, if my country is ever in a state where genocide is likely, then yeah I'd arm myself just like the Kurds did . . .

Okay, now when would you know enough to take that action? The JPFO's literary contributors have some hints.

I'm not entering into the gun debate. I was interested in your new path about genocide UG. I think the statement you made is stupid and there's no argument you could possibly put forth which would change my view on it.

Oh. Fucking. Lovely. If I understand you rightly, your grandchildren may die helpless because your mind was so closed. Aliantha, that ain't exactly the nurturing way, and it isn't moral either. I'm not going to make your mistake -- I know too much.

The necessary preconditions for a genocide are three: 1) Hatred, on whatever pretext. Most of the time that's economic or religious. 2) Governmental power, which is why the State isn't much bulwark against genocides. Instead it's the sinews of the State that power or protect the actions of the haters. 3) Targets without weapons. The most efficient way ever found to do this is to forbid arms ownership and to make armed self-defense unlawful, as an occasional addition.

This is how they did it, in Nazi Germany, in Soviet Russia, in Red China, in the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea. This is how they didn't get it done in Iraqi Kurdistan, still the habitation of Kurds. Where is European Jewry these days? Quite a bit of it is in ash piles.

Disgusting, is it not? Something to fight against, is it not?

So, if you don't have an anti-gun society, you don't have a society that can be wiped out by State-sponsored brutes, or brutes in charge of the State. Members of such societies would, I think, better approve of my approach than of yours.

Antigun attitudes are the handmaiden of antigun laws, which can lie in wait for decades to do their evil work, as was the case in Cambodia, where the relevant laws were enacted in the middle 1930s.*

Your battle is really not with me; it is with the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They note that while so-called gun control laws are the most efficient means to disarm a population, laws are much more easily wiped away than either hatred or the State. Their argument has completely convinced me that they've found the better road.

*Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" Is The Key To Genocide, Simkin, Zelman and Rice; pp. 303 et seq., particularly pp. 318-9