Who should be allowed to wear a gun?
I ask this question as a user, rightly, didn't want to discuss this issue further below the question if its wrong or right to refuse to take a Covid19 vaccine. I noticed that wearing a gun or that American rebel image is a kind of disease also and the cure against it is surely not wearing a gun too. You can rebeliously state that it is your right but here in Holland the view is more refined.
It is typical American that unheard youngsters or other frustated people make themselves heard by shooting a bunch of people and thus get noticed. It seems that a lot of problems are solved by the gun. The gun empowers. But to whom must we grant this shooting power? Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)?
It is typical American that unheard youngsters or other frustated people make themselves heard by shooting a bunch of people and thus get noticed. It seems that a lot of problems are solved by the gun. The gun empowers. But to whom must we grant this shooting power? Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)?
Comments (67)
[quote=Prishon]Who should be allowed to wear a gun?[/quote]
Quoting Prishon
You've answered your own question. Pat yourself on the back and give yourself a treat.
I don't like icecream. Unless you come sit with me in the back. That I can treat you on one.
Power to the people.
Quoting Prishon
The U.S. does not grant this shooting power. This power is a Constitutional Right. The government is merely prohibited from infringing upon the right.
Quoting Prishon
The people.
I forgot this is an American site.
I don't know for sure, but I think every one from around the world is welcome to chime in on equal footing. I *think* (but am not sure) that there might be an English requirement. I like to hear what those from more civilized countries have to say.
P.S. Unless and until you figure out the "quote" thing, I can tell you that I will probably miss many posts you may be directing to me, or those wherein you have endeavored but failed to quote me.
"Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)?
— Prishon
The people."
I demand animals should be allowed too. So we can all kill each other. I have read there are 60 000 people killed each year by bullets. More than Corona has done. Corona leaves with the tail between her legs.
Hmm? Maybe you are right. Have more than 600,000 people been killed by guns in the same time frame that Covid has killed that number? (U.S.) If your number of 60,000 is right, then Covid has killed ten times as many people. Gun leaves with the tail between her legs.
"Hmm? Maybe you are right. Have more than 600,000 people been killed by guns in the same time frame that Covid has killed that number? (U.S.)"
60 000 per year in the US. In Holland (18 million people) about 100 each year. By whatever bullet.That would translate to 2000. Thirty times less! And why? Because guns is bussiness. One can make money with them.
It's a less massive killer but more persistent. If you look at 100 years it gives you 3 000 000 people dead. How many Corona victims are there in the US?
Okay, so the first thing you should do is admit you were wrong. Then we can ask if it's fair to compare 250 years of gun killings with 1 year of Covid. hmmmm? I think not.
Next, after totaling up all the gun dead, I like to do something you may not want to do: I deduct all the suicides, all the accidents, and all the killings of those folks what needed kilt. After all, the first two are not the gun's fault and the latter is a net positive. That leaves us with innocent victims. How many?
Regardless, that is all going down an unnecessary and irrelevant rabbit hole. The right to keep and bear arms is primarily designed to secure a free state. Not defense from criminal acts or hunting and whatnot.
All your (well meant!) rules can be replaced by one rule: forbid the manufacturing as well as the possedion. Like drugs. Easy enough. The enforcement and maintenance of these laws can be assured with...guns! In the right hands they can serve as a means of liberations from these cowardly weaponry. If you like them and want to shoot there are vitual reality games and toy guns. If you like the real stuff, go live in the dessert with others who like it. It would get pretty crowded there I guess. But dont wear them in the middle of other people who dont like them and get paranoid because of them.
Now Im gonna do something you dont like. How many innocent people got shot? One is already to much. You might day that they are killed by the bad criminal lunatic and that thats the reason you wear them. Its indeed always a good idea to have one around... Thats how I thought some time ago. But like that the killing never stops. And you have to start with yourself. If you forbid the manufacturing it would helo. The gun seems like the American drug. And drugs are not allowed in the US. I have found that strange always. Drugs are firbidden in the US and guns are allowed. I know which one to forbid.
Another thing I *think* we try to do here is not try and make the other person's argument for them.
Quoting Prishon
Our founding father's didn't think drugs were a right. I suspect they didn't think drugs would help the people keep the government in check or secure a free state.
I believe everyone should have the right to carry a firearm, both to defend their lives and property and to dispose of despotism. Despots and criminals do not fear principle and moral arguments; they fear force, and the gun is the best way to deliver it.
Ah! I think its getting more clear now to me. I didnt know about the founding fathers that they thought guns helped people keeping the goverment in check. But does that still apply today? I watched (from my cosy sofa) the happenings at the Capitol. One man was shor dead (?). They were prepared to shoot Pelosi. Is that what you mean?
I think you are right to have the right to shoot despotes. But criminals? I wished they had shot that Trump guy. The Earth would be better off without him.
And you have the right to kill someone who wants to kill you. But someone breaking in in your house? Material things are no more than that. Things.Criminals wear guns too. Here in Holland no one is allowed. Neither criminals nor "normal" people. I feel a lot saver like that. You can kill someone with a knife too. But guns (and arms in general, like the Tsar Bomba) make it too easy. If I meat someone with a gun I ssy: "If you wanna shoot me, go ahead. The victory is mine"
Yes, that is what I mean. Another example is the armed occupation of the State House in Michigan. You know why those Republicans, and the Republicans who assaulted the Capital, and Cliven Bundy's dad, et al, were not mowed down by crew-served, belt-fed automatic weapons fire, like BLM and Antifa would have been? It's not just because they were white. It's because they are armed to the teeth. That is why Ronald Reagan supported gun control in California back in the day: Blacks were arming up. Since then, the left, by and large, has forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. Thus, they must rely upon the good graces of government and people like Trump to not subjugate them. They must rely on the cops (with guns) and to protect them. They must hope the cops aren't with the fascists. The left must hope. That's all they have left. Because the fascists don't abide the rule of law.
That's not much of a victory in my mind. You're just an unarmed victim.
It is easy, and that's the point. Guns are an equalizer to might makes right. A frail old woman can instil fear into the most dangerous attacker.
Lack of fear works just as well. Guns are only any good for killing and killing is only any good for instilling fear. Therefore, fear not and stay free.
Huh? Ronald Reagan supported gun control? (its funny that although I dont live in the US and never have been there I still know a great deal of your country). Because it were the blacks demanding the right to wear arms?
No one. Not even the police officers or military officials. It is so dangerous and just for carrying more weapons do not mean that you will have more security at all.
They weren't demanding it; they were exercising it.
And rightly so. A pity that there was Ronald Reagan to take that away from them.
It works really well, under some circumstances. Like when the rule of law is still held in regard by the gun holder. If a person is afraid to use the gun because of potential legal consequences, then a person without a gun can carry the day.
Quoting unenlightened
Guns are good for instilling fear in would-be despots.
White privilege. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is sacred, except not "those people." When Ronny thought the blacks were getting uppity, he was fine with gun control.
Who would enforce this? You know, if the Taliban had free range in the U.S., who is going to disarm them?
Is that picture of you wearing a gun? I like that picture!
No, that is Robert De Niro in the movie Taxi Driver.
Are you really believing that Taliban has some chances to free range U. S.?
Well I do understand your perspective of living in a country which is threatened by more than a half of the world.
Ah yes! I can see now. He would fit in this time perfectly!
Un, those are knives not a gun and please don't suggest that they get banned because you are quite right about the hoof derocker.
I view Trumpster Republicans as American Taliban.
Ideally, nobody. They should all be destroyed.
In reality? Law enforcement. But this should be overlooked by a democratic committee to prevent abuse of power.
Many citizens have concealed weapons permits, and the state of Texas allows anyone to sport a concealed gun. Laws vary from state to state. I had to take a course taught by a retired cop and undergo a standard FBI and state background check. I use my permit only on rare occasions.
An excellent draft for any future gun laws/restrictions. Kudos to you. :up:
Yes, I think the OP was being ironic but guns were, still are, probably will remain as a member of the solution set for many people, especially in those areas that are part of the gun culture like the underworld, gangs, druggies, human and drug traffickers, etc.
My personal take on guns is that the condom principle applies in full: better to have it and not need it than to need and not have it.
Along the same trajectory, my hunch is that the condom principle in re guns is a chain reaction: I buy a gun, you too need one to protect yourself against me; someone else needs one to equalize with the two of us; lather, rinse, repeat. Since guns are already available in the market, and people have already bought them, the chain reaction I was talking about is in progression full throttle as we speak.
A useful approach to determining 'who should wear a gun' is to apply strict standards of attractiveness and style.
"Does a gun look good on this person?"
"Do the person's clothing choices add to, or detract from appearance of the gun? And visa versa?
"Does wearing a gun match their general style of dress, comportment, make-up, hair, gait, pitch of voice, cock size, and so forth?
No one should be allowed to make up for a little dick by wearing a big gun.
Clearly short fat people should not be allowed to wear a gun or guns, just as they should not be allowed to wear blue suede shoes, pink pants, a teal colored shirt, and an orange jacket. Fat people wearing lycra are disgusting, and so are fat people with two guns hanging from a gun belt. Just stupid. Fat people wearing lycra are too attractive a target for their own good.
Women may be allowed to carry a gun in their purse, provided the purse is attractive and the gun is small and easily handled. Hauling a sawed off shotgun out of a Hermés Birkin bag is just not done in America or any place else. Well, maybe in Venezuela, these days.
Male gun wearers should be unconditionally handsome, at least as tall as average, but not too tall; physically fit, dressed in rugged clothing featuring perfectly faded denim, earth tones, brown leather boots, etc. They should be visibly well hung, too, Might as well have the complete package. (Note "puny dick/no gun" rule.)
Acne-pocked youth should definitely not wear guns. Republicans, especially, should not be allowed to wear guns, considering how unsightly Donald and Mitch are. Homely hookers should not be allowed to sport guns, and tacky looking johns should not be allowed to have a gun tucked into their belt either. As a group, Blacks and Whites should not be allowed to wear guns because both are too large a catchall, and will include too many badly dressed, badly groomed, homely, and stupid people. Same for all other groups, Stupid people, of course, should not be allowed to have guns, let alone wear them.
Anyone wearing lycra, unless they are really fit and well-endowed, should be subject to arrest. And even if they are well endowed, certain bizarre color combinations should not be allowed.
Men with annoying reedy high pitched voices should not wear guns and annoying women with low-pitched raspy voices should not be allowed either. Speech coaches can train people to speak attractively. Want a gun? Get thee to a speech coach. And maybe a charm school, too.
Remember what Oscar Wilde said: "Only shallow people do not care about appearances."
This should be the law, regardless of gun carrying. But those wimps on the Supreme Court would probably shoot it down. :sad:
Best answer!:victory:
I just lost ten pounds from reading that.
Don't worry, I am still not permitted to wear Lycra according to a strict interpretation of the guidelines.
Perhaps it had something to do with the rule of law. Imperfectly though the law is applied, I don't recall groups of BLM or Antifa activists being mown-down either.
I heard an interview once with a former FBI sniper who told a story about some militia-type dude they arrested, and he's spouting all this anti-government nonsense. Our guy tells him, "I had your head in my sights for the last two hours. If we wanted you dead, you'd be dead. You may be at war with your government, but your government is not at war with you."
That's what the rule of law is supposed to look like, and often it does, just not often enough.
It seems to me that being armed makes it more likely law enforcement will think it necessary to shoot you, and what's more the uncertainty about whether you're armed, and the certainty that you might be armed, puts the fingers of far too many folks in uniform on their triggers. Where would you rather be a cop? In a country where guns are few and far between, or where almost anyone might be carrying? A cop shouldn't have to wonder if his life is in danger when he responds to a domestic, but that really angry guy might not welcome your interference and make his point with a Glock. (Before the modern era of tribal politics, this was a no-brainer and police chiefs everywhere favored gun control.)
Apart from the question of rights and whether guns help protect them, there is a beautiful form of life to be found through being able to go out and buy breakfast without a thought at all about who might interrupt that. Being compelled to strap on a piece before setting out kills the vibe and my freedom to seek it out.
I have lived in places where gun ownership did encourage a recognition of boundaries. I have lived in places where that forced people to live in shameful and disgusting ways.
It is funny how an instrument can be taken up to escape compulsion and yet lead to new forms of compulsion. Cue the Pesci bit in Goodfellas regarding the different possible meanings of "funny."
I heard a similar story where the government snipers were, after the fact, given vids of them in the scopes of counter snipers at Bundy's place. All of them had been marked for death by several trained-up former spec ops guys (counter-snipers and much further out), had they squeezed off a single round.
That FBI guy may not think he's at war with the people, but when they infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms, they are.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
In the same exact place that I'd rather be a despot.
I'm sure the people will be watching to see if the rule of law is applied to the traitors of January 6th. And I'm not talking about the foot-soldiers on the ground who trashed the building. I'm talking about the admins, logistics guys, coordinators and, most especially, those people in the Capital Police, law enforcement and investigative agencies, intelligence, military, and executive. And, last but not least, any legislators that were in on it. If they burn them down to the ground and purge their ranks of the insurgents, then I'll have a little more faith in the rule of law.
But there are two things I know: It's extremely difficult to break the blue or green wall, and the further up the chain you go, the less likely it is that anything will be done.
Sure. But that's cold comfort to police officers for whom almost any interaction could turn fatal.
Quoting James Riley
Pardon my French, but big fucking deal. If Bundy's crowd were deemed to be involved in an actual insurrection, the US Army could just obliterate them, even if they took out a few ATF agents first.
If the military and the innumerable police forces in the United States were complicit with a tyrannical regime, all the gun clubs in America couldn't do a damn thing about it. That's a Red Dawn fantasy. In the meantime, guns are a real problem everyday for real people in the real world.
You're the one who mentioned FBI snipers having some turd in their sites. My big fucking deal was just a big fucking deal to your big fucking deal.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Like they did the Viet Cong and the Taliban? The U.S. Army is composed of Americans, many of whom would not shoot mom and pop. And the U.S. Army would not have a snow ball's chance in hell against Americans. First, there is the fact they can't operate on U.S. soil unless certain conditions are met. When those conditions are met, see sentence number one.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Again, tell that to history. The single most powerful nations on Earth continually get their asses handed to them by insurgents (Patriots/King George, U.S./Viet Cong, Mujahedeen/USSR, Taliban/U.S. etc.). Sure, there were states behind the scenes but there is no reason to think that would not happen here. Besides, none of those folks were armed up like we are, and none of the states had militaries composed of mixed units like ours. It's not Red Dawn fantasy. If you remember, Red Dawn was a foreign force.
The only real threat is if the military and the innumerable police forces and the civilians are on the same side. Sounds like the "right" is working that up and the left has forfeited.
Check out the Mulford Act, by the way.
Yes, that right. And I do know what it means. And I think I dumped, in a PM, a lengthy legal analysis of that on you when I first arrived at this site. If you can find it, you can copy and past they whole thing here.
Is this argument important to you?
I mean, in theory you're explaining to me why your right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. It shouldn't matter whether the little arsenals you and your friends have amassed would actually be of any use if the shit hit the fan. It would still be your right, even if it were pointless to exercise it.
I would just encourage you to spend as much time thinking about the people who deal everyday with the death and destruction brought about by real people using real guns as you've evidently spent thinking about the imaginary war you and your buddies would win against a possible enemy wielding potential guns, someday, maybe, or maybe not.
Do the math and then we can talk about which people we should be thinking about.
Btw, what do you think about other developed countries that have not succumbed to tyranny despite not having high rates of gun ownership? How is it that we're not the only advanced democracy left? Have all these other countries just been lucky so far?
I only think about those countries when it comes to setting examples I agree with, like universal single payor. I don't think about them at all when I think of the RTKBA. While I believe they have that right, I think that right is denied them. They may be good with that. That's their business. It's kind of like freedom of speech. It's my understanding the UK (and other developed countries) have a view on speech that would cause quite the stir if it were implemented in the U.S. But hey, if they don't want to protect their rights, that's up to them.
So no thoughts on how they've managed to avoid falling into tyranny without an armed population to prevent it?
No, not really. I guess I could guess: I think they are more civilized than we are. I also think they suffered through two world wars on their own turf in a matter of decades. That might tire a body out, and bring a little wisdom. I also think they have us to come to their rescue if some punk like Hitler decides to get all uppity again. They also (I think) keep their 1% on a tighter leash, paying their share. Finally, I figure they have greater respect for the rule of law than we do. Sure, they have crime too, and racism, and drugs and whatnot. But over all, they seem to be more inclined to do what they are told to do, when they are told to do it, as fast as they can and to the best of their ability. Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting notwithstanding.
P.S. I think they are packed in a little tighter than we are.
Mind you, I'm way out of my element talking about them. I've spent time in the far east, down under, and a few other places, but not Europe. They don't need people like me and I can live without them.
It's just that, a belief is a bit like a wager: there are stakes and there are payouts.
Maybe our guns do stave off tyranny, or would if they had to. Maybe not. What stakes are we putting up here? Because it looks to me like we're betting a great number of lives a year on this theory, and it's not a bet any other country will take.
If you're convinced the Braves will win the pennant and the World Series, but no one else on earth is betting that way, maybe you'd hesitate before betting your life's savings on it.
At any rate, you'd probably want to find out if they know something you don't.
Like I said, do the math and we talk about which people we might better worry about.
Why not be a little less cryptic? Go ahead and make your point. I'll listen.
There's no maybe about it- they don't.
I didn't mean to be cryptic. You encouraged me to spend "time thinking about the people who deal everyday with the death and destruction brought about by real people using real guns."
There are are shit-ton more threats to people to worry about if we want to worry about threats to people. Sure, the "blowed up real good" "if it bleeds it leads" morbid curiosity of man draws him to the horror of "BANG", but it's really just a drop in the bucket of blood, and a waste if we are to devote time and resources toward people who suffer from this or that. Sometimes I think gun control advocates (victim families excluded) are more infatuated with guns than the prototypical, insecure, lightly-endowed freak, fondling his guns in the basement.
So your position is that there are things worse than guns, plus guns might or might not guarantee our liberty.
Definitely the former, and not simply "might", but "probably", on the latter.
I don't think a Right (compare "privilege") should be infringed because someone decides to kill themselves with a gun. Same with accident. Same with peer-to-peer criminal engagement. I don't think a right should be infringed if an innocent victim of violence, where a gun was used, could have been saved had the state enforced the countless laws already on the books. That leaves us with innocent victims of violence where a gun was used. While I don't believe the gun is at fault, we can table that argument for the time being and I will stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that the gun shot the victim. That brings us to my point:
When society (particularly those in favor of gun control) gets it's house in order on a whole panoply of other causes that lead to the horrendous grief of victims and/or survivors, then we can circle back to the issue of the infringement of a Right. But I don't think you will find my position has changed. Indeed, if society will clean up all those other problems, then I don't think there will be much in the way of innocent victims of gun crime to worry about.
I don't think infringement is the right idea here at all. The social contract is not a matter of what infringement of your rights you're willing to put up with, but of you anteing up: you throw in your lot with these people and commit to making it, or not, together. There are benefits to be had, and it's why people strike this bargain, but you have to give some things up too.
I believe it was Max Weber who defined the state as an institution possessing "a monopoly on the legitimate use of force". That's generally part of the bargain: we don't all go around keeping order and enforcing the law, only some of us. If you incline toward a natural rights view, you could say the rest of us transfer, as it were, our natural right to use force to those among us we deputize for the purpose, and then we demand that they meet our expectations in doing so. It's a sweet enough deal that almost everyone goes for it, or would love to if only they could get the chance.
Everyone except law-abiding American gun owners and criminals the world over.
I'll let you have the last word. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.
I happen to agree with the concept of the social contract, as amended, or interpreted by the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers went over all this quite some time ago, informed by their experience in life. Most were well-read men of the enlightenment, with a good grounding in Greek, Latin, philosophy, politics and the affairs of man, not to mention vast, cumulative real-world experience. I know a lot of people these days think those old white guys are no longer relevant, but they provided a way to deal with that, too.