Supreme Court upholds right to own guns

Originally posted by Bardock42
Exactly.

Also, the whole fact about them criminals being criminals and probably not caring too much about gun laws...that's a big one, imo.

There was an episode of Family Guy where Peter takes all the pipes for the irrigation system in a new town (after a nuclear holocaust) to build guns. Peter was the mayor and the town throws him out after the pipe stunt because he was a lousy mayor. After they throw the guns into the fire a guy says, "Pfft, what would we ever need guns for?"

And then a bunch of mutant octopus Stewies kill the whole town.

😆

Originally posted by Bardock42
he was asking what I thought. And I find provability a pretty important part of any law, really.

Not what I mean. Why does the system suddenly make simple and perfectly accurate judgments possible? Where does this omniscient fiat law come from?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think someone should be shot by an officer for carrying a gun? Even if it was legal to carry a gun?

I'm afraid I never said anything to that effect. The man certainly doesn't need to be shot but he shouldn't be allowed to bring an assault weapon into a crowded room simply due to the danger presented.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, ignorance and stupidity on your part doesn't make an idea any more or less reasonable. I get you people equate anarchism with chaos and constant murder, but that is just ****ing stupid...so, yeah.

That's not what I said and if you weren't blinded by you own sense of persecution you'd probably see that.

You seem to be under the impression that somehow removing government would stop people from killing one another, which is completely idiotic. I merely criticized that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, the whole fact about them criminals being criminals and probably not caring too much about gun laws...that's a big one, imo.

I'm sure most people that want to kill folks would love having the right to walk around with powerful weapons. Makes everything so much easier and there's nothing anyone can do until people get killed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not what I mean. Why does the system suddenly make simple and perfectly accurate judgments possible? Where does this omniscient fiat law come from?

I have no idea what you are saying. I said something which is pretty common in law anyways, and you somehow took it to mean something scientific or more...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm afraid I never said anything to that effect. The man certainly doesn't need to be shot but he shouldn't be allowed to bring an assault weapon into a crowded room simply due to the danger presented.

Meh, if it is a government owned place, fair enough.
Private I'd say it is up to the owner. Also, as inimalist pointed out, being allowed to have guns and openly taking them into a public place are two different shoes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not what I said and if you weren't blinded by you own sense of persecution you'd probably see that.

Actually, you do seem to hold my ideology (anarchism) to a much higher standard than the one we have now. Obviously anarchy wouldn't make all people stop killing themselves....why should it? The current system doesn't do that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to be under the impression that somehow removing government would stop people from killing one another, which is completely idiotic. I merely criticized that.

That's not what I said and if you weren't blinded by ... well, I have no idea why you are blinded, but you are ... you'd probably see that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm sure most people that want to kill folks would love having the right to walk around with powerful weapons. Makes everything so much easier and there's nothing anyone can do until people get killed.

Not sure, they might also want folks not to have guns to protect themselves in case they do decide to go kill people...makes everything much easier.

But that's not really my line of argument, just saying.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hello, anarchist.

If you want a minarchist perspective, I'd say to the extend that someone actually has the intention to kill someone else (which should obviously be provable)...which is what should be illegal. Taking away another, at most slightly related, freedom crosses the line in my opinion. This way you actually just stop the offender and don't infringe on everyone's freedoms even though they are totally unrelated.

So? If you go this far why not also infringe on those freedoms, why not go further. Statistics show that blind people without hands commit the least gun crimes, why not poke everyone's eyes out and chop their hands off? Afterall you have the right not to be shot. Why is your line after buying a gun for whatever reason ever (guns do have more purposes than to premeditately kill people)?

I'd still say it is a step up from many other institutions, which should go later in the process to create an anarchis utopia.

I do love you though.

Originally posted by backdoorman
So you wouldn't support any regulations on gun sale? Never mind people who have criminal records, people mentally unstable or children. For indeed, why take away their freedom?

Still anarchist.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Yeah, it's the same thing. Because people are born with those things, people need them to perform many of the simplest manual labors essential to our society, etc.

It's the same reason anyways, just that you figure that those have redeeming qualities so you personally think it is different...

Originally posted by backdoorman
I sometimes think you have a pyramid chart issued by the the Ayn Rand Institute or something, that depicts from worst to least evil the wicked ways in which the government takes away our freedoms. But then you probably don't, and the vigor with which you oppose each manifestation of the bad, bad socialist government is entirely random.

B-because it wasn't random if the Ayn Rand institute issued it?

Originally posted by backdoorman
I do love you though.

My back door's closed, mate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, if it is a government owned place, fair enough.
Private I'd say it is up to the owner. Also, as inimalist pointed out, being allowed to have guns and openly taking them into a public place are two different shoes.

I can agree to that much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, you do seem to hold my ideology (anarchism) to a much higher standard than the one we have now. Obviously anarchy wouldn't make all people stop killing themselves....why should it? The current system doesn't do that.

I don't really expect any system to prevent all killing. However your system seems to assume that people will be less destructive if left entirely to their own devices, which seems ridiculous to me. The whole idea of anarchist utopias flies in the face of what has been proven to be basic human nature through out all of history. However this is getting completely off topic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure, they might also want folks not to have guns to protect themselves in case they do decide to go kill people...makes everything much easier.

But that's not really my line of argument, just saying.

More guns would simply raise death tolls further. But I'll drop the line of argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can agree to that much.

Good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't really expect any system to prevent all killing. However your system seems to assume that people will be less destructive if left entirely to their own devices, which seems ridiculous to me. The whole idea of anarchist utopias flies in the face of what has been proven to be basic human nature through out all of history. However this is getting completely off topic.

Not really, my system assumes that people will be less destructive if their is more initiative in the community to stop crime. If people keep each other in order much more, less would happen. That's the assumption. The problem anarchists face in our society is more the ignporance of the people and the propaganda they have been fed by a huge, powerful government. The fact that we basically live in an anarchist society if you see the government as nothing but a bunch of big bullies that use guns and brainwashing to keep the masses down also plays a big role in understanding how more obvious anarchy could work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More guns would simply raise death tolls further. But I'll drop the line of argument.

That's obviously not true. But probably smart of you to drop the argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Still anarchist.

It's the same reason anyways, just that you figure that those have redeeming qualities so you personally think it is different...

B-because it wasn't random if the Ayn Rand institute issued it?

My back door's closed, mate.

Originally posted by backdoorman
They do factually have redeeming (much more so than guns) qualities though.

In your opinion. You draw the line randomly.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That Rand part was mostly for comical purposes, but at least if you did consult their hypothetical chart, the strength with which you oppose stuff would not be a result of strange personal whims.

Ironic.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That makes me sad.

I'm sorry, maybe I just need some time.

civilians should NOT have guns, PERIOD! if you really wanna plea self defence, get an air taser, its far more effective than handguns. also, just what percentage of the population victimised by robbers/theives/terrorist etc have actually been recorded to use their guns to succesfully protect themselves from such threats?!??! it has NO affect on crime rates. they are all just bs rationalisations by gun owners, wannbe cowboys and people who generally like to show off their guns or are involved in shady activities or like to ENFORCE the borders or private property rights by KILLING tresspassers. gun accidents and domestic disturbances etc etc ect have killed more peopl in america alone than both the world wars combined. screw the right of people to bear arms. stupid ammendment, which was only appropriate at the time of america's foundation and when lawlessness was rampant and the authorities unavailable. civilians shud not own GUNS!!!!!

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

OMGZ!!

responsible and community driven gun ownership can lead to almost no gun violence!!!!

^guns dont kill, people kill people, ofcourse, guns HELP a LOT. basically, people more often than not, can not be expected to be responsible. also, WHAT is the big deal anyway, its not like people would die without the pleasure of having a gun with them. why dont we try out all these arguments in legalising drugs then?!

Im 100% for the legalization of all drugs and responible community controls

for instance, my friend has mental problems when he takes acid, the only way to control that is through community responsibility. Neither government controls or free access will solve that situation.

Sure, guns might help kill people, and switzerland has a rate of gun suicide comparable to the US, but the government has no right to take the right to defend oneself (including against the government) away from citizens. Nobody wants a bunch of crazy idiots running around shooting people, but that is not justification for a government to start limiting freedoms, especially in such a way that it removes the ability of citizens to resist its power.

Its social structure of a society that leads to gun or any other violence. Rather than ranting about gun control why not rally against two tiered society?

^^ The market isn't fit for drugs being that more people drink for no reason.

EDIT: Ask a psychiatrist. Pay for one. The medication has a similar affect. Go to a mental hospital. It's quite cozy. Some people stay more than one month. Usually, one week. 🙁

the social problems associated with alcohol were multiplied exponentially when it was prohibited.

I just don't want anyone to tell me I should dope myself.

lol

what are you talking about?

choice, lol

That's all that's on my friends' minds, and the media targets dopes like the people I managed to make friends with.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
I just don't want anyone to tell me I should dope myself.

What does that have to do with the legalization of drugs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
In your opinion. You draw the line randomly.

Ironic.