Fantastique wrote:
Another two pages, and the pro-guns are still getting their asses handed to them. Are you guys seriously unwilling to waver from your stances no matter how much thrashing you receive?
I don't see a thrashing. I see some people relentlessly trying to act as if some are receiving a 'thrashing', while dismissing all other points brought up in the thread. Since Aestu want's to convict R.C. Soles in the Aestu "This Isn't A Court of Law" Court of Law, I'll stop entertaining him and talk with you about something posted a few pages back.
Eturnalshift wrote:
* They can help provide for national defense.
Fanta wrote:
Nationally, we have the military, which doesn't have to worry about the restrictions I'm referring to (you knew this too).
I think a fundamental reason you and I see this differently is because you see the government and it's ever-expanding reach as a positive thing. I, and I'm guessing a few others around here, see it as a threat to an individuals liberty. Although you may not agree with the importance or wisdom of our founding fathers, they were mostly in agreement with the idea of American's being able to possess, maintain and use firearms. Some of our founding fathers justified this position by saying we needed to have men ready to form state-level militias as they saw standing armies as a bad thing. The thought is that every single man has a duty to the country and, to help defend, they must have the weapons needed in case they're called by the state.
"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." Consider the uprisings in the middle east... most notably, in Syria. Every week you hear about peaceful protesters getting gunned down by indiscriminate shooting from the Syrian government. In each case, and much like our War of Independence, armed individuals forming militias are fighting back against the government which has been oppressing them. Like Azelma pointed out pages ago, where would our country be if we had no way of defending ourselves from the British? Aestu says we'd be dancing on the Berlin Wall... but we could easily be the OWS rally that is gunned down by our own government. Then what?
Or what about the effectiveness of the Mujahideen against the British, Soviet and Americans during their respective invasions. In driving out the Russians, the Mujahideen needed the American's help as we supplied arms and support... but, in the last decade, we've seen similar groups (armed with weapons we've supplied them), take aim at us for being in their country. Although I don't know how many casualties they've caused, I'm sure it's greater than zero. I wonder if we ever were faced with a similar situation, who would supply us with arms should some liberals have a complete disarmament or restrict people to only wield .22s.
I guess my point is the government might not always be in our best interest and they won't always be able to protect us.
Eturnalshift wrote:
* They can provide home defense in the event that someone breaks in.
* They can provide personal defense for yourself or others.
Fanta wrote:
Not an ideal (or even practical) form of home defense.
Depends on who you're asking, I guess. I'd like to know what you consider to be ideal and/or practical for home defense. We know for a fact that people force themselves into other peoples houses. We also know that people do it with a weapon... sometimes a gun, or a knife, or whatever. It doesn't matter the reason for a person breaking into your house and you shouldn't need to know if they have a weapon. If you're creeping through someones dark house and you hear someone rack a shotgun from another room, what are you going to do? If you're armed are you going to take that chance? In close-quarter situations, your chances of escaping a gunshot blast aren't that great.
Kinda going back to my previous points about the government not being able to always protect us, think back to the 1992 riots in Los Angeles. The Korean American community was a small, marginalized group that wasn't receiving any protection from the police since they were in Koreatown -- an area that was apparently too dangerous for the police to protect. The Koreans banded together to form security groups so they could protect their own communities because no one was able to protect them. Prior to thousands of guardsmen and marines being called into action, rioters burned thousands of buildings, thousands were injured, and dozens were killed.
If that spat of lawlessness isn't enough then you could always look at other areas that are hit by natural disasters. New Orleans had many stories come out about people needing to defend themselves and properties because law enforcement couldn't protect (due to inaccessibility). Areas that lose power for days, whether from hurricanes, earthquakes or severe storms, normally see an increase in crime.
Of course, we don't need to have riots, natural disasters or home invasions to justify the right for individuals to protect themselves. How many people are murdered in public because someone else pulled a knife, bat or even a trigger? Personally, I think it's only fair that the people being attacked have the right to defend themselves with equal force should they choose to. Telling people they have to defend themselves in a gun fight, with a knife, is illogical to me.
Eturnalshift wrote:
* Guns are fun.
* They can be used for sport.
* They can be used for hunting.
Fanta wrote:
They can be used for sport even with mountains of restrictions. They can be used for hunting even with mountains of restrictions.
What kind of restrictions do you want? Would you be completely fine if I imposed restrictions on your interests and hobbies because I didn't like what you do?
