Isaac Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 ...............All of which is beside the point, as the Second Amendment is not dependent on statistics or people being safe - it's there to safeguard the republic and its citizenry from tyranny both foreign and domestic. Government does not have a right to a monopoly on guns. Every free person has a right to own a gun for their self defence and to protect their country and constitution. As Sauin said, the Holocaust is a case in point of the need for law abiding citizens to own guns - and that was only decades ago, and in a first world country, not some distant past or out in some third world cesspool. I don't know how anyone can know about the Holocaust and not instantly believe law abiding citizens should be armed. Why they think the government had a right to a monopoly on guns is beyond me, as it led to millions of law abiding citizens being murdered like lambs to a slaughter. I have no interest in discussing crime statistics. It's an irrelevant factor in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Irrelevant? It's at the heart of the matter. Are you suggesting that there is no link between gun laws and the level of gun deaths in the US? The governments most important role is to monopolise the use of force. This has made our world far more peaceful than it has ever been. Even taking into account wars and holocausts the proportion of deaths in warfare has never been lower than in the last century. The ridiculously high number of deaths from guns in the US is a failure in this respect on the part of the US government as it is not properly controlling the use of force by its citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Did you read my post on page 2? The Second Amendment dates back to the 18th century. It is about protecting rights and liberties and safeguarding the nation against tyranny both foreign and domestic. It has nothing to do with fear. Fox News didn't even go on the airwaves until 1996. The Second Amendment is supported by both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. You want to try and characterise all gun owners or defenders of the Second Amendment as nutjobs, but Americans from all walks of life, all races, all incomes, all religions, all politician affiliations, all own guns. Even Michael Moore is a member of the NRA. The Second Amendment doesn't give the right to unlimited and all types of weapons. There are already laws and regulations for guns in America. If they're not being properly followed, that isn't the fault of the principle of the Second Amendment. What I would say to you is that SSRI (anti-depressant) drugs have been linked to most if not all of the shootings since Columbine. It's always emerged they were already known to mental health services and on anti-depressants or anti-psychotic drugs which are known to cause people to have suicidal or homicidal tendencies. So stop blaming the Second Amendment and guns and why not look at the bigger picture. Guns are just like any other tool - they are neutral; it's the people who use them and their intention which determines the outcome. I already discounted the logical fallacy you're trying to re-introduce to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 It's not illogical to connect the prevalence of guns to gun deaths, and to apportion blame for these deaths to the laxness of gun laws. The correlation is clear. It is the role of governments to deal with such problems and to ensure that force is not being used by citizens unnecessarily. Clearly the US has a problem in this respect and a clear solution is to make laws on who can own guns, and what type of guns they can own, stricter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 IMO possession of firearms in the US is not the root cause of gun crime, the root cause is an increasing fragmentation of US society. When immigration was people wanting to become Americans and integrate into the American way of life (goodness knows why) there was not the fragmentation taking place but since the multiculturalism nonsense kicked in and immigrants and existing social groups started to plough their own furrow things have started to break up. Firearm use is a symptom of a very much deeper problem and one that is increasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 IMO possession of firearms in the US is not the root cause of gun crime, the root cause is an increasing fragmentation of US society. When immigration was people wanting to become Americans and integrate into the American way of life (goodness knows why) there was not the fragmentation taking place but since the multiculturalism nonsense kicked in and immigrants and existing social groups started to plough their own furrow things have started to break up. Firearm use is a symptom of a very much deeper problem and one that is increasing. Taking the latest incident for example, I presume you would accept that the guy who went into a church and killed people was clearly deranged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 IMO possession of firearms in the US is not the root cause of gun crime, the root cause is an increasing fragmentation of US society. When immigration was people wanting to become Americans and integrate into the American way of life (goodness knows why) there was not the fragmentation taking place but since the multiculturalism nonsense kicked in and immigrants and existing social groups started to plough their own furrow things have started to break up. Firearm use is a symptom of a very much deeper problem and one that is increasing. Taking the latest incident for example, I presume you would accept that the guy who went into a church and killed people was clearly deranged? Absolutely, but the fragmenting society provided the 'justification' to him for his act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 It's not illogical to connect the prevalence of guns to gun deaths, and to apportion blame for these deaths to the laxness of gun laws. The correlation is clear. It is the role of governments to deal with such problems and to ensure that force is not being used by citizens unnecessarily. Clearly the US has a problem in this respect and a clear solution is to make laws on who can own guns, and what type of guns they can own, stricter. None of this has ANYTHING at all to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Re-read my previous post. You are completely missing the point. The role of government is to preserve the rights and liberties of the citizenry. They swear an oath to uphold the constitution. American citizens have the right to bear arms. End of subject. As I said, blaming the Second Amendment right to bear arms for this shooting is like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11. You might want to read the writings of the US founding fathers to understand why they introduced the Second Amendment before you spew typical Marxist left-wing anti-constitutional bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 A constitution is not inviolable. If it needs changing then it it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 It isn't just "a" constitution, it's THE Constitution of the United States of America - and yes it is inviolable under United States law. It does not need to be changed so shut up and mind your own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 For me the US can keep, or amend, their constitution however they want as that's their own business and I'm not a US citizen or resident there. Constitutional right or not I'm personally I'm glad I don't live somewhere where it is so easy to buy a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Yes, you live in a country where the government grabbed the guns off law-abiding Jews including WWI veterans and then murdered them. Tell me again why a government monopoly on violence is a good thing and citizens don't need to be protected from big bad government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Yes, you live in a country where the government grabbed the guns off law-abiding Jews including WWI veterans and then murdered them. Tell me again why a government monopoly on violence is a good thing and citizens don't need to be protected from big bad government? Yes and obviously whilst it is many generations before my time and wasn't undertaken by my own family I don't condone that either. I'm not sure lone mad people going on rampages (that is what this thread is about) against innocent people can be directly compared to the atrocities of a regime like the Nazis. Furthermore I don't recall ever saying that a government should have a monopoly on violence. Why are you always so angry and aggressive in your responses? I simply stated my personal opinion and agreed with you on the US being able to do what they want with their own country. You seriously need to take some deep breaths and think before you post, it isn't even possible to agree with you without you going off on one. For your own blood pressure, calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 The whole advantage to governments is that they prevent violence. Before you say 'what about WW1 and 2', well even if you take into account civilian deaths during those conflicts the percentage of deaths per population of the countries involved was far lower than that from warfare in traditional societies. The larger the organisational group the lower the deaths from warfare, generally speaking. Large states with strong monopolies on violence have made the world much more peaceful and safe. It is when governments do not have a solid grip on private violence that war and violence arise. Rebels, enemies of various sorts, opportunistic warlords, power hungry criminals, see their opening. If you let people arm themselves they will fight amongst themselves; that's what people do. Certainly the US has not descended into civil war just yet, but there is an endemic problem with gun violence. There's no need for armed civilians running about capping each other. Any good government would do something about it. Another topic is why hasn't that problem been solved in the US. The attitude that "the law is the law" or constitution in this case is ridiculous, as I'm sure you would agree, especially when thousands die needlessly each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.