Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Like your guns? Another gun control thread

shakran · 06-01-2004, 03:30 PM

Sorry. I forgot about that question while replying to the rest of your post

I don't have a problem with individual citizens arming themselves. I myself am never without my folding knife, and my house is a friggin' arsenal of bladed weaponry (years of martial arts makes you collect crap like that). I have no problem with people arming themselves, so I can't really say why they shouldn't be allowed to, because I think they should.

All I'm objecting to in this thread is the fact that SO many arms advocates use the "we have to be able to arm ourselves in order to allow us to stop the government from oppressing us." I think that's a bullshit argument. It's a next-to-impossible scenario that the citizenship COULD overcome the government and its military. And since I belive in the idea that bullshit arguments weaken your position, I don't think that should be one of the arguments made.

It'd be much better if people were honest about why they want guns. Don't make it a paranoid "the government's out to get us" scenario. Just say you want it to protect yourself from criminals, or you want a gun because you think target shooting is fun, or you just like guns and want one.

I also object to the idea that the 2nd "clearly" states that we have the right to bear arms. It doesn't. If it were that clear, the debate over it wouldn't have raged for decades. I mean, no one's unclear about the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press are they? It doesn't qualify that guarantee. It just plain guarantees freedom of the press (and other things). The 2nd on the other hand qualifies its guarantee. Obviously there's a reason for that qualification. I think the 2nd clearly says that the U.S. government can't try to disarm "well organized militias."

That being said, it's also important to remember that just because the constitution fails to guarantee a right does not mean that right does not exist. We have the right to surf the internet, eat red meat, and leave the toilet seat up, but there's no mention of those rights in the constitution.

As an aside, I also think that even if the 2nd is proven not to guarantee individual rights to guns, it would be stupid to outlaw them. At this point there are simply too many guns in society. If all the law abiding citizens turned in their guns when it became illegal, then only the criminals would be armed, which would be a problem. If anything, we need to have societal reform to the point where people find violence to be abhorrent and don't want guns. That of course is many years off, but there is no "right now" solution to the weapons problems in this country.

06-01-2004, 03:30 PM	#51 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Sorry. I forgot about that question while replying to the rest of your post I don't have a problem with individual citizens arming themselves. I myself am never without my folding knife, and my house is a friggin' arsenal of bladed weaponry (years of martial arts makes you collect crap like that). I have no problem with people arming themselves, so I can't really say why they shouldn't be allowed to, because I think they should. All I'm objecting to in this thread is the fact that SO many arms advocates use the "we have to be able to arm ourselves in order to allow us to stop the government from oppressing us." I think that's a bullshit argument. It's a next-to-impossible scenario that the citizenship COULD overcome the government and its military. And since I belive in the idea that bullshit arguments weaken your position, I don't think that should be one of the arguments made. It'd be much better if people were honest about why they want guns. Don't make it a paranoid "the government's out to get us" scenario. Just say you want it to protect yourself from criminals, or you want a gun because you think target shooting is fun, or you just like guns and want one. I also object to the idea that the 2nd "clearly" states that we have the right to bear arms. It doesn't. If it were that clear, the debate over it wouldn't have raged for decades. I mean, no one's unclear about the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press are they? It doesn't qualify that guarantee. It just plain guarantees freedom of the press (and other things). The 2nd on the other hand qualifies its guarantee. Obviously there's a reason for that qualification. I think the 2nd clearly says that the U.S. government can't try to disarm "well organized militias." That being said, it's also important to remember that just because the constitution fails to guarantee a right does not mean that right does not exist. We have the right to surf the internet, eat red meat, and leave the toilet seat up, but there's no mention of those rights in the constitution. As an aside, I also think that even if the 2nd is proven not to guarantee individual rights to guns, it would be stupid to outlaw them. At this point there are simply too many guns in society. If all the law abiding citizens turned in their guns when it became illegal, then only the criminals would be armed, which would be a problem. If anything, we need to have societal reform to the point where people find violence to be abhorrent and don't want guns. That of course is many years off, but there is no "right now" solution to the weapons problems in this country.