Trying to understand gun rights supporters...

[H. Lee White]

here is the ultimate truth
It is far better to have a firearm and not need it than to need one and not have it

It is imposible to argue soundly against this position.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is imposible to argue soundly against this position.

there is no argument against it that can be based on logic or rational thought

 

[Spartacus FPV]

there is no argument against it that can be based on logic or rational thought

Yep, in the aftermath of violence I've never heard someone say that they're glad they didn't have their gun on them.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yep, in the aftermath of violence I've never heard someone say that they're glad they didn't have their gun on them.

Only the mopes who got a 38 Special of a surprise!

 

[Goshin]

Before anyone makes any assumptions, allow me to preface my comments by stating that I do not care whether US citizens habitually carry guns, or indeed, if they go around shooting each other in the face (provided always that my many Americans friends are kept safe). However, I am of the opinion that a population armed with hand guns or rifles is simply not capable of effectively opposing a properly trained and equipped national army to the extent of a successful armed insurrection. So that interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not supported by logic.

The situation which might lead to such insurrection is likely to be incremental, and by the time bullets are flying, the lines of demarcation would be clearly drawn. The argument that soldiers would not fire on their own people has some value under certain more neutral circumstances, but the process of demonisation of both the 'loyalists' and the 'insurrectionists' will be well advanced by that stage. The opposite side would be seen as 'the enemy' rather than as errant members of one's own community. The military will have little hesitation in following orders to 'open fire' on the rebels. The events of 1861 to 1865 in the USA, and 1642 to 1651 in England, leave us in little doubt as to that.

The US armed forces are the most powerful in the world, and given a determination to quell what will be seen as high treason - will quash any such armed insurrection in very short order. Make no mistake about the matter - the insurrectionists will be seen as 'enemies of the people', and irrespective of how many side arms or rifles they possess, they will be captured or killed.

Furthermore, if the vitriol which has recently poured forth from both sides of the US political spectrum is any indication, you are a community tragically divided. And what may be seen as governmental dictatorship by one side, is as likely to be viewed as acting in the general welfare by the other. So the concept of the entire US populace fighting as one body against the government forces is a highly unlikely one.

So I regret to disabuse my friends here of the idea that their guns will ensure their freedom from governmental control. Only a civilised and democratic society will do that.

As to the desirability (even necessity) of carrying side arms for personal safety, I doubt someone like myself (who has grown up in a society which suffers approximately 50 deaths - including suicide, accident, manslaughter, and murder - from firearms per year, as opposed to 30,000 in the USA) can contribute much which will be meaningful to the debate (at least in the eyes of gun-supporting Americans). It is a matter of horses for courses, and in the UK, where not even the policeman on the beat is armed, the majority of the criminal element sees little necessity to obtain a firearm. In short, if some stranger breaks into my house, I assume he is after my ipod, not slavering with the specific intention of ravishing, killing, or dismembering me.

In the USA, where every second person, and his dog, seems to be armed, I can see the concern devolving about self-defence. These are societal, rather than absolute, imperatives, and where sociology has evolved to the point whereat it is no longer necessary to survival to go armed - we do not. But what works splendidly in one society, may not in another with different values. Yer pays yer money, and yer makes yer choice! :mrgreen:

A bit more complex than that. 4th generation/Assymetrical warfare; assassination; resisting the lightly-armed Secret Police of a tyrannical regime; and the question of whose side the military would be on... but mostly, simple deterrent value.

But the single biggest point is that the 2nd Amendment specifically reserves to The People a right most often monopolized by government: the right to use force, under certain circumstances.

It is a cornerstone of our liberty, along with free speech, free press, and freedom of religion.

 

[Jerry]

Before anyone makes any assumptions, allow me to preface my comments by stating that I do not care whether US citizens habitually carry guns, or indeed, if they go around shooting each other in the face (provided always that my many Americans friends are kept safe). However, I am of the opinion that a population armed with hand guns or rifles is simply not capable of effectively opposing a properly trained and equipped national army to the extent of a successful armed insurrection. So that interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not supported by logic.

....implying your opinion is logical...

When insurrection has occurred before, whole military units were among the assets of the rebels, with formally trained and commissioned Generals and other officers commanding the rebels.

 

[Leo]

....implying your opinion is logical...

When insurrection has occurred before, whole military units were among the assets of the rebels, with formally trained and commissioned Generals and other officers commanding the rebels.

Saying something is logical or illogical in my opinion, is not the same as saying that my opinion is ipso facto logical, and cannot be otherwise.

I am unsure of your second point. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

 

[Jerry]

Saying something is logical or illogical in my opinion, is not the same as saying that my opinion is ipso facto logical, and cannot be otherwise.

You didn't say it was logical in your opinion, you said it failed logic period.

I am unsure of your second point. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

So you are unaware that the Confederacy was mostly composed of regular US Army elements. Nice. Have a good day.

 

[ric27]

Before anyone makes any assumptions, allow me to preface my comments by stating that I do not care whether US citizens habitually carry guns, or indeed, if they go around shooting each other in the face (provided always that my many Americans friends are kept safe). However, I am of the opinion that a population armed with hand guns or rifles is simply not capable of effectively opposing a properly trained and equipped national army to the extent of a successful armed insurrection. So that interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not supported by logic.

:

Back then...when the sheriff needed a posse, he could call on the citizens and expect them to respond, with their own arms. There was an organized militia that drilled on a regular, or irregular basis, depending on the unit, local support, etc. They responded to Indian attacks, and were called up to national or regional service in time of war. There were the continual Indian wars as the frontier was pushed west, the war of 1812, the Mexican war of 1848, etc. The standing army was considered the core, the elite, but the bulk of the army was the MILITIA. Both the organized militia, and the unorganized, i.e. the People. They were expected to supply their own arms, but there are plenty of accounts where a poor man would show up without a rifle or musket and have to be supplied. The recognized purpose of the militia was primarily defense of the locality, and the nation, but also a resistance to an over-reaching government.

 

[Leo]

A bit more complex than that. 4th generation/Assymetrical warfare; assassination; resisting the lightly-armed Secret Police of a tyrannical regime; and the question of whose side the military would be on... but mostly, simple deterrent value.

I understand the points you are making, but you are operating on the assumption that the entire country would be in opposition to the government. It is likely that opinion would be distinctly divided upon the matter. As I indicated in my previous post, the point where armed insurrection might be an option is likely to be reached only after an incremental series of developments, and a considerable period of time. At which point the 'loyalists' will see themselves as every bit as patriotic as the Founding Fathers, and paint the insurrectionists as un-American. Bear in mind that the government will hold all the aces, including the media as well as the armed forces. The assumption that the military will not obey orders is not one based upon historical fact (in any society).

But the single biggest point is that the 2nd Amendment specifically reserves to The People a right most often monopolized by government: the right to use force, under certain circumstances.

It is a cornerstone of our liberty, along with free speech, free press, and freedom of religion.

The second amendment to the US Constitution simply states -

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It makes no mention of the purpose to which those arms may be put, and certainly makes no reference to the right to oppose a legitimately elected government. It merely reserves the right of the citizenry to bear arms, and arguably, only under the condition of maintaining a well regulated militia. All else is a matter of individual interpretation.

 

[Leo]

Back then...when the sheriff needed a posse, he could call on the citizens and expect them to respond, with their own arms. There was an organized militia that drilled on a regular, or irregular basis, depending on the unit, local support, etc. They responded to Indian attacks, and were called up to national or regional service in time of war. There were the continual Indian wars as the frontier was pushed west, the war of 1812, the Mexican war of 1848, etc. The standing army was considered the core, the elite, but the bulk of the army was the MILITIA. Both the organized militia, and the unorganized, i.e. the People. They were expected to supply their own arms, but there are plenty of accounts where a poor man would show up without a rifle or musket and have to be supplied. The recognized purpose of the militia was primarily defense of the locality, and the nation, but also a resistance to an over-reaching government.

I understand that, but there is no mention of an over-reaching government in either the body of the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. As I wrote elsewhere it is a matter of individual interpretation.

 

[Leo]

You didn't say it was logical in your opinion, you said it failed logic period.

Please - words have meaning, and I try to use them as accurately as I am capable. I wrote "However, in my opinion, ............... is not supported by logic. I do not see how 'in my opinion' can be translated as an absolute.

So you are unaware that the Confederacy was mostly composed of regular US Army elements. Nice. Have a good day.

I confess that I am not aware of the exact composition of the Confederate Army - but again I am unsure of the exact point you are making. And I also do not see the point of your aggression/sarcasm. Are you incapable of civil discussion?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I understand that, but there is no mention of an over-reaching government in either the body of the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. As I wrote elsewhere it is a matter of individual interpretation.

Acually it's not a matter of interpretation. The free state as referenced is a limited governance with limited authority, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are considered the guide to the constitution and they both address the matter of armed revolution, Jefferson was simplify it with his "tree of liberty" statement.

 

[ric27]

I understand that, but there is no mention of an over-reaching government in either the body of the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. As I wrote elsewhere it is a matter of individual interpretation.

You need to read the prior posts and hit the history books. The 2nd Amendment was enacted to ensure the security of a free state. Have you heard the phrase, "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When this country was established, the militia was a necessary element to defend the nation against external threats because we didn't maintain a strong, standing army. Private arms were also considered to be the defense of the people against a tyrannical government. The government at that time was far less a threat to the people's freedom than our government today. By several orders of magnitude!

 

[Leo]

You need to read the prior posts and hit the history books. The 2nd Amendment was enacted to ensure the security of a free state. Have you heard the phrase, "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When this country was established, the militia was a necessary element to defend the nation against external threats because we didn't maintain a strong, standing army. Private arms were also considered to be the defense of the people against a tyrannical government. The government at that time was far less a threat to the people's freedom than our government today. By several orders of magnitude!

Fair enough - like I said, I have no interest in arguing against the various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. I question the success of a domestic armed insurrection for the reasons I have given, and I am happy to live somewhere where the need to go armed is not felt.

 

[Jerry]

Please - words have meaning, and I try to use them as accurately as I am capable. I wrote "However, in my opinion, ............... is not supported by logic. I do not see how 'in my opinion' can be translated as an absolute.

If the statement is an opinion, then you have to word the statement as an opinion. When you simply word a statement as an absolute, then any previous "imo" qualifier is seen as not applying to the absolute. You worded the following statement as an absolute with no qualifier: "So that interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not supported by logic."

Now by "that interpretation", in context, you're referring to the Second Amendment's prefatory clause, not the first part of your paragraph, so you're statement is removed from your initial 'imo' qualifier. To verify that I'm correct, the Second Amendment's prefatory clause reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state...". To say the prefatory clause is not supported by logic is to say a population possessing only pistols and rifles would be no match for a modern army. This is consistent with the first part of your paragraph I quoted, so I therefore know I'm reading you correctly.

This is when I said "..implying your opinion is logical...", a statement which is meant to cast doubt on your assumption that were civil war to brake out, that the militia on either side would only have pistols and rifles.

Then I reference the Civil War, because in the Civil War, the militia were armed with more than the pistols and rifles the individual brought. Armories further supplied militia units with, for example, artillery; something which the ordinary civilian could not be reasonably expected to bring on their own.

The 2A protects individual weapons, but that doesn't mean individual weapons are all a militia would have. The 2A does not cover explosives, but as we see in Afghanistan an active militia can make their own explosives and bog down a modern army very well.

You make the assumption that a militia would only have arms protected by the 2A. That is false. A militia would have more than the arms they bring from home, more than what the 2A covers, and militias are currently very skilled at combating modern armies because of that.

And I also do not see the point of your aggression/sarcasm.

The purpose of being aggressive is to transmit my low tolerance of the anti-gun bull**** I've seen so many people of your opinion try to play before, in the hopes that you will chose to be more direct and shy away from games.

Are you incapable of civil discussion?

Aggression is not incivility, just as "civility" does not mean "calm". Since we're already on the topic of lawful self-defense: If I were to shoot a rapist, that would be very aggressive, yet perfectly civil.

 

[Leo]

The purpose of being aggressive is to transmit my low tolerance of the anti-gun bull**** I've seem so many people of your opinion try to play before, in the hopes that you will chose to be more direct and shy away from games.

As you wish. I see little point in attempting discussion with anyone who states that intent.

 

[Jerry]

As you wish. I see little point in attempting discussion with anyone who states that intent.

The intent I stated is to cut through the bull**** games. By saying you don't want to talk to me because of my intent to cut through the bull**** means you intend to offer a lot of bull**** on this thread, which in turn justifies my initial aggression.

 

[CLAX1911]

OK, I've been warned that I'm walking into the lion's den by entering this part of the forum, but another thread I started elsewhere began to take on a gun debate theme, and I was told this is the place for it.

So, I come in here, yes, as a liberal, but I am bearing flowers and goodwill!!

My ONLY purpose is to better understand those who have a different opinion than I do, and I am truly SINCERE about saying that!!! The other thread featured a debate about statistics, which I will NOT include here. My mission is only to understand. I think my statistics-based approach on the other thread was the wrong way to engage people in talking about this meaningfully, so I am trying a more open-ended approach.

, here it is... viewed from afar, those who passionately support the right to bear arms are difficult to understand by those of us who don't. It is true that I am a liberal, and where I come from, guns are used for hunting deer and ducks (which I fully support!), but when I go into the thread entitled "Do you know where your gun is?", I get honestly frightened. I am not trying to be insulting here, I am genuinely baffled and a little bit scared to read that thread. Very few people there seem to be talking about hunting, but everyone is super-enthusiastic about having their guns (MULTIPLE guns for many of them) loaded and "READY TO GO", in the words of one person.

It is necessary to have an armed citizenry to ensure liberty, without the ability of the citizens to over through an oppressive government you will surly be opposed. My gun that I carry has a round in the chamber, if I draw it, it is to defend my person or that of another, attacks occur when you are not expecting them, so if your fire arm isn't ready to use than it has no use, just like if you had no fuel in your car, it would be worthless.

My question is, "Ready to go" for WHAT exactly? Are those of you who feel this way expecting an intruder to break into your house at any moment? Do you spend years waiting for that intruder, or do you live in a place that you actually get people breaking in regularly? Or are you "ready" for something else? Some people in that thread talked about having one of their guns on their person at all times, even inside their home, which they might be able to use (if I understood correctly) to fight their way to get to another gun in the case of need. Have I understood that correctly, or am I missing something? Do some of you actually live every moment walking around your home with a gun on you 'just in case'?

A gun is power, in a scenario when you would need one to not be over powered it is nice to have one. Its like carrying around a cell phone, when they started becoming popular that was the justification of having one, calling for help, or power, the power to make events unfold in your favor. Most of the time you don't need a gun, just like most of the time you don't need a fire extinguisher, but knowing where it is is necessary. I don't carry a gun at home I keep a loaded 12 guage shotgun handy, much like a fire extingisher, a cell phon, and a first aid kit.

And my related question is what inspires your passion for guns? Many great American leaders (Reagan, Roosevelt, Truman, and others) who certainly proved their toughness as leaders also spoke very eloquently on the issue of pursuing peace. To me, guns are weapons, and weapons are tools that should only be used to maintain peace when necessary. When all is peaceful and the guns are silent, I would personally call that a GOOD thing. Would you agree with that statement? Or are you actually hoping for the opportunity to use your guns against another person? As gun lovers, would you also say you are equally passionate about having a peaceful society around you? (Knowing the answer to that would truly help me to understand you better.)

currently all is peaceful, my guns are quiet, I hope it stays that way, what got me interested in guns was learning sport shooting, my first gun was a sports gun.

I carry a gun in my line of work, I am not sure what i fear more, using my gun against another person or being shot myself. I would prefer neither, so far I have been lucky. But I don't hunt, I feel a strange unpleasant feeling when I end a life of an animal. I wouldn't call it remorse, but more like I have spoiled something.

I shot for sport, its fun.

Comments from any gun-loving person, conservative or liberal, are welcome!! But please don't write me off by saying, "You're just a dumbass Canadian, you'll never understand" or "You liberal nutjobs will never take my gun away from me". I am opening this thread to sincerely try to understand you better. If you take the question seriously, I will listen with an open mind. If you blow me off with dismissive insults, I will come to the conclusion that you can't explain your position.

I don't think you are a dumas at all, not everybody has to Luke guns, many people feel uncomfortable around them, I frankly feel a bit of unease with them myself, that's what keeps you safe.

I appreciate you asking thus question, a level of understanding could benefit everybody.

My first real exposure with guns was teaching youth proper handling, safety, and skill. a few boys were very nervous the first time, after all guns are all designed to kill things, I had to be sensitive to that very reasonable, very legitimate fear, I try to respect that in every way, I don't brandish, I don't talk about it with people who are uneasy, I am a gun nut, I have 20 of them, but I am respectful of others as well. No need to put people on edge.

 

[Goshin]

I understand the points you are making, but you are operating on the assumption that the entire country would be in opposition to the government. It is likely that opinion would be distinctly divided upon the matter. As I indicated in my previous post, the point where armed insurrection might be an option is likely to be reached only after an incremental series of developments, and a considerable period of time. At which point the 'loyalists' will see themselves as every bit as patriotic as the Founding Fathers, and paint the insurrectionists as un-American. Bear in mind that the government will hold all the aces, including the media as well as the armed forces. The assumption that the military will not obey orders is not one based upon historical fact (in any society).

Gorbachev and the fall of the Soviet Union, for one. In the US Civil War, regular army units tended to give loyalty to the State of their origin. Also, google Oathkeepers.

The second amendment to the US Constitution simply states -



It makes no mention of the purpose to which those arms may be put, and certainly makes no reference to the right to oppose a legitimately elected government. It merely reserves the right of the citizenry to bear arms, and arguably, only under the condition of maintaining a well regulated militia. All else is a matter of individual interpretation.

Read what the Founders wrote about the Second Amendment, and you will start to get a different picture. They wrote it, they knew what it meant.

 

[ric27]

Fair enough - like I said, I have no interest in arguing against the various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. I question the success of a domestic armed insurrection for the reasons I have given, and I am happy to live somewhere where the need to go armed is not felt.

Founders realized that our inate write to speak is as natural as breathing and therefore made that our first right. Then in order to protect that right from a tryanical government and all subsequent rights, the PEOPLE need to have a way to ensure they themselves can defend those - thus the second ammendent.

 

[MVSN]

I guess my question is how can anyone, anywhere support the government only having firearms?
Why would you trust them not to become totalitarian?
:twocents:

 

[ric27]

I guess my question is how can anyone, anywhere support the government only having firearms?
Why would you trust them not to become totalitarian?
:twocents:

As long as firearms are manufactured in the world, you will never be rid of them, nor be rid of people killed by them. Supply and demand. Pretty simple really, just like you will never be rid of personal violence or crime in general.

Rather than hitting the pipe dreams of a safer peaceful world, we need to look at the proper defenses and deterrents to these crimes.

 

[Rocketman]

I guess my question is how can anyone, anywhere support the government only having firearms?
Why would you trust them not to become totalitarian?
:twocents:

Exactly

 

[American]

The problem, Joe, is that while I have no doubt you didn't mean it this way, this whole thing reads like you're Dian Fossey studying gorillas in the wild. The set of presumptions you come in with are on full display, and you may not even realize it. Yet, they are there nonetheless.

Guns are power. Power belongs in the hands of the people. Whether it's to defend themselves and their homes against invaders, domestic or foreign, or to provide a counterweight to government power, it's about not surrendering the means to defend your personal sovereignty.

This is the best expression of the founders intent for the 2nd Amendment. Thanks you. :thumbs: