Help me formulate a response to my friend

[matratzac]

He said:

Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms. If you get shot and killed I'd say that interferes with your ability to live and prosper, wouldnt you?? Look at the situations that could potentially have been avioded had there been stricker gun laws. Columbine comes to mind. Or how about Virginia Tech. Thousands of people die every year because of guns being so easy for anyone to get. You need to weigh the pros against the cons when determining which personal freedoms to allow. The thousands of livesthat would be saved every year by implimenting very stick gun control laws would be worth taking away peoples guns.

The idea that gay people cannot get married is discrimination plan and simple. By allowing the states to tell people that they cannot get married because of their sexuality IS taking away a personal freedom. It would be no different than states having the power to tell women they cant go to school.

We agree on the fact that the gov't is responsible for protecting people's personal freedoms we just disagree on exaclty what that means. I believe that in order to protect peoples freedoms, people must make some sacrifices. (such as giving up your gun).

I very strongly disagree with you on the issue of needing to be allowed to own guns in order to be free. These are very different times from when our country was first founded and you have to adapt to the times.


People talk about the constitution as if it is some kind of divine law. Lets keep in mind that the constitution and all of its amendments were written by rich white men. (not much diversity there). Not to mention they were slave owners so lets not get too high on the founding fathers.

Also the constitution allows for amendments which is how the right to bear arms got in there in the first place. If we can amend the constitution to give us the right to bear arms, why can we not amend it to take that right away.

As I keep trying to emphasize we need to make neccessary changes as the world we live in changes. At the time when the second amendment was added the possiblity of a revolt by the people to overthrow the gov't if neccessary was a very real thing. Today it is not. Even if our gov't did develope into some sort of dictatorship a few rednecks with shotguns is not going have much of a chance against a gov't which owns billion dollar fighter jets and nuclear weapons, so lets try to keep things realistic for the time period we live in.

Another thought...

The democrats are not trying to legislate morality as you say. Allowing people to get abortions is not the same thing as saying that people should get abortions. Allowing gay people to get married is not the same thing as saying that it is good for gay people to get married. What the democrats try to do is make sure that NO ONE interferes with peoples rights to do these things(and NO ONE includes the states). When you leave these issues up to the states you are giving the state the oppritunity to take peoples freedoms away. According to your logic, if a state wants to legalize slavery it should be allowed to do so. To prevent peoples personal freedoms from being infringed upon the national gov't must step in, that is their primary job.


And another thought on the gun issue....

You said that to take away peoples guns is to take away their personal freedom. What about bombs, gernades, serin gas, nuclear weapons? Arent we taking away peoples personal freedoms by not allowing them to purchase these items as well?? Or do you think we should be able to go to walmart and buy a bomb? The point is that obviously at some point you have to place some restrictions on what people can and cannot do, the only question is where do you draw the line? In my mind that line has to be drawn at guns. Just think about what a gun is...a tool designed specifically to kill. It is very scarry to me that any joe schmoe can walk into a gun shop and walk out 10 minutes late with a semi-automatic rifle and it amazes me that more people are not bothered by this fact.

[matratzac]

bump before i go get food

[Swmorgan77]

Preventing someone from killing someone else is not restricting feedom, it's protecting it.

Every "right" has a natural barrier at the point when the exercise of it would infringe on the rights of another. It is at the point when you start restricting liberty for reasons that do no prevent harm against the life, liberty or property of another that is the problem.

[matratzac]

Preventing someone from killing someone else is not restricting feedom, it's protecting it.

Every "right" has a natural barrier at the point when the exercise of it would infringe on the rights of another. It is at the point when you start restricting liberty for reasons that do no prevent harm against the life, liberty or property of another that is the problem.

thanks, any other ideas

[forsmant]

People kill people, not guns. Guns are weapons used by people.

In fact you could argue that one could kill another with just about every thing in the world. It may not be as efficient as a gun, but the result is the same, dead people. If we are banning guns because they kill people, we can extend those laws to people proficient in the martial arts, boxing, archery, baseball, stranglers, poison etc.

As to the marriage question, the government should not be in the business of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution and should have stayed that way. Gays want the law to treat them equally. This can be done by creating new laws for gay marriage or eliminating current marriage laws.

Democrats are trying to legislate morality just as much as the republicans. In fact most law is the definition between right and wrong. Abortion and marriage are not natural rights either, they are privileges. The states laws can be found unconstitutional. If they infringe on the rights of man, there are proper channels to go through to fight their constitutionality. I believe the 14th amendment actually says that slavery is illegal.

People can buy bombs. Bombs are really expensive though and for good reason. I do not think there is a real demand for bombs outside of their mainly military functions. Bombs are used in demolition, mining, fireworks, and Hollywood movies. Nuclear bombs are probably out of reach to most citizens pocketbooks and corporations don't need bombs.

[affa]

He said:
The idea that gay people cannot get married is discrimination plan and simple. By allowing the states to tell people that they cannot get married because of their sexuality IS taking away a personal freedom. It would be no different than states having the power to tell women they cant go to school.


Dr. Ron Paul is not against gay people getting married. He's against the federal gov't having anything to do with marriage. He thinks two people should be able to do whatever they want together, even if he disagrees with it.

[affa]

He said:

Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms. If you get shot and killed I'd say that interferes with your ability to live and prosper, wouldnt you?? Look at the situations that could potentially have been avioded had there been stricker gun laws. Columbine comes to mind. Or how about Virginia Tech. Thousands of people die every year because of guns being so easy for anyone to get. You need to weigh the pros against the cons when determining which personal freedoms to allow. The thousands of livesthat would be saved every year by implimenting very stick gun control laws would be worth taking away peoples guns.

I ride a bike. Two bikers were recently killed by truck drivers in my city.

Should we outlaw vehicles?

Wait... that's a completely ridiculous analogy, almost as ridiculous as comparing nuclear weapons to guns.

I understand the desire to limit violence. I really do. But stripping the people of their right to bear arms is not the way to do it. We're already close enough to police state as it is, no need to push it any further.

[thomaspaine23]

[QUOTE=matratzac;1082028]He said:

Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms.

Taken away by WHOM?


If you get shot and killed I'd say that interferes with your ability to live and prosper, wouldnt you?? Look at the situations that could potentially have been avioded had there been stricker gun laws.

And what about the right to SELF DEFENSE??? The supreme court has ruled
that even with a restraining order the state has no OBLIGATION to defend you.

Not only that but GOVERNMENTS are the biggest mass murderers in history.
In every case strict gun control laws were implemented first.
Hitler
Stalin
Mao

As for numbers: 11,600 firearms homicides in 2004.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

This includes murder, self defense,and police shootings.

there were almost 4 times this amount in car accidents,
and 2 times the amount due to alcohol.

there were 2.4 million deaths in 2004 in the US

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf

so ALL firearms homicides are .0048% (less than one half of one percent of deaths)


You need to weigh the pros against the cons when determining which personal freedoms to allow.

The thousands of livesthat would be saved every year by implimenting very stick gun control laws would be worth taking away peoples guns.

If cars kill 4 times the number and alcohol kills twice the number can I make the same argument?? I.E. Think of how many people we could save by banning cars and alcohol!!!!

The idea that gay people cannot get married is discrimination plan and simple. By allowing the states to tell people that they cannot get married because of their sexuality IS taking away a personal freedom.

Yes to the above, however if you think the federal government should have the power to "allow" something then it also has the power to take it away!!!



We agree on the fact that the gov't is responsible for protecting people's personal freedoms we just disagree on exaclty what that means. I believe that in order to protect peoples freedoms, people must make some sacrifices. (such as giving up your gun).

I very strongly disagree with you on the issue of needing to be allowed to own guns in order to be free. These are very different times from when our country was first founded and you have to adapt to the times.

Fine, use the process and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to do so.


Also the constitution allows for amendments which is how the right to bear arms got in there in the first place. If we can amend the constitution to give us the right
to bear arms, why can we not amend it to take that right away.

The constitution does not GIVE rights. They are INHERENT including the right to self defense.

[trout007]

A great series of books to look into is called the Uncle Eric books by Richard Mayberry. He says you only need government to inforce 2 laws. Do what you promised you would do (Contract Law). And don't encroach on other peoples persons or property. (Criminal Law).

The problem your friend has with his gun argument is he is rejecting reality. Guns exist. Banning them completly will have the same effect as drug laws. They will still exist only those people who have no regard for the law will have them. This is the unintended consequences. He can wish for a world without guns all he wants but it doesn't change the fact that it does exist and criminals will have them. The best argument is criminal control. Those that show they cannot be trusted with freedom and have initiated violence against another person should be removed from society.

Gay Marriage- Marriage isn't a right. I assume what he is talking about is all the benefits that go along with marriage. He had it backwards. In my opinion what we should work on is removing all government benefits for marriage. Ask why should those benefits be based on a sexual relationship of any kind? Government should have one set of rules for it's citizens. This way any group of people could enter into their own marriage contract and it would just be the job of the government (state most likely) to enforce that contract. This is an example of the problems when the government goes beyond what it is supposed to do.

Abortion: The main problem with abortion and end of life issues is the problem of where does life begin and the protections provided by the constitution come in and out of effect. These are such difficult questions that it is best left up to the states to figure out and there will be different solutions.

[ronpaulitician]

Allowing people to get abortions is not the same thing as saying that people should get abortions.
Correct, but allowing people to get abortions is not the same thing as funding those very abortions.

Allowing gay people to get married is not the same thing as saying that it is good for gay people to get married.
Correct again, but the government must still abide by its laws. If the laws are wrong, the laws must be changed.

What the democrats try to do is make sure that NO ONE interferes with peoples rights to do these things(and NO ONE includes the states).
What the Democrats try to do is convince you that's why they do it and that it's the only thing they want to do.

When you leave these issues up to the states you are giving the state the oppritunity to take peoples freedoms away.
What, then, is the purpose of state government?
Should states have the right to secede?

The point is that obviously at some point you have to place some restrictions on what people can and cannot do, the only question is where do you draw the line? In my mind that line has to be drawn at guns.
Assuming that when he says "guns" he means "firearms", the Brits would've liked this fellow back in 1776.

[dblee]

Your friend is operating (amongst many other fallacies) under the assumption that rights are somehow GRANTED by the government. This is untrue. Further examination of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, in addition to researching the philosophical background of our founding fathers would reveal the opposite. Rights are inalienably granted by our CREATOR (whatever you may view that as. nature if you please) and not granted by the government, which is essentially our creation and consists of humans.

Under that pretext, all rights already belong to individuals. For a government to pass a law 'granting' the right presupposes that it had the right to grant in the first place. Remind your friend that if the Federal government has the right to allow it, it also has the right to ban it. A dangerous precedent.

[Physics]

Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms. If you get shot and killed I'd say that interferes with your ability to live and prosper, wouldnt you?? Look at the situations that could potentially have been avioded had there been stricker gun laws. Columbine comes to mind. Or how about Virginia Tech. Thousands of people die every year because of guns being so easy for anyone to get. You need to weigh the pros against the cons when determining which personal freedoms to allow. The thousands of livesthat would be saved every year by implimenting very stick gun control laws would be worth taking away peoples guns.

Ask him to name a gun control law that has lowered violent crime. There are none. There may be thousands that die because of guns, but guess what, they would not be safer without guns. That's because gun control has no effect on violent crime rates. Hang on... let me go ahead and support that with a Harvard Law paper... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Okay, there we go, that should go ahead and clear that up for him.

There was a situtation very similar to Virginia Tech, at the Appalachian School of Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
You will notice that in this situation, 3 people were killed, not 32. He was taken down by 2 students, armed with their own personal guns. With this example in mind, I say that had a single person been armed in Virginia Tech, the possibility of a drastically different scenario was very possible. Keep in mind the shooter supposedly chained the doors shut from the inside. How can you expect the police to protect you in that situation? A simple case of "Every second counts, and the police are minutes away". Not to mention the fact that almost all mass shootings, including Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the recent mall shooting, are committed in GUN FREE ZONES. The second the shooter walks onto the property, he is virtually guaranteed to be the only person with a gun. This is why gun free zones are known as "Victim Disarmament Zones". I would also like to point out that most recent church shooting was stopped because a civilian gun owner, acting as a security guard, shot back.

Also, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad1b9e1328f.htm explains that more lives are saved by guns than those lost. Try a google image search for Oleg Volk while you're at it. The idea that taking away our guns makes us more safe is nothing short of ignorance. I would like to see your friend's reasoning on how gun control would have prevented any of these shootings? Gun control is an ILLUSION of safety.







The idea that gay people cannot get married is discrimination plan and simple. By allowing the states to tell people that they cannot get married because of their sexuality IS taking away a personal freedom. It would be no different than states having the power to tell women they cant go to school.

But here's the thing, Dr. Paul opposes the constitutional amendment making it illegal for gays to get married. Leaving it up to the states will make it fair for everyone. His analogy is just wrong, nobody is offended by women in school. I agree with your friend that gay marriage bans are wrong, however, I think that leaving it up to the states would allow for a fair distribution.


We agree on the fact that the gov't is responsible for protecting people's personal freedoms we just disagree on exaclty what that means. I believe that in order to protect peoples freedoms, people must make some sacrifices.(such as giving up your gun).
Why? Specifically. Your friend might be willing to give up the freedom that so many have bled for. I, however, am not.


I very strongly disagree with you on the issue of needing to be allowed to own guns in order to be free. These are very different times from when our country was first founded and you have to adapt to the times.

I want to know how he thinks taking away guns is A)beneficial , or B)feasible without civil war.


People talk about the constitution as if it is some kind of divine law. Lets keep in mind that the constitution and all of its amendments were written by rich white men. (not much diversity there). Not to mention they were slave owners so lets not get too high on the founding fathers.

Yet the constitution, written by rich white men, treats every American the same. We are all endowed with our God-given rights, be we black, white, tall, short, gay, straight, WHATEVER. What they wrote benefits us all, how about OJ? The r5th amendment was pretty good to him.


Also the constitution allows for amendments which is how the right to bear arms got in there in the first place. If we can amend the constitution to give us the right to bear arms, why can we not amend it to take that right away.
We could, but as I mentioned before, that would be stupid. It would make us LESS safe.


As I keep trying to emphasize we need to make neccessary changes as the world we live in changes. At the time when the second amendment was added the possiblity of a revolt by the people to overthrow the gov't if neccessary was a very real thing. Today it is not. Even if our gov't did develope into some sort of dictatorship a few rednecks with shotguns is not going have much of a chance against a gov't which owns billion dollar fighter jets and nuclear weapons, so lets try to keep things realistic for the time period we live in.
Kinda like Iraq right? This logic does not work with me.



The democrats are not trying to legislate morality as you say. Allowing people to get abortions is not the same thing as saying that people should get abortions. Allowing gay people to get married is not the same thing as saying that it is good for gay people to get married. What the democrats try to do is make sure that NO ONE interferes with peoples rights to do these things(and NO ONE includes the states). When you leave these issues up to the states you are giving the state the oppritunity to take peoples freedoms away. According to your logic, if a state wants to legalize slavery it should be allowed to do so. To prevent peoples personal freedoms from being infringed upon the national gov't must step in, that is their primary job.
What about the people that consider abortion murder? Is your friend a scientist, who can make the determination of when a life starts?


You said that to take away peoples guns is to take away their personal freedom. What about bombs, gernades, serin gas, nuclear weapons? Arent we taking away peoples personal freedoms by not allowing them to purchase these items as well?? Or do you think we should be able to go to walmart and buy a bomb? The point is that obviously at some point you have to place some restrictions on what people can and cannot do, the only question is where do you draw the line? In my mind that line has to be drawn at guns. Just think about what a gun is...a tool designed specifically to kill. It is very scarry to me that any joe schmoe can walk into a gun shop and walk out 10 minutes late with a semi-automatic rifle and it amazes me that more people are not bothered by this fact.

Someday, he may be thanking his new best friend, Joe, for saving his life. To carry a gun you must pass through background checks, and training. What more can you possibly ask for? Why should I have to give up my right to DEFEND MYSELF because your friend is scared. Why does he draw that line at guns (by the way, I don't think civilians should have nukes...). Seriously, what is this guy's problem with GUNS? It's cliche I know, but guns don't kill people, they are inanimate objects.... PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, and they will continue to do it, whether they have a gun, knife, bomb, spork, inner tube, tree limb, hammer, pencil, crossbows, chain link fences, or even a paper clip. Tell him to read the Harvard paper I posted earlier in the post. That explains what I'm talking about.

I just got done writing this long ass reply, and found this.....

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

Also, I just had company come over, so I'll edit more later.

[matratzac]

thanks, guys

[Dave39168]

Thanks for the great answers everybody! I needed to hear that too, cause my roomate shares the views of the OP's friend. Some great points brought up giving me some new ammo for my next debate with my roomate.:D

[bcreps85]

"Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms. If you get shot and killed I'd say that interferes with your ability to live and prosper, wouldnt you?? Look at the situations that could potentially have been avioded had there been stricker gun laws. Columbine comes to mind. Or how about Virginia Tech. Thousands of people die every year because of guns being so easy for anyone to get. You need to weigh the pros against the cons when determining which personal freedoms to allow. The thousands of livesthat would be saved every year by implimenting very stick gun control laws would be worth taking away peoples guns."

This right here tells me that your friend is an idiot, plain and simple. Everywhere conceal carry has been legalized, crime has gone DOWN. Almost every single crime committed with a gun is committed by a person who did not legally own that gun. In instances where shootings took place and there was a person with a conceal carry, casualties were MUCH lower than average.

Last, and most important, oppressive governments attack gun rights before anything else, because that is the right that defends everything else. The first amendment is the most important, but the second amendment is there to protect it, when push comes to shove.

If I had to guess, before the end of this movement, push is going to come to shove.

*EDIT* And last, YOU NEVER HEAR ABOUT THE GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPEN WITH GUNS! Recently near where I live, a guy with an AK-47 and a thousand rounds of ammo busted into a church...and got capped by a chick with a conceal carry. The MSM hardly covered it, and what little coverage there was was attacking the character of the hero. Did you hear the news story about the 9-year old girl who killed two armed illegal immigrants who invaded her home, with her shotgun? Your friends need to wake the fuck up and stop getting their thoughts and beliefs from the MSM, they will only tell you what they want you to hear in order to mold your opinion into what they want.

[dblee]

It's really hard to argue with the accumulated work of some of the greatest minds the western world has ever seen. Understand the Constitution and the philosophies behind it, and you'll have the best debate ammo you'll ever need.