Thread: So let's talk about gun control

Odd, I find myself agreeing with you for once.

I don't know if Piers brought him on the show because he thinks Jones is a leading gun-advocate, or because he wanted an easy target to advance his anti-gun views for him, or because Jones was the one that challenged Piers to a debate, but either way, the whole thing was embarrassing. Jones flew off the handle, started talking about a bunch of unverifiable conspiratorial nonsense (as he and those like him are apt to do), and made all the reasonable pro-gun people look awful.

It made me laugh too, the little digs Alex likes to make about scripted news points and discussions.. Where I live if I was to use a firearm to protect myself or my family if I had genuine concern that our lives were at risk I would be imprisoned for such use of force. I would not feel like a criminal in the extremely unlikely event of that happening. As gun control is very strict where I live the use firearms is very low, so I am told by the media and the government. My friends cousin was recently shot to death in London and as far as my friend knows it wasn't mentioned in any media outlet. I suspect the use of firearms is a lot higher than we are told. When I lived in the midlands I did hear gunshots one night as the city I was living in reportedly has the highest reported gun crime. I can understand the ethos of the 2nd amendment and I also understand Alex's very good point that if guns are controlled people will use knives, bats or rocks to eschew their violent tendencies. It's not a question of controlling guns but understanding the culture of the use of force. I'm a non-violent man that believes in the human right to protect one's physical well being against a dangerous assailant and if that entails using a weapon that will incapacitate an individual from a distance all the better.

I can understand Alex's narcissism when a foreigner states on national television that the 2nd amendment must be changed. I do feel that Piers is being arrogant in that sense. I also feel that he misses the point that Alex was trying to make that mass murderers have always existed from the beginning of time but have used different methods to the same end. A few hundred years ago when multiple projectile weapons weren't available people used tactics like fire to commit mass murder. Controlling guns is going to change jackshit.

Another thing, why has the department of homeland security been buying BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition the last couple of years including deadly high calibre hollow point bullets. They say that it is for immigration control training. Bullshit. It is reminiscent of the tactics the Nazi party of Germany were upto as Alex pointed out. I understand Alex's anger and don't think he is a lunatic as the news is out there that government agencies on the surface do not look like protectors of the people. I think the people purchasing all that ammo for a government agency are displaying levels of judgement that indicate genuine lunatic tendencies. That ammo sure ain't for immigration control training it sure ain't for any invading crusaders. The only plausible reason I can reason is that it is to be used against the American people in a time of the breakdown of society under some form of heinous national emergency.

Sorry for any typos, posted this on my iPhone.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't know if Piers brought him on the show because he thinks Jones is a leading gun-advocate, or because he wanted an easy target to advance his anti-gun views for him, or because Jones was the one that challenged Piers to a debate, but either way, the whole thing was embarrassing. Jones flew off the handle, started talking about a bunch of unverifiable conspiratorial nonsense (as he and those like him are apt to do), and made all the reasonable pro-gun people look awful.

He'd started a petition calling for Morgan to be deported for his views on gun laws.

Evincing a rather hilariously poor adherence to his own professed moral code regarding freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Xei

He'd started a petition calling for Morgan to be deported for his views on gun laws.

Evincing a rather hilariously poor adherence to his own professed moral code regarding freedom of speech.

Yeah, I knew he started the petition but didn't remember if that's why he was on PMT.

"Hilariously poor" -- Gives Jones too much credit. The guy is a conspiracy libertarian: one who says central planning doesn't work, yet then implies that central planning does work (because the Bilderbergs/Jews/Rothschilds/Rockefeller/Globalists have successfully taken over the world).

I call him a broken clock: right twice a day. He might be correct about guns and maybe a handful of other issues, but other than that he's a wacko.

Regarding the OP though, and the idea that the public need these overpowered guns primarily to defend themselves against a tyrannical government...

Firstly... the principle may have made sense in the 1700s, but it seems totally out of touch with modern reality. You really think, if it came to it, you would be able to bring down the technical might of the US army? You're going to use rifles on their tanks and jets?

Is it legal for individuals to own tanks or jets, by the way? If you support the above argument for assault rifles, that means these things should be legal too, right?

Secondly... what's the difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government and overthrowing a democratic government? There is always going to be a difference of opinion. For example, the current US government is elected by popular vote. But clearly there are some people like Jones who think it's a tyranny. Why should they have have a legal right to try to take it over by aggression?

You can own tanks and jets as long as the weapons are removed. Some of those weapons are still legal though. I wouldn't doubt there is a number of legally owned tanks and jets that could be converted to military ready in just a few days here in the US.

Also just look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the fighters over there kill US soldiers all the time despite being very poorly equipped. The US general population is far better equipped and more numerous than the Taliban and other terrorist groups. If the US can't control small areas over there, it seems extremely likely they would lose all control here in the US.

So, shouldn't it be legal to own weaponised tanks and jets?

Also, shouldn't private individuals be allowed to own advanced military hardware such as RPGs, long-range missiles and even nukes?

There is an argument for allowing that sort of stuff, though pretty much everyone would agree that random people shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Of course if the government doesn't have nukes then people wouldn't need nukes either, so you could support the general population having everything government can if you also support the government not having nukes and you wouldn't be a hypocrite.

Missiles, nukes, and tanks would not be worth anything against an attacker on the street or in your house, and controlling them is a realistic idea.

That's irrelevant to the argument at hand. We're talking about very powerful machine guns, and the argument for them that they're for the populace to usurp a tyrannical government; guns which are designed to indiscriminately kill as many people in an area as possible. I understand the argument for defensive firearms.

Originally Posted by Xei

That's irrelevant to the argument at hand. We're talking about very powerful machine guns, and the argument for them that they're for the populace to usurp a tyrannical government; guns which are designed to indiscriminately kill as many people in an area as possible. I understand the argument for defensive firearms.

We are discussing gun control, and my point is relevant to it. There is a list of reasons to keep guns legal, and dealing with a tyrannical government is one of them. I know the government tyranny issue is the main focus of the thread, so I am saying that we can meet that need and still have reasonable weapons laws. It makes sense to keep guns legal to defend against civilian attackers any way, so let's use guns to defend against the government too. The list of reasons for keeping guns legal is solid, so allowing guns for defense against government and others is justified. When we get into tanks and MX missiles, we run into some new problems. The justification for owning those is not solid enough.

Also, I don't think the American public's war against a tyrranical government would be fought on a battlefield or in a militaristic kind of way. We would be more like an insurgency. We probably wouldn't ever corner the government and make them surrender in that kind of war, but the threat of such a thing happening is enough to keep them from going too far. We don't need missiles, nukes, or tanks for that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are discussing gun control, and my point is relevant to it. There is a list of reasons to keep guns legal, and dealing with a tyrannical government is one of them. I know the government tyranny issue is the main focus of the thread, so I am saying that we can meet that need and still have reasonable weapons laws. It makes sense to keep guns legal to defend against civilian attackers any way, so let's use guns to defend against the government too. The list of reasons for keeping guns legal is solid, so allowing guns for defense against government and others is justified. When we get into tanks and MX missiles, we run into some new problems. The justification for owning those is not solid enough.

All the way through this you're just conflating guns made for mass aggression with guns in general.

We'll take it as read that defensive guns should be legal. Okay, fine, keep them. That's not a point of contention here.

What we're discussing is reasons for military guns. The only argument on the table for this at the moment is the issue of defence against the US military. But the same argument suggests that Americans should be allowed to own any kind of military hardware. I don't accept that non-firearm hardware can be ruled out as useless. Presumably the US army would use its own air force for various things, guerilla warfare or otherwise. Therefore, the populace having aircraft of their own would most certainly be useful in a conflict.

Will outlawing assault rifles stop mass killings? Of course not. Wannabe mass murderers will just have to get them illegally, which is probably easier than getting them legally. Or use different weapons and maybe have to settle for killing less people and not becoming an instant overnight superstar like Holmes did.

Is it a good idea not to sell assault rifles to the general public? Of course - but since so many of them are already in circulation making them illegal again is kind of like closing the barn door after the cows have already got out. The only type of potential mass killer it will stop are those who are teetering on the verge of a spur of the moment killing spree and have access to assault weapons in a friend or family member's collection. Anyone who takes the time and effort to plan out a killing spree can obviously get ahold of whatever kind of weapons they want if they have the money and connections.

I do think it's a good idea to make assault weapons illegal for the general public - I just think it was an incredibly bonehead move to legalize them in the 90's or whenever it was and get thousands of them out there. I also wish mass media would stop making rock stars out of the murderers every time this happens. I think that's a more important step than any gun control law, unless they were going to only allow each family to own say 1 handgun and 1 rifle. Why let people stockpile weapons?

It's largely about ease of access. If somebody has a mental breakdown here in the UK and starts shooting people, they're not just going to find an SMG lying around to do it with. Spur of the moment violence is therefore a lot less bloody. In the USA however, people becoming unhinged and being able to lay their hands on a machine gun without any premeditation is a common story.

Originally Posted by Xei

All the way through this you're just conflating guns made for mass aggression with guns in general.

We'll take it as read that defensive guns should be legal. Okay, fine, keep them. That's not a point of contention here.

What we're discussing is reasons for military guns. The only argument on the table for this at the moment is the issue of defence against the US military. But the same argument suggests that Americans should be allowed to own any kind of military hardware. I don't accept that non-firearm hardware can be ruled out as useless. Presumably the US army would use its own air force for various things, guerilla warfare or otherwise. Therefore, the populace having aircraft of their own would most certainly be useful in a conflict.

There is a limit to which the logic applies. I don't think civilians should be allowed to own just anything the military has. Necessity, potential for negative outcomes, and controllability have to be taken into account. I think guns made for mass aggression should be legal because they are necessary or at least notably advantageous for fighting groups of attackers (both government and civilian thugs) and they can't be successfully controlled in the U.S. I don't buy the argument that a single shot rifle is all anybody needs for self-defense. Sometimes a shoot out is necessary.

What really makes me facepalm is the way the hardcore gun enthusiasts whine and moan that depriving them of legal assault weapons is tantamount to full negation of the 2nd amendment. No, not at all - every American still has the right to bear arms, just not ASSAULT weapons! This all or nothing mentality reminds me of the Christians who whine that "You've taken prayer out of the schools!" Actually no - anybody who wants to can pray in schools - we've simply refused to allow you to force everybody to pray.

I have no problem when either Christians or hardcore gun enthusiasts bring up valid points, but why do they so frequently jump all the way to these ridiculously dishonest assertions and distort the conversation?

** Edit - to be clear, I'm speaking rhetorically about some of the 'discussions' I've seen on TV - not about anyone on this thread. And I'd been thinking mostly in terms of weapons for home defense - the points UM bings up are something I haven't considered. But a couple of immediate thoughts - for one, not many American citizens would be able to afford a tank or jet, and I wonder how long it would take for suburban/urban warfare with civvies against the government to escalate to levels similar to the fighting in the Middle East, with tanks and helicopters invading city streets or neighborhoods. If it reaches that level no civil militia would stand a chance against government technology.

2ndAmendment.jpg

Edit: Small picture. If you click it, it will be enlarged. The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Banning any guns at all violates the Second Amendment because it qualifies as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment isn't just against full infringement. It opposes any infringement at all.

Ok thanks, I didn't realize it was worded like that. Infringe being the key word.

So what becomes important is how to interpet that.

Here are a couple of definitions of Infringe in its various forms:

infringement - definition of infringement by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege


Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

So, unless there's more to the 2nd amendment then it needs to be determined exactly what those rights or laws are. What rights exactly are granted the American public in relation to arms? Access to all weaponry in use by the military? Or only to what's considered civilian weaponry? Because you can't say anyone is infringing on your rights until it's clearly stated exactly what those rights are. You can't automatically assume we begin by default with the right to carry any kind of weapon we want, and that any limitations are an infringement on that assumed right.

Like Xei said, do those rights include nuclear weapons? How about germ warfare?

All the talk recently has been about banning semi automatic weapons and weapons with ten round clips or more. Which means that most pistols are considered 'assault weapons' as they have ten+ round clips and shoot on semi automatic. Just your normal pistols is going to be banned under the proposed laws they are trying to pass now. Which is why everyone is making a fuss over them banning all guns, because that is what they are trying to do. Sure you can get some revolves and stuff but they want to ban nearly everything else.

They also want to ban stuff like grips on guns, which are used for accuracy. The idea that casual gun owners shouldn't worry about accuracy is silly. Most people would likely agree if they only wanted to ban machine guns but it seems like they want to ban most stuff and a lot of it doesn't even make sense.

Oh snap! I didn't realize that. So, dishonesty now from (whoever is pushing this agenda). Trying to make it sound like they're only banning assault rifles while the legistlature would also ban most handguns. If that's really how they're approaching it that's despicable and lends credence to the idea that they're gearing up for some kind of takeover, or at least setting the stage to make one easier.

I would need to research some writings by the founders to figure out exactly what they meant by "arms," but I think by "arms" they meant "guns." They did not forsee the inventions of tanks, fighter jets, missiles, nuclear bombs, or germ weapons. If those are included in what qualifies as "arms," we have a problem.

I'm sure at the time it did only mean guns - that's what was used for warfare in those days. Did they even use mines or bombs in war then?

Interesting question - were canons considered military ordinance only, or were private individuals allowed to own them too?

Probably swords and guns. What they were really saying is that people should have weapons, because if no one had any, others could come beat them up and take all their stuff. To be honest, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea of amending the constitution to make things more clear, as long as we had a serious discussion on the issue as a country. Though I am against just passing laws that ignore the constitution.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

2ndAmendment.jpg

Edit: Small picture. If you click it, it will be enlarged. The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Banning any guns at all violates the Second Amendment because it qualifies as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment isn't just against full infringement. It opposes any infringement at all.

Oh come on, you must know how notoriously ambiguous the US constitution is.

It's perfectly acceptable to interpret that as just saying "you're not allowed to ban guns outright".

In particular there is complete ambiguity over what the word 'arms' means in the first place. As Darkmatters points out, there's no more telling if it includes SMGs than if it includes military hardware like missiles. The people who wrote it made no efforts to clarify this.

As a side note: can the US really be said to have a 'well regulated militia' in the first place..?