Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

All though misguided, it is very important to understand how other countries think, so we can all come to a better understanding and remove the misconceptions we have of each other.

In my opinion, its going to be VERY VERY easy for other countries to make the connection with the Iraq war, to Bush, to this event, even though they aren't that connected...or are they?

What makes me angry is that it seems like they think it's OK, since they too are suffering pain. That's TOTAL BS. I think that at least the majority of people here feel the pain of the Iraqi people who die in the war.

This was a LOCAL, non-government involved event and all you can say is basically: "Now you see what it feels like." **** that.

I've got to ask this one again Beems. So, you don't take issue with our central premise (e.g., that in a perfect world guns would be banned). Rather, you believe that it is impossible to get firearms out of circulation?

What makes me angry is that it seems like they think it's OK, since they too are suffering pain. That's TOTAL BS. I think that at least the majority of people here feel the pain of the Iraqi people who die in the war.

This was a LOCAL, non-government involved event and all you can say is basically: "Now you see what it feels like." **** that.

Well i wouldn't take it too personally. This is going to be a generalization, but most people in the middle east get their information from the internet or from propaganda newspapers. Watch Thomas Friedman's report on the Root Causes of 9/11 with the Discovery channel, and you'll see Iraq citizens who think Americans were the ones who hijacked the plans, Al Gore is Jewish and thats why he didn't win the election, and all sorts of other odd things. Its no telling what they are reading

I saw that too Bush. Like all of Friedman's stuff, it was an interesting (and scary) documentary.

I've seen all of his reports. I think they are really really good reporting and shows many sides of the story. He doesn't editoralize that much and its just insightful. Love him.

I've seen all of his reports. I think they are really really good reporting and shows many sides of the story. He doesn't editoralize that much and its just insightful. Love him.

Yeah, he is definately curious and doesn't try to browbeat you into thinking a particular way. With regard to most Middle Eastern issues he definately tries to present both sides of the story. That he is Jewish and still able to maintain a high degree of independence on matters concerning Israel says a lot about his journalistic integrity.

I've got to ask this one again Beems. So, you don't take issue with our central premise (e.g., that in a perfect world guns would be banned). Rather, you believe that it is impossible to get firearms out of circulation?


Would the world be a better place without the need for firearms? Of course.

What if there were no evil, no bad people? No disease? Complete world peace? Yes, all these things would be fantastic. But that's utopia, fantasyland. We don't live in that world.

And no, I don't believe it would be possible to completely remove guns from circulation -- even if it were possible, which I dispute, don't you think enterprising individuals would come up with a weapon of some sort for defense? Nature abhors a vaccuum. Human spirit and ingenuity would prevail and there will only be some other form of destruction to contend with.

Did we not learn anything from the prohibition of alcohol? Are we currently not learning anything from illegal drugs?

First off, most handguns and assault weapons can be tracked. Second, as guns are confiscated they would be destroyed. Third, guns would no longer be manufactured. Fourth, a more limited supply of guns would drive cost up and, as cost goes up, the ability of criminals to access them decreases. The supply would run out to next to nothing over time.

BTW, I love how you discuss the matter intelligently and civilly. We disagree, but I've gotta give you props for style.

Thank you.

Now, as to your arguments, yes weapons can be traced with serial numbers.

There would be a huge problem with confiscation. Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue when our own government begins the process of rounding up everyone with a gun, busting down their doors, using force to achieve their goals? Certainly, there will be those who willingly conceed. But the sheer number of private citizens and police who would perish in carrying out such a law would be catastrophic.

Guns may not be manufactured here, but the United States as of yet has no power to force their laws on other countries. The business of manufacturing would simply flow to areas where it is not illegal to produce weapons.

A limited supply will drive up the price, then you have the problem of the black market. Our discussion of the illegality of drugs in another thread already addressed this issue. The problem only gets worse at that point.

You predict that, absent legal gun ownership, the streets of America would be unbelievably chaotic with death everywhere. As a corollary, you believe that the U.S. government is incapable of protecting the people by itself (i.e., it needs gun owners to assist). So, with regard to Iraq, I don't see how you can simply blame their ineffective government for the violence. After all, you already believe that our government is incapable of keeping us relatively safe.

Do I believe that the absence of an adequate police force contributes to a rise in crime in Iraq or elsewhere? Of course. Are the people of Iraq sufficiently armed to protect themselves against crimes of a domestic nature? Obviously not. Would crime disappear if there were no guns in Iraq? We both agree that would not be the case.

I never said the government is incapable of protecting its citizens against crime.

I believe it's an individual right and responsibility to protect yourself. The police cannot be everywhere all the time.

I think one of our fundamental differences SGG, is the extent of our individual rights. Our civilization recognizes these as life, liberty, and property. If you believe individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property, then you must also believe that we have the right to defend these things from the force of others who wish to do harm to us. If we are denied the ability to protect ourselves from the criminal element, if that is officially taken away from us, then we no longer have the expectation of these rights.

Now, you might say that the government is then burdened with this responsibility totally. The problem there, is that a government which is strong enough to give us everything we need, is powerful enough to take it all away. With federal protection, comes federal strings.

It's my belief that ultimately, each of us is responsible for ourselves. That goes from the very basic needs of life -- food, shelter, clothing -- to the defense of those items in the face of an armed attacker.

You make some good points Beems, but we simply differ. It's clear that I'm "stuck" in my beliefs and you in yours. I can't see either of us persuading the other to reconsider our beliefs, so I'm just going to leave it alone. It was a fun discussion though.