40 Reasons guns should be banned

[Spekkio]

Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows)...source: BATF, 1999

It might vary slightly with area, but I find it hard to believe that 93% somehow goes to less than 50%.

What is that line about "unalienable rights"? I swear I've heard that somewhere before.

Yes, in our social contract with the gov't, we stipulate that there are certain rights that the gov't cannot infringe upon. But these rights are created by the existance of the rule of law; without its protection, you would not have them. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to go live in the jungle and tell a lion he can't eat you because you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a tautology, isn't it? Why do we have a right to bear arms? Because we have a right to bear arms.

Now you're just being stupid. The reason for the amendment is included in the amendment: because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

 

[nittany03]

There are no natural rights. All rights are created by social contract with government.

WRONG.

COMPETELY, UTTERLY WRONG!

You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the Social Contract.

Let's flip that argument around. Say, for the sake of argument, that there is no government. Total anarchy. If we apply your statement that rights are created by contract with the government, then that would mean that you have no rights. Correct?

NO! You would have even more rights than you do now! No one can punish you because no one has authority to do so! All they can do is get back at you for pissing them off! You can do whatever you want. Might makes right. This is known by philosophers as the state of nature.

Now most people rightly see this as wrong. They don't' want someone breaking into their home and taking it as their own. Or mugging them, or doing anything like that. Further, no one is going to be stupid enough to start a business or do anything for the betterment of society if there is no recourse against getting screwed. You can't enter into contracts in the state of nature. Life is "nasty, brutish, and short." Google that.

So people agree that they will give up some of those rights in order that others will be protected. In order to avoid being killed, you give up your right to kill. In order to have property, you give up your right to take someone else's. In order to do as you wish, you give up your right to coerce someone to do as you want them to. My right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins. THIS IS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT! "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Google that.

Google "John Locke," "Second Treatise on Government," "Thomas Hobbes," "Leviathan," "John Stuart Mill," "On Liberty," and reread the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. Your rights do NOT and NEVER HAVE come from the government. They come from your existence as a human being. From God, if you believe in Him.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[bubblehead]

This is getting interesting...

 

[Spekkio]

NO! You would have even more rights than you do now! No one can punish you because no one has authority to do so! All they can do is get back at you for pissing them off! You can do whatever you want. Might makes right. This is known by philosophers as the state of nature.

You are confusing freedom with rights. Even still, in nature, you have no rights, and freedom is just an illusion. Every act you perform in a so-called free state is for self preservation.

Consider this case: you are in the jungle, and a tiger is there. There is a big cage that provides food, shelter, and keeps the tiger out. Or you can live outside of the cage. In which state are you more free? If you live outside the cage, the tiger will chase you, and you'll have no choice but to run or die. You can try to fight the tiger, but without any sort of civilized technology you don't stand much of a chance. If you live inside the cage, you are free from the tiger, and can do whatever you please. The only restriction is that you are bound by the perimiter of the cage.

That is the point of the social contract. Society is that cage. You have a right to life because society says we do, and the government protects that right via police, military, and giving us the right to bear arms.

A natural right is a right that you would have in the absence of human civilization. Since a right can never be taken away, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be natural rights, as there are a variety of things in nature that will take those away quite easily. If you had a natural right to life, the tiger in the above example could never eat you.

I also did not say that rights come from the government. You said that and twisted what I said, which is that rights are created via social contract with the gov't. Rights come from the society in which we live. We [society] created them as part of the contract...we give the gov't XYZ powers, and in turn say that the gov't has to protect ABC rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not come from God or nature, it comes from the men who framed the Constitution and those who fought for our country's independence.

I even said this before: "Yes, in our social contract with the gov't, we stipulate that there are certain rights that the gov't cannot infringe upon. "

Now most people rightly see this as wrong. They don't' want someone breaking into their home and taking it as their own. Or mugging them, or doing anything like that. Further, no one is going to be stupid enough to start a business or do anything for the betterment of society if there is no recourse against getting screwed. You can't enter into contracts in the state of nature. Life is "nasty, brutish, and short." Google that.

Exactly. So we create the right to own property, and the right to defend it via the creation of law and government. You do not have a natural right to not be assaulted and robbed, it comes from a social contract with the government.

 

[phrogpilot73]

The founding fathers of this country kicked the Brits (whom they viewed as oppressive)out. Freedom of speech was unheard of in England back then. So, they guaranteed freedom of speech with the 1st Amendment. How do they prevent a government from overstepping its bounds and invalidating the Constitution and its Amendments? Arm the people.

Some may argue that we no longer have that need. But think about all the people you serve with. How seriously do you think they take "against all enemies foreign and domestic?" So they repeal the 2nd Amendment. What's to stop them from repealing the 4th? 19th? 1st? Rewriting the Constitution? Are the people you serve with (the ones you are now solely relying to support and defend the Constitution) going to turn their arms on the government? Think about all the careerists that you know. Are they REALLY going to take the "domestic" threats to the Constitution seriously before its too late?

That's why it's still relevant to arm the populace. Because the government can control the military, police, etc... They can't necessarily control the populace.

 

[nittany03]

OK, Spekkio, my sincere apologies for going high and right. I thought you were insinuating that rights emanated from the government, and that argument sets me off. I didn't deliberately twist any of your words; I misunderstood them. I don't get any particular satisfaction from "winning" this argument, so please don't take anything I'm saying personally. I'm not mad; I don't think you're an ass, but I believe the fallacy to which I thought you subscribed is a particularly dangerous and pernicious one. Which is why I got spooled up.

That said, I think your analogy of the cage is close, though I think the imagery is misleading. I guess it depends on how big the cage is, but I think the argument behind it is sound so I'll move on.

You are still subtly tying the idea of rights with the idea of society and government, and that is incorrect. The right exists, regardless. In the state of nature, no one is protecting your rights except you.

Government does not create rights. It enforces them. The Declaration of Indepedence states "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." It does NOT state "to create these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Thus, in order to secure something, it must be preexisting.

 

[Spekkio]

No offense taken.

Government does not create rights. It enforces them.

I agree here, but

The right exists, regardless. In the state of nature, no one is protecting your rights except you.

This is where I disagree. In a state of nature, there is no such thing as rights. There is only survival. Society creates rights depending on its values.

 

[MasterBates]

Fenian, NFA was 1933.. How hard did you study?

 

[FENIAN]

Fenian, NFA was 1933.. How hard did you study?

Actually it was 1934. I admit my mistake in the heat of typing. It was well before 1986.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

You can even Wiki it. Degree up for grabs, but I didn't bet the degree on this claim. It was the illegal purchase of guns stat.

In regard to the Gunfacts.com BS: Horse shit. I looked up and down and didn't find that statistic on the ATF database. That and the fact that your stat came from a third party resource and is also over ten years old. Legal Firearm purchases are not limited to gun stores and gun shows. Personal purchases are legal. I can legally purchase a firearm out of the back of a guys van. My case is that the majority of guns in inner city crimes are purchased legally in a personal sale manner. The moment the owner of the weapon scratches off the serial number, that is now an illegal weapon. The purchase is different than the possession.

 

[Bevo16]

The founding fathers of this country kicked the Brits (whom they viewed as oppressive)out. Freedom of speech was unheard of in England back then. So, they guaranteed freedom of speech with the 1st Amendment. How do they prevent a government from overstepping its bounds and invalidating the Constitution and its Amendments? Arm the people.

I have been watching this thread waiting to see how long it would take for someone to point out that the founding fathers did not see guns as a way to protect themselves from people with other guns, or for hunting, or for sport. They saw guns and an armed population as a way for the people to throw out an unjust government.

Some may argue that we no longer have that need. But think about all the people you serve with. How seriously do you think they take "against all enemies foreign and domestic?" So they repeal the 2nd Amendment. What's to stop them from repealing the 4th? 19th? 1st? Rewriting the Constitution? Are the people you serve with (the ones you are now solely relying to support and defend the Constitution) going to turn their arms on the government? Think about all the careerists that you know. Are they REALLY going to take the "domestic" threats to the Constitution seriously before its too late?

Well stated.

People need to pay attention to the oath that they take and know what the constitution says. It is the rights promised to the people by the doccument and the republic itself that you are sworn to defend. Hopefull there is never a day where supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and "obeying the orders of the President and those appointed over me" don't come into conflict. However, that day could come, and damn well better know where you stand.

 

[wink]

If your only or main argument is that the right to bear arms is a right because it's in the constitution, then stand by to see that amendment repealed in the future because people no longer see its value.

Is there value in fairness and equality? If gun ownership is not allowed then certain groups of people will be relegated to a far great likelihood of victimization. People of limited financial means will be forced to live in neighborhoods where crime is rampant with no means to protect themselves. (Of course that is the case in many anti gun urban areas today.) The elderly and disabled who can not run from their attacker, or see them approach at a distance, or even use a phone well enough to call 911 will be overly victimized. Females, elderly, disabled, sick, poor, business owners and certain employees in high crime areas are victimized by violent crime at a far higher rate then people like me, healthy, reasonably fit, white, middle aged, male with a home in a good upper scale neighborhood with a job in a reasonably crime free environment. This sort of costly, even deadly, inequity in society is the sort of thing that gets lefty's riled up. Gun ownership helps insure greater equality in the general safety of people of all abilities, freedom of movement, enjoyment of home life, and business costs. Without gun ownership people have to rely on the government for their most basic right, to be secure in their homes and persons. And the police can not get to the victim of car jacking in the time it takes for the bad guy to send a bullet 20 inches into his victim. Even if you removed all guns from society, how would an infirm grandmother protect herself from a baseball bat or a storm of fists, if not for a gun? It was said long ago. A gun is the great equalizer. Fairness and equality are liberal hallmarks. They should support private gun ownership Constitution or not.

 

[xmid]

So what? They also save lives, which causes you a problem when it comes to gun control.

I don't agree with the government saving people from themselves. Sure helmet laws and seatbelt laws save lives, but if someone is dumb enough not to wear them then thats their own fault. If some idiot gets killed on his motorcycle because he wasn't wearing his helmet, I feel for the families loss, but that person did something stupid and it got them killed. I don't need a law telling me not to touch a hot stove, if I'm dumb enough to do it then I deserve what I get. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions and instead of having their every move legislated to them.

 

[Bevo16]

I don't agree with the government saving people from themselves. Sure helmet laws and seatbelt laws save lives, but if someone is dumb enough not to wear them then thats their own fault.

I agree with the premise, the problem is that when people crack their grape and turn themselves into vegetables and the state taxpayer ends up picking up the tab for 80 years of life support because they didn't sign their organ donor cards.

If the state is on the hook for the medical bills (and they are in most cases), then they should be able to make some kind of rules to mitigate the risk. That could be as simple as "no helmet, no medical benefits" or "no helmet = organ donation" and that would be fine with me.

 

[xmid]

If the state is on the hook for the medical bills (and they are in most cases), then they should be able to make some kind of rules to mitigate the risk. That could be as simple as "no helmet, no medical benefits" or "no helmet = organ donation" and that would be fine with me.

I agree completely. And that goes back to the whole no personal responsibility thing. Take responsibility for your stupid idea not to wear a helmet on your motorcycle and either be ready to donate organs when things go south, or carry a shit ton of medical/life insurance.

 

[Flash]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

Seriously, people here need to stop attributing quotes to our Founding Fathers that they pulled off some random site on the internets. They were great men, not gods, and most of the quotes are pure BS.

Jefferson Library

It is incredible how much our nation resembles the one we revolted from over 232 years ago. I'd be willing to bet the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Pray tell?

I am with MMX on this one, what the heck do you mean by this?