How do you feel about gun control?
Posted by stargeezer 10 years, 7 months ago to Government
http://www.nraila.org/media/10835251/fei...
I'm asking how you feel about the issue. There's no need for this to get argumentative since we aren't likely to change each others mind. Just tell us how you feel and why.
I'm asking how you feel about the issue. There's no need for this to get argumentative since we aren't likely to change each others mind. Just tell us how you feel and why.
But this is an issue, like many others, that we have to watch our language on. I'm referring to the word "feel". Someone's feelings about an issue are usually not supported by facts and reality, but of fear [and loathing]. I found, through many discussions, that a person can't be argued out of something he wasn't argued into. That is, if he "feels" that gun control is a good idea, there is nothing you can say or do to change his mind. It's closed. If he "thinks" about it, on the other hand, you've got an in. Give him more to think about; city the facts, give him a personal experience. Ask questions, think about what he says, and reply rationally.
Hearts and minds CAN be changed, but it takes work.
I've also realized that humans tend to think that others are like they are. I am an honest, "keep my hands off other peoples' stuff", live-and-let-live sort of person, and it was a visceral shock the first time I realized that other people are not not like me.
Think about this: if another person is angry, irrational, violent and mean, he will have a tendency to believe others are as he is. What would he do if he suddenly had a gun? Evil. and he believes that you would, too. No wonder "they" want guns to disappear; then, no one, including themselves, will use them against others. This is a difficult person to confront/discuss with/explore issues with. First, he's ruled by his feelings, and they're the scary kind. Next, he wants control over people, and believes that you do too. Sometimes, you have to walk away. or.....never mind.
sorry, you asked "why?'. First, I believe that I am entitled to my own life, including the protection of it with the most efficient means possible. As Neil Smith says, "a 2# chunk of steel is a really good way to even the odds between a 105# woman and a 250# man."
Second, no one will ever rape me again.
Actually, people who desire to remove my ability to level the playing field against overwhelming odds are cowardice, elitist & hypocritical. I couldn't care less about them. I see them as a genuine threat to everyone's liberty, except of course, for criminals. That's my opinion.
Will that make the "Wicked witch of the west" happy? I don't think so.
I read about what happens in countries where the people have done so. the crime rate goes up. violate crime against people rises and property crimes goes through the roof.
Sincerely,
Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler
Kennesaw in 1982 and Nelson in 2013.
Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.
I grew up in the country, in a family of hunters. We all learned as soon as we could walk that we were not to touch anyone's guns. As we got older we learned the basics of firearms safety and we all had air guns. When I was 14 I took the basic firearms training course so I could get a hunting license. I grew tired of hunting after a few years, but if I cared to take it up again or needed food, I know how to get it.
A gun is a tool, like any other. In the hands of someone who respects its power, it puts food on the table, protects the owner from attack, and a number of other uses. In the hands of someone who sees a firearm as a fashion accessory or who got their "firearms training" from TV and movies.....the possibilities are horrible indeed. As we see in far too many headlines.
Gun Control has something like 100,000,000 dead victims.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#...
Robert Heinlein
http://www.straightlinelogic.com/straigh...
I have taught many people to shoot, people who are not "gun people" but who don't want to live in a world where guns exist, but not understand how they work. It is a fair assumption on my part that some of these folks do not own a gun, but I think it's fair to say that they no longer fear them. Knowledge is power.
Should you one day wish to learn the basics about guns, I can assure you that there are many certified firearms instructors like me, who would be willing to help you. Some do it for free and some do it as a business, but either way these folks are patient and very used to helping folks overcome their fear. Let me know if you ever would like to meet one.
'Sorry, couldn't resist. Given that this is an objectivist forum, I'm a little puzzled as to why the question is being asked in the first place, but...
Just to offer some rhetorical "ammunition," if you'll pardon the pun on Rand's analogy:
When you get home from work or school or whatever you do today, and you're standing at your front door in the wind, rain or snow fumbling with your keys, ask yourself some questions.
"Why am I having to do this?"
"Just imagine how simple life would become if we had no need to use locks, keys, passwords or PINs!"
"Imagine if everyone were ethical."
Ah.
We have to use locks, keys, passwords and PINs because... every human being is hard-wired with the faculty of volition, the ability, in any given instance and on any given issue, to choose between good and evil. Fortunately, most of the time most of us choose what is good - or at least benign. But in every era and in every place, there will always be those who will choose evil and to visit that evil upon other people.
So we have to lock our houses, our cars, our lockers at the gym, use passwords on our electronics and every website we log into, and use PINs to access our banking and similar financial stuff. Because bad people exist. They are a given fact of life.
We need an unalienable right to keep and to bear arms for precisely the same reason we need to have locks, keys, passwords and PINs.
Again, think about that every time you unlock the front door of your home. And use that argument whenever you come across the debate from some starry-eyed forced-disarmament advocate.
.
On Saturday morning it's not unusual to look out the front window of our home and see folks loading rifle and pistol cases in their minivans along with picnic lunches for a day at the range. Then you find out that this is going on in our back yard.
I've called the school, been transferred from phone to phone as they look for somebody to take authority of this abomination. When I was finally transferred to the principal I was told that they did not plan to make a change this year since it was so late, but they hoped to get things "fixed" by next fall.
When I asked if they discovered a error that stated that Joseph Stalin was the first president of the United States, would they make an immediate change or just wait until next year to fix the problem? I was told that they didn't see it as a big problem. My answer was just "I see". What else could I add.
What a bunch of losers - losers who are teaching our kids wrongly.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Larry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZ...
So in that light I am going to attempt to do justice to Red by doing a similar break down of the 2nd Amendment in writing.
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.
A: indefinitely or nonspecifically (used with adjectives expressing number): a great many years; a few stars.
Well: thoroughly, carefully, or soundly
Regulated: to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
Militia: a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
Being: (takes a past participle) forms the passive voice of all transitive verbs and (archaically) certain intransitive ones: a good film is being shown on television tonight.
Necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part of the motor.
To: used as a function word to indicate purpose, intention, tendency, result, or end came to our aid, drink to his health
The: used to indicate a person or thing that has already been mentioned or seen or is clearly understood from the situation
Security: freedom from fear or anxiety
Of: used to indicate that someone or something belongs to a group of people or things
A: (see earlier entry above)
Free: enjoying personal freedom: not subject to the control or domination of another
State: a body of persons constituting a special class in a society
The: (see earlier entry above)
Right: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact
Of: (see earlier entry above)
The: (see earlier entry above)
People: a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group
To: (see earlier entry above)
Keep: to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition
And: used as a function word to join one finite verb (as go, come, try) to another so that together they are logically equivalent to an infinitive of purpose
Bear: to have as a feature or characteristic
Arms: to provide (yourself, a group, a country, etc.) with weapons especially in order to fight a war or battle
Shall: used to give a command or to say that you will or will not allow something to happen
Not: used as a function word to stand for the negative of a preceding group of words
Be: to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted
Infringed: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
So then the meaning of Gun Control to me means the violation of the most basic meaning of the 2nd Amendment. In fact I would argue that the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the People would be armed in the event that the Government were to become unacceptably tyrannical.
For those that might argue that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written there were no automatic weapons and our founding fathers could not have meant for the common man to have such powerful weapons. I would remind them that at the time that the 2nd Amendment was written the common man had weapons (Arms) as good as or in many cases better than those of the Army of the time. In fact until the National Firearms Act in 1934 it was legal for citizens to purchase fully automatic weapons.
With all of this in mind then I would suggest that ANY law restricting Arms of any kind is unconstitutional, thereby; allowing a citizen access to ANY Arm that they might wish to purchase. In fact the only restriction on Arms ownership that I would support would be ownership of Arms by people not citizens of this country. I would also argue for felons and those judged mentally unstable to permanently lose citizenship thereby legally limiting their access to Arms without violating my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
Not sure if I have done justice to Red but I did my best.
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
Load more comments...