| |
|
Boboss - I do wish you'd stop going on about how making guns illegal only makes sure that criminals have guns, Kirk.
And I wish that people would stop pretending that having the government declare something illegal will magically make that thing go away. I guess we'll both have to be sad today. Also, I didn't say "making guns illegal only makes sure that criminals have guns," I said "making guns illegal insures that only criminals have guns." Unless I mistyped earlier but I don't think I did.
That may be true as a matter of definition, but the broader point which I suspect is embedded in your argument - that making guns illegal won't really do anything to prevent and lessen gun crime - is at worst complete bollocks and at best highly debatable.
Why is it complete bollocks? You do realize that's a large part of how organized crime makes money, right? By giving things to people the government won't let them have? I agree that it's debatable, but complete bollocks? I don't think so. Also, how can something be true and untrue at the same time? What are you talking about?
Fraser - And Kurt, when you say that guns are OK as it offers the people a means to mount an armed insurrection against the Government is they get out of control it doesn't inspire much confidence in your reasoning.
Why? I said over and over again that it would never happen, that it was a bad idea anyways, that it wouldn't work, and that it would be morally wrong, that it was just a political statement. I'm not a fan of the whole mentality. And I only brought it up in the first place in response to to the second post in this thread, "Why doesn't the US pass tougher gun control laws?" The possibility of insurrection against a corrupt government (as well as defense against invasion, which hasn't been a possibility since we got the atom bomb, and self defense) is the reason the second amendment was put in the bill of rights. At least by some of the people involved in writing it. It's also a major part of the reason why gun control is such a touchy subject. Most Americans, at least in the region I grew up in (California) are raised with the belief that loosing the right to own a gun is one of the major signs (the other being loss of free speech) that the government has become totalitarian and oppressive and "the kind of thing our forefathers fought against." Obviously that's flawed, since there are a lot of other signs of a totalitarian government that we are not taught to look out for or care about, but that's why the gun debate is where it is in the US right now. That's why so many Americans are so intense about it (that and all the other ignored reasons in my previous post about people obsessing over them as a form of cognitive dissonance to keep themselves from thinking critically about what's really going on).
So, again, just to be absolutely clear - I do not support armed insurrection or violence of any kind against the government. I do not think it is right, possible, or likely. The closet I came to saying that was "physics allows for it, as does stupidity," and "Well, in broad philosophical sense, yes. Though "vs" is a pretty loaded term. I just think of it as a political line in the sand." Personally I think self defense is a much better reason to keep them legal. Everything else was a response to the clearly asked question, "Why doesn't the US pass tougher gun control laws."
Protection of the public should be entirely in the hands of publicly funded Police with responsibility to the public.
I agree with the part about "with responsibility to the public," but how do you reconcile that with this and this, not to mention things like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and the fact that there's pretty much no right to trial in this country anymore? Again, I don't believe in armed insurrection, people just need to educate themselves more and vote, but if history has taught us anything, it's that the people building the internment camps all over the country shouldn't be the only ones with the weapons.
Government should be based on the principles of democracy, not the threat of armed insurrection.
I agree completely. I think self defense is a much better reason for keeping them legal.
How about psychological tests for gun licences? Like driving tests for driving licences? Just an idea.
I think it's also worth mentioning that the gun debate in America usually just ends up dividing people who would otherwise agree on other issues, and I'm sure that's why politicians like to throw it around without actually doing much about it one way or the other.
Also, we should probably take this to a gun control thread.
I fear the crackdown that's going to come down on anyone trying to express some creative thought over the next few years; the slightest hint of anything less than America #1 Disney OK Go Team Jesus! will probably elicit "monitoring" and strict psychiatric scrutiny.
I agree. After Columbine there was a huge crackdown on what students could or couldn't do or say at school. Zero tolerance policies and forced medication. Teachers were terrified of students after that. |
|
|
