-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
What is your viewpoint on Guns?
- Thread starter Phantastica
- Start date
Kartikay said:
Just to note, I know the american revolution happened, but you were talking about a future equivalent to it as an argument why there should be guns, and what Im saying is that this is just a hypothetical event where maybe having a gun would help in something (or maybe not), while in reality, right now, guns are destroying many lives. Again this whole "guns are just instruments" argument has weak points, I touched upon this on my posts earlier in this thread.
Regarding being "too many guns in america", well, there's too many hummers (or whatever destructive unsustainable thing we could think of) on the street in america too, but IMO thats no argument in favour of getting a hummer. In fact we could extend this argument to the same thing and say that in the hypothetical event of a revolution, maybe hummers or these giant wasteful cars would come in handy to drive around the madness. Should everybody start buying them now then? Not imo, better not have any, better not buy guns, better send the educational message to society that this is what is destroying our world and do one's part in not supporting this nasty industry. I would say if you use the same money you would to buy a gun but instead donate to an educational cause, you are helping the world a thousand times more in many levels. Thats just me though, do as you please, each one with his own conscience.
i wouldn't want to be offensive in any way though. And the way you came through through your posts, wineart, is as a person who speaks from his heart, and i very much like that.
And also, once more, i totally agree that giving people free money for not having a job, is not a good economical model.
There are just to major points i wanted to make.
1-all it takes is a little prisoners-dillemma-matrix to see how a minimum level of regulation can be beneficial for everybody.
2-people who benefit most from an unregulated situation and who're usually very powerfull will often use their power through media and politic's to keep the lack of regulation as it is.
My government is being owned by the petro-industry for instance, just like the american government, and they will do anything to keep the dutch economy oil-based. They will do anyhting to prevent alternative energy sources to ever become dominant in holland.
Politicians want me to believe that oil resources are infinite, that there is no peak-oil scenario, that the dutch petro-industry is very clean compared to the petro-industry elsewhere and most of all, that there can be no alternative source of energy that will ever be commercially viable.
But a very large amount of dutch politicians will at some moment in his life make an appearance on the payroll of RDS, better known as shell. Shell is like the dutch halliburton, it's got it's fingers in every organ of power in holland and they're always involved in dirty affairs, shady armsdeals with african dictatorial regimes or rebel-groups and mysteriously enough, they will always get away with it and will never have to take any responsability for anything, just like halliburton.
Ofcourse RDS will do anything to keep it that way. No journalist will ever manage to get his fingers on what's happening and if he will, then he suddenly get's hit by a car or something, just like with halliburton.
Back to the guns....gun industry also likes everything to stay the way it is. Mexico may be suffering heavily, but they will use all their weight to make everybdoy think that they have nothing to do with what's going on in mexico.
And heavy machine guns that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute that can pierce through armed military vehicles has nothing to do with hunting, self-defence or the first amendement anymore, you might just as well allow people to buy nuclear warheads if you want to stretch the first amendment that far.
Something i also stated before, if you fear your own government that much, the same government the iranians fear, and you find that you need weapons to keep it in check...you should agree with iran building nuclear warheads because they are using the very same argument against the very same government.
So i mean, no hard feelings or anything. Just that there need to be limits drawn to anything...some minimal boundaries.
Eventually we agree on that, we may have disagreement on where exactly those boundaries are, but we agree on the principle. (unless ofcourse you would want nuclear warheads to be available in stores)
And also, once more, i totally agree that giving people free money for not having a job, is not a good economical model.
There are just to major points i wanted to make.
1-all it takes is a little prisoners-dillemma-matrix to see how a minimum level of regulation can be beneficial for everybody.
2-people who benefit most from an unregulated situation and who're usually very powerfull will often use their power through media and politic's to keep the lack of regulation as it is.
My government is being owned by the petro-industry for instance, just like the american government, and they will do anything to keep the dutch economy oil-based. They will do anyhting to prevent alternative energy sources to ever become dominant in holland.
Politicians want me to believe that oil resources are infinite, that there is no peak-oil scenario, that the dutch petro-industry is very clean compared to the petro-industry elsewhere and most of all, that there can be no alternative source of energy that will ever be commercially viable.
But a very large amount of dutch politicians will at some moment in his life make an appearance on the payroll of RDS, better known as shell. Shell is like the dutch halliburton, it's got it's fingers in every organ of power in holland and they're always involved in dirty affairs, shady armsdeals with african dictatorial regimes or rebel-groups and mysteriously enough, they will always get away with it and will never have to take any responsability for anything, just like halliburton.
Ofcourse RDS will do anything to keep it that way. No journalist will ever manage to get his fingers on what's happening and if he will, then he suddenly get's hit by a car or something, just like with halliburton.
Back to the guns....gun industry also likes everything to stay the way it is. Mexico may be suffering heavily, but they will use all their weight to make everybdoy think that they have nothing to do with what's going on in mexico.
And heavy machine guns that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute that can pierce through armed military vehicles has nothing to do with hunting, self-defence or the first amendement anymore, you might just as well allow people to buy nuclear warheads if you want to stretch the first amendment that far.
Something i also stated before, if you fear your own government that much, the same government the iranians fear, and you find that you need weapons to keep it in check...you should agree with iran building nuclear warheads because they are using the very same argument against the very same government.
So i mean, no hard feelings or anything. Just that there need to be limits drawn to anything...some minimal boundaries.
Eventually we agree on that, we may have disagreement on where exactly those boundaries are, but we agree on the principle. (unless ofcourse you would want nuclear warheads to be available in stores)
Kartikay
Rising Star
We're just going to go on repeating ourselves if we keep this up, endlessness. I'll just sum up my view.
1) The future is immense, more immense than the universe itself. Because of that, I know at some point that some governments will attempt to suppress the people more than they are willing to accept. The government will certainly be armed and I would like the people to have the best fighting chance possible.
2) The future is immense. Because of that, I know that at some point, some mostly innocent countries or regions will be invaded by some less than innocent foreign powers. Again, I would like the citizens to have the best fighting chance possible.
3) I understand that people are using guns for all sorts of atrocities. We should certainly educate people towards using them safely and storing them securely.
4) No amount of gun education is going to deter gangs from using guns.
5) Guns are all across the states in such immense quantities that no amount of education, collection or destruction program is going to make a noticeable dent in the availability of such weapons to those who want and misuse them.
6) Making guns illegal would put them entirely on the black market, which is exactly where we can't control them.
7) Education on home and gun safety would be more effective at preventing accidents than preaching no to use them at all. This has been shown in just about every venue, from alcohol education to driver safety to drug education to sexual education. There's no reason to believe it would be any different with guns.
8) My ideological views apply to all countries, but my views on practical application of gun control and education are limited to the U.S.
In direct response to your last post, I'll just say that your argument is stuffed full of hyperboles and I don't find them practical enough to change my opinion, as I'm sure you don't find my arguments worthy enough to change yours. But did we really expect to?
1) The future is immense, more immense than the universe itself. Because of that, I know at some point that some governments will attempt to suppress the people more than they are willing to accept. The government will certainly be armed and I would like the people to have the best fighting chance possible.
2) The future is immense. Because of that, I know that at some point, some mostly innocent countries or regions will be invaded by some less than innocent foreign powers. Again, I would like the citizens to have the best fighting chance possible.
3) I understand that people are using guns for all sorts of atrocities. We should certainly educate people towards using them safely and storing them securely.
4) No amount of gun education is going to deter gangs from using guns.
5) Guns are all across the states in such immense quantities that no amount of education, collection or destruction program is going to make a noticeable dent in the availability of such weapons to those who want and misuse them.
6) Making guns illegal would put them entirely on the black market, which is exactly where we can't control them.
7) Education on home and gun safety would be more effective at preventing accidents than preaching no to use them at all. This has been shown in just about every venue, from alcohol education to driver safety to drug education to sexual education. There's no reason to believe it would be any different with guns.
8) My ideological views apply to all countries, but my views on practical application of gun control and education are limited to the U.S.
In direct response to your last post, I'll just say that your argument is stuffed full of hyperboles and I don't find them practical enough to change my opinion, as I'm sure you don't find my arguments worthy enough to change yours. But did we really expect to?
1) Your government (all governments?) are already supressing people so badly, and yet everybody has naturalized it to a point where it became normality and there is no fighting. What makes you think that there will be this direct confrontation and not simply a more subtle war against people's freedom and human rights, which is what is happening right now (considering "they" are succeeding so well) ? Because guns surely dont help in anything in this case, in fact I could argue they make it worse in several ways.
2) So you agree with Iran or all other countries having nuclear weapons to defend against american invasions, as polytrip rightfully asked? and then what about how many weapons should each have? Because if the enemies might have bigger weapons, we should have more, right? More nuclear weapons to fight against potential bigger armies, more home weapons at home to fight against well-armed home robbers, etc etc.. ? Where does it end? Or we all limit ourselves to one hand gun, and in that case, in the event of a real fight against the government (idea which I still find soooo far off), will these simple pistols really help?
3) Yes, but IMO thats not enough
4) Im not talking about 'gun education', Im talking about education in general, and I strongly disagree because I think education is THE way to prevent gangs in the long term
5) As I said, just because others do something is not a valid argument (imo) to justify you doing something. Sure if we recycling it wont make a dent in the world ecological situation, but is that reason for us to throw garbage on the floor instead?
6) I never said the solution is to make guns illegal, I dont believe that legislation is the way to make humanity better. I believe in education, personal actions and watching one's speech. I believe speech has an amazing power, and it reproduces itself, so I believe that if one keeps spreading to others and arguing the need for guns to defend oneself, this is just spreading fear, justifying supporting a violent-based industry, and imo that has very negative long-term consequences.
7) Im not just 'preaching' at you, im argumenting in a thread regarding this subject. Im not just saying this as an isolated speech, because I dedicate my life to education. In fact one of the things im working at is exactly about education in places of conflict, peace building and conflict transformation, so you can see why I feel this is an important subject. And yeah I agree education is the key
and regarding my last post, what do you think is the flaw in my argument about "hummers could be just as necessary as guns in that hypothetical event so why not buy them?" Or gas masks, or why not stocking up on food, building trenches in front of the house, building traps, etc etc ? If all those things could be very useful, why not these things but rather only guns? What makes one thing more logical to do than others?
2) So you agree with Iran or all other countries having nuclear weapons to defend against american invasions, as polytrip rightfully asked? and then what about how many weapons should each have? Because if the enemies might have bigger weapons, we should have more, right? More nuclear weapons to fight against potential bigger armies, more home weapons at home to fight against well-armed home robbers, etc etc.. ? Where does it end? Or we all limit ourselves to one hand gun, and in that case, in the event of a real fight against the government (idea which I still find soooo far off), will these simple pistols really help?
3) Yes, but IMO thats not enough
4) Im not talking about 'gun education', Im talking about education in general, and I strongly disagree because I think education is THE way to prevent gangs in the long term
5) As I said, just because others do something is not a valid argument (imo) to justify you doing something. Sure if we recycling it wont make a dent in the world ecological situation, but is that reason for us to throw garbage on the floor instead?
6) I never said the solution is to make guns illegal, I dont believe that legislation is the way to make humanity better. I believe in education, personal actions and watching one's speech. I believe speech has an amazing power, and it reproduces itself, so I believe that if one keeps spreading to others and arguing the need for guns to defend oneself, this is just spreading fear, justifying supporting a violent-based industry, and imo that has very negative long-term consequences.
7) Im not just 'preaching' at you, im argumenting in a thread regarding this subject. Im not just saying this as an isolated speech, because I dedicate my life to education. In fact one of the things im working at is exactly about education in places of conflict, peace building and conflict transformation, so you can see why I feel this is an important subject. And yeah I agree education is the key
and regarding my last post, what do you think is the flaw in my argument about "hummers could be just as necessary as guns in that hypothetical event so why not buy them?" Or gas masks, or why not stocking up on food, building trenches in front of the house, building traps, etc etc ? If all those things could be very useful, why not these things but rather only guns? What makes one thing more logical to do than others?
Autodidactic
Rising Star
I'm a staunch libertarian, also a combat veteran, the only thing I really like about right wingers is their love of the constitution and the 2nd ammendment, I feel safer knowing most people where I live including myself own guns. If I was someone wanting to break into your house and rob or do worse to you, I would think twice knowing the area had a lot of gun owners. The most dangerous cities in the US are the ones with the harshest gun laws, where only criminals own them.
hear here
also a libertarian who views the 2nd as a birthright.
i live in a town where there were two home invasions this year
in both cases, the perpetrators were shot by the residents. don't f#&% with texans.
also a libertarian who views the 2nd as a birthright.
i live in a town where there were two home invasions this year
in both cases, the perpetrators were shot by the residents. don't f#&% with texans.
I don't have time to really get into this, or do I feel its really necessary,
but,
Sure, Guns don't kill people, people kill people, kill people, kill people.
Its just what we do, and what we have done for 10 000 years.
Its just human nature.
but,
Sure, Guns don't kill people, people kill people, kill people, kill people.
Its just what we do, and what we have done for 10 000 years.
Its just human nature.
Kartikay
Rising Star
Nukes are a totally different topic, with obvious differences. This is why i dislike hyperboles and metaphors. It detracts. But I'm done, I've made my case. I think the right to own a gun is important. I don't even own one, and don't have any plans to buy one. I'm not personally invested in 2nd amendment rights at any level, but I recognize the importance. And there is NO WAY that taking away our guns is going to make a government LESS oppressive...
but at least we agree that education is productive
but at least we agree that education is productive
I own a pellet rifle, and enjoy plinking away at various targets. (One time, My friend and I recreated the JFK assassination with some water balloons and a toy car :lol: )
Nukes? Nothing else leaves you with a sense of security, power, and generally content then an ICBM with multiple MIRV warheads. :roll:
Nukes? Nothing else leaves you with a sense of security, power, and generally content then an ICBM with multiple MIRV warheads. :roll:
Pebble on the Beach
C r a c k B l i p T o o t T o o t ! ! !
polytrip said:
That had absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership, but as a fellow European I have to congratulate you on this speech (It truly reads like one). You resonated with me on a very deep level and eloquently put views into words I myself have tried to convey to family of mine on the other side of the ocean, in wich I failed miserably. I applaud you on your oratorical skills.
Sincerely,
PotB
Well, i wouldn't want to insult americans. It's just when you look at movements like the teaparty (and we do have simmilar political movements in europe) that they always pretend to be movements from and for the people...
Just like old W pretended to be an ordinary guy, or silvio berlusconi always pretends to be an ordinary guy.
But those people who pretend to be ordinary guys are always billionaires themselves and those political movements always end up doing things that go againts the interest of the ordinary man on the street.
And they take advantage of the fact that people who have to work realy hard to get by, have too little time on their hands and too litle energy left to realy inform themselves on what's going on. That's the most cynical thing, that they use cheap arguments that strongly resonate with people who're fed-up with everything because their lives are tough the way they are.
They use the bitterness many ordinary people feel because of how tough their life already is, to seduce them supporting policy's that will make life only tougher for them.
Just like old W pretended to be an ordinary guy, or silvio berlusconi always pretends to be an ordinary guy.
But those people who pretend to be ordinary guys are always billionaires themselves and those political movements always end up doing things that go againts the interest of the ordinary man on the street.
And they take advantage of the fact that people who have to work realy hard to get by, have too little time on their hands and too litle energy left to realy inform themselves on what's going on. That's the most cynical thing, that they use cheap arguments that strongly resonate with people who're fed-up with everything because their lives are tough the way they are.
They use the bitterness many ordinary people feel because of how tough their life already is, to seduce them supporting policy's that will make life only tougher for them.
In what way are nukes different? The amount of lives they claim?Kartikay said:Nukes are a totally different topic, with obvious differences. This is why i dislike hyperboles and metaphors. It detracts. But I'm done, I've made my case. I think the right to own a gun is important. I don't even own one, and don't have any plans to buy one. I'm not personally invested in 2nd amendment rights at any level, but I recognize the importance. And there is NO WAY that taking away our guns is going to make a government LESS oppressive...
but at least we agree that education is productive
So where would you draw the line? 10 lives?, 100 lives? 1000 lives? 10000 lives? 100000 lives?
I mean if nukes are a different topic, then scale apparently matters so you would agree that the right to own a handgun is different than the right to own the type of weaponry mexican druglords obtain from the united states to terrorise the country.
The unlimited freedom to own even military type of weapons that in no way are needed for self defence (how could an american citizen need a weapon that fires hundreds of rounds a minute that can penetrate armoured military vehicles, for self defence?), is causing big, big problems not only within the U.S. itself but also across the borders.
wow, this is a hard one.
I feel i should have a gun, if someone try's to invade my home i need protection, they will more than likely have a gun despite the ban of guns. You could attach the same scenario to nukes.
But on the other hand, i feel maybe ghandi could have been right, all while thinking of the saying...fight fire with fire. realistically, how can you fight a fire with a fire. How can you end a war with a war, maybe the answer is to resist, to not bring yourself to the level of the person in the wrong.
But then on another note, if most decide to live that way, there is the possibility that good people would just get wiped out, then there is nothing but the same situation to a stronger degree because of a lack of positive influence.
I guess if you believe in God and reincarnation, you could live like gandhi without the fear of the negative end result, not because earth will be saved by God, but because earth isn't the only place to live. Perhaps there are worlds out there where the good dominate.
I have adopted this type of thought, as i think that physical life may be a place where you are sent to re-find your connection with God, and that you are continuously reborn untill you do. And there is no such thing as evil, only evil intent commited by lost souls.
This is nothing i could prove, so it could be considered irresponsible to teach people to not stand up for themselves, but on the other hand, fighting a war even for a good cause can currupt the ones fighting and continue the cycle.
I feel i should have a gun, if someone try's to invade my home i need protection, they will more than likely have a gun despite the ban of guns. You could attach the same scenario to nukes.
But on the other hand, i feel maybe ghandi could have been right, all while thinking of the saying...fight fire with fire. realistically, how can you fight a fire with a fire. How can you end a war with a war, maybe the answer is to resist, to not bring yourself to the level of the person in the wrong.
But then on another note, if most decide to live that way, there is the possibility that good people would just get wiped out, then there is nothing but the same situation to a stronger degree because of a lack of positive influence.
I guess if you believe in God and reincarnation, you could live like gandhi without the fear of the negative end result, not because earth will be saved by God, but because earth isn't the only place to live. Perhaps there are worlds out there where the good dominate.
I have adopted this type of thought, as i think that physical life may be a place where you are sent to re-find your connection with God, and that you are continuously reborn untill you do. And there is no such thing as evil, only evil intent commited by lost souls.
This is nothing i could prove, so it could be considered irresponsible to teach people to not stand up for themselves, but on the other hand, fighting a war even for a good cause can currupt the ones fighting and continue the cycle.
Your sister is a lifetime NRA member. She competed in match and sporting rifle competitions in her teens. She still owns grandpas 30-30, the same one that used to bring home the bacon on the homestead, and got his family through the depression. She doesn't hunt, or have any taste for killing. She hasn't even looked at it in several years, but keeps it for the day when food is no longer available at supermarkets.
I am.
I AM
strange...one of the most horrific tools ever created gives so many a sense of security. believe you me people...if the great architects want to take over...your guns won't matter. oh wait...they already did take over. so...that means they let you have guns. which means that obviously guns aren't that powerful. seriously, though, guys...let's not let guns tear the nexus apart.
not saying it is but let's all make sure not to get too heated over this topic. it's very interesting to debate, no doubt, but because of the sense of protection and security that are instilled by the possession of them and the fear that can come when thinking about not having one, this conversation can swing in mmmaaannnyyy directions. so let's make sure that this stays a topical debate and not a drawing of lines in the sand.
the are benefits to having guns. no doubt. but in all honesty...i wish guns had never been invented. or nukes. or whatever. it's all a division of mankind. kinda sad that in order to stay safe, sometimes you've gotta act like a savage.
but seriously guys...if the government let's you have guns, do you really think they're that powerful?
not saying it is but let's all make sure not to get too heated over this topic. it's very interesting to debate, no doubt, but because of the sense of protection and security that are instilled by the possession of them and the fear that can come when thinking about not having one, this conversation can swing in mmmaaannnyyy directions. so let's make sure that this stays a topical debate and not a drawing of lines in the sand.
the are benefits to having guns. no doubt. but in all honesty...i wish guns had never been invented. or nukes. or whatever. it's all a division of mankind. kinda sad that in order to stay safe, sometimes you've gotta act like a savage.
but seriously guys...if the government let's you have guns, do you really think they're that powerful?
nobody's getting hot and bothered, son..
and in the original context, it used to be about taking up arms against a tyrannical gov't..
but today, the 2nd has a different connotation..protection from other citizens/non-citizens.
and consider this: on a very basic metaphoric level, tyranny may be viewed as when someone steps in your domain without authorization, imposing their own will. either take up arms, or get punked.
many sheeple would rather call the cops and wait around, but to me, self-defense is most important. I won't default that to LE.
I wouldn't be willing to let my life be taken over some bs in my own domain. a choice of my life or a perpetrator's is no choice at all.
and in the original context, it used to be about taking up arms against a tyrannical gov't..
but today, the 2nd has a different connotation..protection from other citizens/non-citizens.
and consider this: on a very basic metaphoric level, tyranny may be viewed as when someone steps in your domain without authorization, imposing their own will. either take up arms, or get punked.
many sheeple would rather call the cops and wait around, but to me, self-defense is most important. I won't default that to LE.
I wouldn't be willing to let my life be taken over some bs in my own domain. a choice of my life or a perpetrator's is no choice at all.
you guys are right, this is a volatile subject; but to most, it's more than a freedom, it's a choice. choose to own arms or don't...but don't support legislation taking that choice from people who do. that's not what a 'free' society is supposed to be.
I am. said:
The gun has other usses, like Dr_Sister said, for hunting to obtain food to eat. I have mixed feelings about how to go about obtaining world peace, but for the ones who want humans to continue to evolve, some battles may have to be faught despite how war really sucks. The world has not grown up enough to ban self protection. Here is something interesting i just watched, just skip the article and scroll down to the clip with Michio Kaku. He says alot of things that make sence to me, if your for human evolution into space. I can't find the clip anywhere else, the artical really sucks, i wouln't recommend reading it.
Fromtheold.com