Philhelm
12-23-2012, 12:37 AM
Where should I go with this conversation? It was difficult to even get people to acknowledge that restricting the ability for a person to privately own an object is in fact, by definition, limiting freedom. It's frustrating. What else can I say, what should I have said, and what shouldn't I have said?
DK:
When I lived in Korea, I almost always felt safe and it was the lack of guns which was the reason. Here there is nearly one gun of some sort for every man, woman and child in the nation. This does not make me feel safer and I don't understand how it makes anyone else feel safer.
SD:
You don't own a gun or actively participate in recreation/competitive shooting, so you aren't able to emphasize at all with how the good guy gun owners feel.
DK:
Please, enlighten me.
SD:
No. I can't condense my 18 years of camaraderie, competition, education, instruction, etc. into a facebook paragraph. You're simply not qualified to make such observations. It's prejudice to lump all gun owners together with a handful of psychopaths.
DK:
You're the one making the claim of "lump[ing] gun owners together with a handful of psychopaths", not me. I simply don't understand how you or anyone else can feel "safer" knowing there's nearly more guns than people in this country or that it's easier to obtain a gun than a fishing license.
Me:
I've never felt threatened by the fact that other citizens can purchase and own firearms. The 2nd Amendment still at least provides one freedom in this increasingly regulated, benighted land. The bottom line is that freedom is the absence of control; to disarm people would be contrary to freedom and self-determination, a philosophy that I would think would be consistent with [true] liberal thought. But the reality is that most self-identified liberals aren't liberal, and most self-identified conservatives aren't conservative; they are simply statists with a different agenda, both willing to use government to force other people to their will.
Oh, and lack of guns in Korea? Really? I suppose you missed the military presence there. While I don't see any military conflict breaking out in the near future, I still wouldn't consider South Korea to be all that safe. But, for some bewildering reason, if someone wears a different costume from other people, or wears a brass upon the chest, then somehow they are magically qualified to carry firearms, while a supposedly "free" people are to be treated as children. I suppose it is fitting, since the politicians would still have their armed cadre of guards while the peasants (you and me) are not allowed to obtain methods to defend ourselves and our homes.
Since every law is ultimately enforced through violence or the threat of violence, those that would use the government to restrict the freedoms of others are aggressors using the state's monopoly on violence against people. The burden is on you to explain why I should have my freedom of action restricted because someone, somewhere, did something to some people.
SD:
Dan, I can't defend every aspect of the current system, but I can assure you that the guns locked in my safe and in those of millions of other people are not a threat to you.
DK:
Private gun ownership is near zero in Korea and if you think that curtailed their exercising of free speech, petitioning the government or (near)peaceably assembling, you have NO IDEA what your talking about.
Me:
Who mentioned anything about free speech, petitioning the government, etc? Being able to own a firearm, whether you like it or not, is a freedom. Something that limits an individual's freedom of action, be it firearm ownership, gambling, drug use, etc., limits that individual's freedom. In the extreme, if one were 100% free there would be no laws.
DK:
And Anarchy would reign supreme and only the biggest, toughest, strongest, asshole bullies on the block would have any freedom...until an even bigger, tougher and stronger asshole brought them down.
Me:
I'm not an anarchist for that very reason, since I agree that eventually tyranny would reign. But external factors aside, an individual living under no law would have more freedom than someone living within the U.S. Much like Scott, you keep deflecting an obfuscating. You want to limit people's choices within the U.S. You, just like the stereotypical conservative, want to limit people's self-determination. The only difference is that the world view you want to impose may differ. I don't care what the issue is, aside from harming your life, liberty, and property, which I consider the fundamental basis for the justification of any law at all, but if you wish to somehow limit another's self-determination then you aim to make people less free in one manner or another.
Maybe the issue is how we are defining the word "freedom?" Since "freedom" is a term of art to some people, here are the definitions:
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
My focus is on definitions 2 and 3.
Without any external influence, an individual would be able to purchase and own any type of firearm and any amount of firearms. By creating any law with any limit to this (I don't know what your particular position is, mind you, but I'm assuming based on your initial post that you would support some limitation), then the freedom of that individual will have been limited to some degree. More specifically, that person would not be "[exempt] from external control, interference, regulation, etc." or would have less "power to determine action without restraint."
DK:
I suppose I would argue that the more lethal an object is, the harder it should be to obtain because death is the ultimate freedom-killer and guns are pretty fucking lethal.
Me:
The problem with that argument is that I in fact have not restricted your life, liberty, or property by virtue of possessing a firearm. Now, if I were to use my firearm to do one of those three things to you, then, and only then, will I have taken your freedom. I don't believe in the idea of pursuing a pre-crime agenda, and I doubt that you do either. Look, I understand that you have a different worldview, but I just want you to acknowledge that by imposing your worldview, the end result would be less freedom by its very definition.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I'd like you to consider, assuming that you truly believe in freedom as at is defined, that perhaps this issue is inconsistent with a philosophy of pursuing freedom. We could talk about gun ownership, drug use, gay marriage, gambling, prostitution, but the fundamentals of being in a state of freedom or not are the same.
LC:
There might be many gun owners that use their guns safely, however, those around them that may have access to them may not use them safely and that is the problem.
I was sat in the nail salon outside the base in Pyeongtaek just last week, and I heard two women talking about the shootings that had just happened. They were talking about how it was the mum's fault for not showing her son how to use a gun responsibly and how his parents should have beat him growing up and then he would have learned some discipline. I also overheard them talking about their own guns (these were women btw) and how their kids know where they are and know not to touch them and also know how to shoot a gun, because they have taught them properly. I just sat there open mouthed at their ignorance and lack of information, least not because listening to that conversation, my WTF-ery was off the scale.
I also think culture has a lot to do with things. Koreans have had it bred and instilled into them to honour their family, committing crimes and what not would bring shame onto their family, that they just don't (well very rarely) I think our countries could learn a thing or two about this, the lack of drugs, weapons etc. low crime rate.
In the UK, it is illegal to own a gun, you are looking at 7-15 years prison for being caught owning one, however, people will find other ways to harm. Knives and stabbings are very common back home. I don't necessarily think it has much to do with banning weapons it's about how your society works.
Would guns stop mass murdering? Probably not. Northern Ireland proves you can make home made explosives and kill many/ cause huge destruction.
CS:
To add on to what Laura said about family:
It is a worse crime to kill a family member in Korea than to go out and shoot a random person off the street. You will do much more time in prison.
As for private gun owners...there are more than you think. The difference is Koreans treat these dangerous weapons like they are...dangerous weapons. When not in use guns must be signed back into the local police station. I think the only places that can have guns on propery are military bases, police stations and a few shooting ranges in Northern S.Korea.
So without guns someone would invade the US and/or your government would take over and take away your freedoms? It seems the only freedom Americans have is the ability to own guns and shoot each other. It seems Phillip is almost as much as a zealot as a fundy.
SS:
Hey now, don't drag me into this Phil.
PC:
It is possible to own a handgun, or a rifle, or a tank, or an attack helicopter or a tactical nuclear weapon without infringing on anyone's life liberty and property. But there should still be laws about it. I don't see the problem with the state having a monopoly on violence (which just means 'laws') provided its with the consent of the population. This is undoubtedly the case in my home country, the UK. The word I would use for it is 'civilisation'.
Me:
How am I a zealot or a "fundy" for claiming that restricting behavior is, well, restrictive? When did I state that the U.S. would be invaded based on private gun ownership? When did I state that firearm ownership was the only freedom in existence? Rather than admitting that a position does in fact limit freedom as defined above, my statements are being invented which is utterly ludicrous seeing as how the whole conversation is written and it's clear that I did not say those things.
Fair enough Scott.
CS:
Well the US is clamping down on your "freedoms" yet most Americans are cool with it. Just don't take away my guns!
Me:
Chris: It sounds like you are stereotyping. What makes you think that I'm cool with all of the other freedoms being taken away almost daily? Dan's thread was about firearms, so that was the scope of the conversation. Now, if you could kindly point out where in the discussion I said that the U.S. was going to be invaded if Americans weren't armed to the teeth or that the "only" freedom in the U.S. worth anything is firearm ownership.
DN:
Dan I got two tickets to the gun show for ya!(FYI I am flexing)
DK:
To answer whatever I think your point is: Does limiting or regulating access to firearms limit your absolute freedom? Sure. Am I OK with this? Absolutely because at this point I feel the proliferation of ever more lethal firearms is more of a hindrance or limiter to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness as opposed to an enabler or guarantor of such things as was intended back in the days of yore. If restricting or regulating the ability to obtain or access modern day ultra lethal firearms allows more people to...you know enjoy the freedom of life (which I believe to be true and statistics will back up), then I'm completely at peace with regulating or taxing the shit out of firearms--slippery slope straw man argument be damned.
The only problem I have with this and where my own argument breaks down is that I could hardly believe the current pack of worthless losers and lack-whits in our Congress could legislate their way out of a wet paper bag let alone write up meaningful and fair regulations on firearms such is their dysfunction and corruption. I still think its worth a shot (ZING!) though.
CS:
A bunch of Americans I work with believe this...so I thought it was the norm in the US. My bad
LL:
Dan, the conversation here is an eye-opener. Knowing all the Americans that I do, from up and down the States, I have only ever met one US Citizen who, I think, would argue against you (I bet you can't name them lol). I have spent some part of my week, here in the UK, arguing for the name of good American people. Against, a select few stupid British people who have stereotyped all Americans as 'gun lovers' who care more about the right to own a firearm than their responsibility to protect their children. I have argued the side of all the fair, logical, educated and tactile Americans who I know that recognise the flaws in their system and cry out for change. The conversation I have read here, has shown me what I have never been able to see; where the world-wide stereotype of 'gun-loving Americans' comes from. I am just glad that they are minority of the amazing American people that I know personally that enable me to see things from the other side of the British Media and small-minded British people who put their judgement on the stereotype.
SD:
How can a hobby, a sport, a competition come before the safety of the nations children? Get rid of your guns and go play football with your kids instead. There's plenty of healthy competition, sportsmanship and instruction to be had there, but the chances of a football getting into the wrong hands and killing people is a lot slimmer.
Coming from a country which does not allow me to own a firearm does not make me feel inhibited or restricted in ANY way. I teach 5 year old children and I have no fear whatsoever that a crazy person will gain access to a leathel machine and come into my school and open fire. Why? Because we simple don't have the firearms to hand.
DK:
Yeah, Lisa. I've been hearing at work and on FB a lot complete and total bullshit... To be honest, the Americans you knew overseas and met over there weren't exactly representative of all of America. Being back home has been quite the reality check. For instance, I forgot that pregnant women smoked until i got home. THAT shocked me.
SD:
Lisa and Dan, I invite you to come with me to one of our sporting events. I instruct a junior rifle program on Tuesdays and participate in a weekly rifle match on Wednesdays in the Pittsburgh and Suburban Rifle league. Why don't you join me and see what it's really about.
Me:
Lisa: Obviously your comments were directed toward me, considering that I was the one championing private firearm ownership. It seems that your views, using such terms as "good American people," "fair, educated, and tactile Americans," and so forth, are directed by an elitist mentality in which people who believe in private firearm ownership are neither good, educated, intelligent, nor logical. To be fair, you had claimed to defend against stereotypes, yet somehow give in at the end of your post when someone makes an opposing argument based on a philosophy of individual self-determination. People that have known me have never considered me unintelligent, uneducated, or illogical. Dan knows me personally, so perhaps he would be a gentleman enough to be willing to counter your assumption. As far as freedom, of course you don't feel less free if you can't do something that you wouldn't want to do anyway. Similarly, the average person that does not use illegal drugs does not feel less free when drug-users' homes are invaded by heavily armed men in the middle of the night and dragged off to U.S. government rape-cages. Of course, someone philosophically committed to individual freedom would even defend the actions of those who engage in activities that they either do not agree with, or have no inclination to perform. The factual reality is that limiting an individual's behavior is an act that limit's freedom. I had even provided the dictionary definition of the word "freedom" since it seems people pick and choose issues or believe that freedom is all or nothing. Even Dan conceded that "limiting or regulating access to firearms limit[s] your absolute freedom. Is it really that hard to comprehend that limiting a person's freedom of action is an act which . . . limits a person's freedom of action? Before discussing whether that freedom of action should be limited, I was first attempting to establish that creating laws limiting gun ownership was in fact limiting freedom to some measure. I thought that this would be a logical and self-evident assertion, but boy was I wrong. You apparently value logic, so perhaps you should use it.
I would also like to add that my arguments were largely ignored, and two people had made assumptions or invented positions of mine which were untrue. I suppose it's easier to debate someone when they can literally conjure up fictional statements from the opposition to counter.
Dan: I'm glad that you conceded that limiting private firearm ownership does in fact limit absolute freedom. You believe that because of the potential harm caused by widespread firearm ownership, that it would be worthwhile to sacrifice that particular freedom for public safety. I suppose that is a difficult argument to counter, since my position is based on freedom while yours is based on security. I'll ask the following questions though, assuming full disarmament of U.S. citizens:
1. Would politicians and other select citizens still have armed security, thereby further cementing the privilege of the elite? If we are to assume that all people should be held equal before the law, would an armed political class be contrary to this?
2. Does prohibition ever work? Has the War on Drugs led to more freedom and safety, or less freedom and safety? I strongly believe that drug users should not be thrown into dungeons. Would it be righteous to throw a man into a dungeon simply for possession of a firearm?
3. Would those that own firearms be justly compensated for their property being confiscated, or should the government just seize the personal property of its citizens?
4. "From my cold dead hands!" I'll go out on a limb and say that this is mostly empty rhetoric, but I'm sure there would be some people to resist. Would you support the initiation of physical violence against people who would not comply with confiscation? Assuming these people were not of the criminal class until after the firearm ban was initiated, would it be righteous for these people to be slaughtered by the full terrible power of the U.S. government, the likes of which I have seen first hand in Iraq?
5. Would the sociopathic police at least be disarmed? I can show you video after video of police murdering unarmed and detained individuals.
6. Come to think of it, if we are to rely on the police for our safety, why didn't they prevent this current shooting? Why didn't they stop VA Tech? Why didn't they even enter Columbine High School while children were being slaughtered. (This is a freebie question; answer: officer safety!. According to a U.S. Supreme Court case from . . . 1981 (if I recall the year correctly), police are not obligated to help people. I can find the case for you if you'd like.
7. Is the Transportation Security Administration a righteous organization that preserves security? How many terrorists has the organization apprehended during its over ten year existence? Is the PATRIOT Act righteous? Are no-fly lists that are extrajudicially created a righteous thing?
8. Perhaps it would be novel to implement "drug free zones" outlawing marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc. That way we can reduce unlawful activity related to these drugs and get them off the streets. Do you agree?
DK:
Good lord, Phil. I'm not talking straight up repeal of the 2nd. Just making it harder and limiting the types of weapons available. Maybe throw in a buy back program, too. Whatever..this is ridic.
Me:
What about a grandfather clause like Clinton's assault rifle ban in 1994?
CS:
So the police don't help. Let's arm the children. This way when some nutjob tries it again there'll be about 50 gun totting children killing each other with "friendly fire".
Me:
^ For fuck's sake...
DK:
When I lived in Korea, I almost always felt safe and it was the lack of guns which was the reason. Here there is nearly one gun of some sort for every man, woman and child in the nation. This does not make me feel safer and I don't understand how it makes anyone else feel safer.
SD:
You don't own a gun or actively participate in recreation/competitive shooting, so you aren't able to emphasize at all with how the good guy gun owners feel.
DK:
Please, enlighten me.
SD:
No. I can't condense my 18 years of camaraderie, competition, education, instruction, etc. into a facebook paragraph. You're simply not qualified to make such observations. It's prejudice to lump all gun owners together with a handful of psychopaths.
DK:
You're the one making the claim of "lump[ing] gun owners together with a handful of psychopaths", not me. I simply don't understand how you or anyone else can feel "safer" knowing there's nearly more guns than people in this country or that it's easier to obtain a gun than a fishing license.
Me:
I've never felt threatened by the fact that other citizens can purchase and own firearms. The 2nd Amendment still at least provides one freedom in this increasingly regulated, benighted land. The bottom line is that freedom is the absence of control; to disarm people would be contrary to freedom and self-determination, a philosophy that I would think would be consistent with [true] liberal thought. But the reality is that most self-identified liberals aren't liberal, and most self-identified conservatives aren't conservative; they are simply statists with a different agenda, both willing to use government to force other people to their will.
Oh, and lack of guns in Korea? Really? I suppose you missed the military presence there. While I don't see any military conflict breaking out in the near future, I still wouldn't consider South Korea to be all that safe. But, for some bewildering reason, if someone wears a different costume from other people, or wears a brass upon the chest, then somehow they are magically qualified to carry firearms, while a supposedly "free" people are to be treated as children. I suppose it is fitting, since the politicians would still have their armed cadre of guards while the peasants (you and me) are not allowed to obtain methods to defend ourselves and our homes.
Since every law is ultimately enforced through violence or the threat of violence, those that would use the government to restrict the freedoms of others are aggressors using the state's monopoly on violence against people. The burden is on you to explain why I should have my freedom of action restricted because someone, somewhere, did something to some people.
SD:
Dan, I can't defend every aspect of the current system, but I can assure you that the guns locked in my safe and in those of millions of other people are not a threat to you.
DK:
Private gun ownership is near zero in Korea and if you think that curtailed their exercising of free speech, petitioning the government or (near)peaceably assembling, you have NO IDEA what your talking about.
Me:
Who mentioned anything about free speech, petitioning the government, etc? Being able to own a firearm, whether you like it or not, is a freedom. Something that limits an individual's freedom of action, be it firearm ownership, gambling, drug use, etc., limits that individual's freedom. In the extreme, if one were 100% free there would be no laws.
DK:
And Anarchy would reign supreme and only the biggest, toughest, strongest, asshole bullies on the block would have any freedom...until an even bigger, tougher and stronger asshole brought them down.
Me:
I'm not an anarchist for that very reason, since I agree that eventually tyranny would reign. But external factors aside, an individual living under no law would have more freedom than someone living within the U.S. Much like Scott, you keep deflecting an obfuscating. You want to limit people's choices within the U.S. You, just like the stereotypical conservative, want to limit people's self-determination. The only difference is that the world view you want to impose may differ. I don't care what the issue is, aside from harming your life, liberty, and property, which I consider the fundamental basis for the justification of any law at all, but if you wish to somehow limit another's self-determination then you aim to make people less free in one manner or another.
Maybe the issue is how we are defining the word "freedom?" Since "freedom" is a term of art to some people, here are the definitions:
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
My focus is on definitions 2 and 3.
Without any external influence, an individual would be able to purchase and own any type of firearm and any amount of firearms. By creating any law with any limit to this (I don't know what your particular position is, mind you, but I'm assuming based on your initial post that you would support some limitation), then the freedom of that individual will have been limited to some degree. More specifically, that person would not be "[exempt] from external control, interference, regulation, etc." or would have less "power to determine action without restraint."
DK:
I suppose I would argue that the more lethal an object is, the harder it should be to obtain because death is the ultimate freedom-killer and guns are pretty fucking lethal.
Me:
The problem with that argument is that I in fact have not restricted your life, liberty, or property by virtue of possessing a firearm. Now, if I were to use my firearm to do one of those three things to you, then, and only then, will I have taken your freedom. I don't believe in the idea of pursuing a pre-crime agenda, and I doubt that you do either. Look, I understand that you have a different worldview, but I just want you to acknowledge that by imposing your worldview, the end result would be less freedom by its very definition.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I'd like you to consider, assuming that you truly believe in freedom as at is defined, that perhaps this issue is inconsistent with a philosophy of pursuing freedom. We could talk about gun ownership, drug use, gay marriage, gambling, prostitution, but the fundamentals of being in a state of freedom or not are the same.
LC:
There might be many gun owners that use their guns safely, however, those around them that may have access to them may not use them safely and that is the problem.
I was sat in the nail salon outside the base in Pyeongtaek just last week, and I heard two women talking about the shootings that had just happened. They were talking about how it was the mum's fault for not showing her son how to use a gun responsibly and how his parents should have beat him growing up and then he would have learned some discipline. I also overheard them talking about their own guns (these were women btw) and how their kids know where they are and know not to touch them and also know how to shoot a gun, because they have taught them properly. I just sat there open mouthed at their ignorance and lack of information, least not because listening to that conversation, my WTF-ery was off the scale.
I also think culture has a lot to do with things. Koreans have had it bred and instilled into them to honour their family, committing crimes and what not would bring shame onto their family, that they just don't (well very rarely) I think our countries could learn a thing or two about this, the lack of drugs, weapons etc. low crime rate.
In the UK, it is illegal to own a gun, you are looking at 7-15 years prison for being caught owning one, however, people will find other ways to harm. Knives and stabbings are very common back home. I don't necessarily think it has much to do with banning weapons it's about how your society works.
Would guns stop mass murdering? Probably not. Northern Ireland proves you can make home made explosives and kill many/ cause huge destruction.
CS:
To add on to what Laura said about family:
It is a worse crime to kill a family member in Korea than to go out and shoot a random person off the street. You will do much more time in prison.
As for private gun owners...there are more than you think. The difference is Koreans treat these dangerous weapons like they are...dangerous weapons. When not in use guns must be signed back into the local police station. I think the only places that can have guns on propery are military bases, police stations and a few shooting ranges in Northern S.Korea.
So without guns someone would invade the US and/or your government would take over and take away your freedoms? It seems the only freedom Americans have is the ability to own guns and shoot each other. It seems Phillip is almost as much as a zealot as a fundy.
SS:
Hey now, don't drag me into this Phil.
PC:
It is possible to own a handgun, or a rifle, or a tank, or an attack helicopter or a tactical nuclear weapon without infringing on anyone's life liberty and property. But there should still be laws about it. I don't see the problem with the state having a monopoly on violence (which just means 'laws') provided its with the consent of the population. This is undoubtedly the case in my home country, the UK. The word I would use for it is 'civilisation'.
Me:
How am I a zealot or a "fundy" for claiming that restricting behavior is, well, restrictive? When did I state that the U.S. would be invaded based on private gun ownership? When did I state that firearm ownership was the only freedom in existence? Rather than admitting that a position does in fact limit freedom as defined above, my statements are being invented which is utterly ludicrous seeing as how the whole conversation is written and it's clear that I did not say those things.
Fair enough Scott.
CS:
Well the US is clamping down on your "freedoms" yet most Americans are cool with it. Just don't take away my guns!
Me:
Chris: It sounds like you are stereotyping. What makes you think that I'm cool with all of the other freedoms being taken away almost daily? Dan's thread was about firearms, so that was the scope of the conversation. Now, if you could kindly point out where in the discussion I said that the U.S. was going to be invaded if Americans weren't armed to the teeth or that the "only" freedom in the U.S. worth anything is firearm ownership.
DN:
Dan I got two tickets to the gun show for ya!(FYI I am flexing)
DK:
To answer whatever I think your point is: Does limiting or regulating access to firearms limit your absolute freedom? Sure. Am I OK with this? Absolutely because at this point I feel the proliferation of ever more lethal firearms is more of a hindrance or limiter to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness as opposed to an enabler or guarantor of such things as was intended back in the days of yore. If restricting or regulating the ability to obtain or access modern day ultra lethal firearms allows more people to...you know enjoy the freedom of life (which I believe to be true and statistics will back up), then I'm completely at peace with regulating or taxing the shit out of firearms--slippery slope straw man argument be damned.
The only problem I have with this and where my own argument breaks down is that I could hardly believe the current pack of worthless losers and lack-whits in our Congress could legislate their way out of a wet paper bag let alone write up meaningful and fair regulations on firearms such is their dysfunction and corruption. I still think its worth a shot (ZING!) though.
CS:
A bunch of Americans I work with believe this...so I thought it was the norm in the US. My bad
LL:
Dan, the conversation here is an eye-opener. Knowing all the Americans that I do, from up and down the States, I have only ever met one US Citizen who, I think, would argue against you (I bet you can't name them lol). I have spent some part of my week, here in the UK, arguing for the name of good American people. Against, a select few stupid British people who have stereotyped all Americans as 'gun lovers' who care more about the right to own a firearm than their responsibility to protect their children. I have argued the side of all the fair, logical, educated and tactile Americans who I know that recognise the flaws in their system and cry out for change. The conversation I have read here, has shown me what I have never been able to see; where the world-wide stereotype of 'gun-loving Americans' comes from. I am just glad that they are minority of the amazing American people that I know personally that enable me to see things from the other side of the British Media and small-minded British people who put their judgement on the stereotype.
SD:
How can a hobby, a sport, a competition come before the safety of the nations children? Get rid of your guns and go play football with your kids instead. There's plenty of healthy competition, sportsmanship and instruction to be had there, but the chances of a football getting into the wrong hands and killing people is a lot slimmer.
Coming from a country which does not allow me to own a firearm does not make me feel inhibited or restricted in ANY way. I teach 5 year old children and I have no fear whatsoever that a crazy person will gain access to a leathel machine and come into my school and open fire. Why? Because we simple don't have the firearms to hand.
DK:
Yeah, Lisa. I've been hearing at work and on FB a lot complete and total bullshit... To be honest, the Americans you knew overseas and met over there weren't exactly representative of all of America. Being back home has been quite the reality check. For instance, I forgot that pregnant women smoked until i got home. THAT shocked me.
SD:
Lisa and Dan, I invite you to come with me to one of our sporting events. I instruct a junior rifle program on Tuesdays and participate in a weekly rifle match on Wednesdays in the Pittsburgh and Suburban Rifle league. Why don't you join me and see what it's really about.
Me:
Lisa: Obviously your comments were directed toward me, considering that I was the one championing private firearm ownership. It seems that your views, using such terms as "good American people," "fair, educated, and tactile Americans," and so forth, are directed by an elitist mentality in which people who believe in private firearm ownership are neither good, educated, intelligent, nor logical. To be fair, you had claimed to defend against stereotypes, yet somehow give in at the end of your post when someone makes an opposing argument based on a philosophy of individual self-determination. People that have known me have never considered me unintelligent, uneducated, or illogical. Dan knows me personally, so perhaps he would be a gentleman enough to be willing to counter your assumption. As far as freedom, of course you don't feel less free if you can't do something that you wouldn't want to do anyway. Similarly, the average person that does not use illegal drugs does not feel less free when drug-users' homes are invaded by heavily armed men in the middle of the night and dragged off to U.S. government rape-cages. Of course, someone philosophically committed to individual freedom would even defend the actions of those who engage in activities that they either do not agree with, or have no inclination to perform. The factual reality is that limiting an individual's behavior is an act that limit's freedom. I had even provided the dictionary definition of the word "freedom" since it seems people pick and choose issues or believe that freedom is all or nothing. Even Dan conceded that "limiting or regulating access to firearms limit[s] your absolute freedom. Is it really that hard to comprehend that limiting a person's freedom of action is an act which . . . limits a person's freedom of action? Before discussing whether that freedom of action should be limited, I was first attempting to establish that creating laws limiting gun ownership was in fact limiting freedom to some measure. I thought that this would be a logical and self-evident assertion, but boy was I wrong. You apparently value logic, so perhaps you should use it.
I would also like to add that my arguments were largely ignored, and two people had made assumptions or invented positions of mine which were untrue. I suppose it's easier to debate someone when they can literally conjure up fictional statements from the opposition to counter.
Dan: I'm glad that you conceded that limiting private firearm ownership does in fact limit absolute freedom. You believe that because of the potential harm caused by widespread firearm ownership, that it would be worthwhile to sacrifice that particular freedom for public safety. I suppose that is a difficult argument to counter, since my position is based on freedom while yours is based on security. I'll ask the following questions though, assuming full disarmament of U.S. citizens:
1. Would politicians and other select citizens still have armed security, thereby further cementing the privilege of the elite? If we are to assume that all people should be held equal before the law, would an armed political class be contrary to this?
2. Does prohibition ever work? Has the War on Drugs led to more freedom and safety, or less freedom and safety? I strongly believe that drug users should not be thrown into dungeons. Would it be righteous to throw a man into a dungeon simply for possession of a firearm?
3. Would those that own firearms be justly compensated for their property being confiscated, or should the government just seize the personal property of its citizens?
4. "From my cold dead hands!" I'll go out on a limb and say that this is mostly empty rhetoric, but I'm sure there would be some people to resist. Would you support the initiation of physical violence against people who would not comply with confiscation? Assuming these people were not of the criminal class until after the firearm ban was initiated, would it be righteous for these people to be slaughtered by the full terrible power of the U.S. government, the likes of which I have seen first hand in Iraq?
5. Would the sociopathic police at least be disarmed? I can show you video after video of police murdering unarmed and detained individuals.
6. Come to think of it, if we are to rely on the police for our safety, why didn't they prevent this current shooting? Why didn't they stop VA Tech? Why didn't they even enter Columbine High School while children were being slaughtered. (This is a freebie question; answer: officer safety!. According to a U.S. Supreme Court case from . . . 1981 (if I recall the year correctly), police are not obligated to help people. I can find the case for you if you'd like.
7. Is the Transportation Security Administration a righteous organization that preserves security? How many terrorists has the organization apprehended during its over ten year existence? Is the PATRIOT Act righteous? Are no-fly lists that are extrajudicially created a righteous thing?
8. Perhaps it would be novel to implement "drug free zones" outlawing marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc. That way we can reduce unlawful activity related to these drugs and get them off the streets. Do you agree?
DK:
Good lord, Phil. I'm not talking straight up repeal of the 2nd. Just making it harder and limiting the types of weapons available. Maybe throw in a buy back program, too. Whatever..this is ridic.
Me:
What about a grandfather clause like Clinton's assault rifle ban in 1994?
CS:
So the police don't help. Let's arm the children. This way when some nutjob tries it again there'll be about 50 gun totting children killing each other with "friendly fire".
Me:
^ For fuck's sake...