A logical gun-supporter view.

[miko2d]

 Hi, guys.
 I am a supporter of the guns and I am also for reducing the role of government to the minimum.

 Nevertheless I find myself in disagreement with most of the points put forward by other gun supporters. I actually believe that some of the points undermine the pro-gun position in the eyes of the public.
 I will try examine some of my points them and invite you to logically and civilly break them apart.

 I do not believe that government is evil. In US we do really elect the government and we get what we deserve.
 But since most of the US electorate are not competent in statecraft and since most competent people do not go into politics, preferring to make their fortune in private sector, I do believe that the government is not competent enough to trust it with running more of my life then absolutely necessary.

 Following from above, I do not trust the government to protect me and prefer to be able to protect myself. We do have crime despite all government efforts. How about the recent riots in some american cities (like LA) that our government had not been able to stop promptly?
 All the references of anti-gun lobby to the statistics are not applicable because statistics apply to populations in whole, not particular cases. I may have a greater chance to be a victim of a gun accident then a robbery, but when I am confronted by a robber, I am 100% not a victim of a gun accident and my probability of being robbed is 100% too. I need a gun, not a statistic in that case.

 So my secondary need for a gun is to protect myself.

 A government could change, be overtaken or otherwise become unsatisfactory to it's subjects. In this case a forecefull or support removal of the government by the population can be called for.
 Ignorant anti-gun proponents would say that the times changed and this kind of stuff is impossible... They do not know their modern history.
 Americans did not get their independence by asking. Russians failed to support the democratic provisional government against Bolsheviks in 1917. Germany was a democratic country and had the most educated and sophisticated population that ever existed in the world and they elected Hitler and supported his politcies. Any number of modern coups where a general with a small army could enfore his will on an unarmed population.

So my primary need for a gun is to protect myself from the government or protect the government, however the things turn out.

 Not that I expect to use it. Just knowing that I (and a hundred million other americans) have a gun may prevent some aspiring dictator from an unwise move.

 In view of all that:

1. I do not care about hunting. There are lots of dangerous activities currently forbidden (like fireworks) and nobody cares to protect them. Nobody's livelihood depends on hunting with a gun. You may outlaw gun hunting any day. I have my three bows anyway     If you have ever tried to draw a bow (one of mine is a 64 pouner longbow), you would know that gun hunting is for wussies. I am joking, guys   .
 Saying "the guns are for hunting animals, not killing people" is wrong. I want to legally own a gun good for killing people.

2. I do not care about target practice as a hobby or a goal in itself. I do not want to be allowed a gun only good for target practice (22cal? airgun?) or not be allowed to carry my gun out of the firing range.
 Saying "the guns are for target practice, not killing people" is wrong. Again, I want to legally own a gun good for killing people.

3. Registration. I am all for that. A gun is a dangerous thing. We restrict lot of activities, so the guns should not be excluded.
 A person getting a gun should be checked more thoughroughly then the one getting a driver license, even if it takes a week!
 An examination of the person's knowlege of handling a gun, using a gun and CPR/First Aid (accidents do happen) would not exclude any responsible citizen from becoming a gun-owner.

4. Concealed carry. I do not care about that either. Considering my objectives, I do not mind carrying my gun openly. There may be good reasons for concealed carry though. If I see one, I will support it.

5. Automatic/high power weapons. Considering my objectives I want a weapon that would give me a chance against a soldier. I would be more comfortable with a full-auto-capable and/or high-power weapon.
 I am not talking about privately owning nuclear bombs or major heavy weaponry - majority should decide the outcome. Regular personal infantry weapons should allow the population to make it's choice when faced with violence if enough people support the cause. Owning light anti-armor weapons could be practical - tanks seem a favorite tool of the coup organizers.

6. Handguns. Not essential but important. Long arms would serve my most important objectives, but I'd really prefer to be able to have them. Carrying a carbine for self-defence would be really inconvenient, unless they become a fashion. Still, they are heavy.

7. Gun misuse. An unauthorized posession/use/sale of a weapon should be punished most severely. There is no way it could hurt the law-abiding citizens.

8. Gun locks. It is very difficult to fire a gun with a lock. If I use one, what is a chance my gun will be locked when I (suddenly) need it? I am against making them mandatory. They are a good idea for storing guns you are not planning to use on a short notice.

 Conclusion.
 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target practice or hobby gun collecting. It is about responsibly owning a gun to be able to oppose or enforce violence against a capable and well-equipped enemy.

 Trying to save the 2nd amendment by referring to hunting and other "innocent" gun-related hobbies allows it's enemies to severely limit the gun ownership defeating the spirit of the amendment while clinging to the letter of the constitution - "you can have your single-shot water pistol for hunting withing the firing range".

 Of course other people may have other values and priorities and may knowingly elect another way of live altogether. Some may really care only about hunting, some may prefer to rely on the police for their protection or move to the safer neighbourhoods if they have money for that. All opinions are welcome.

miko

P.S. To Maverick - see my appology in the leonid's thread and I welcome your opinion here. But no shouting, please  

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

I was all ready to give a response on all your points, but quite frankly, I'm getting burned out on all this gun talk, think I'll go to the range tonight and rattle a few off, just for grins...  

[AKDejaVu]

Well said Miko.  I have to say I agree almost 100%.  I only have some minor issues in regards to registration.  I am all for it, though I'm not too keen on creating new regulations as to who can/can't own a firearm.  Testing/qualification/certification all lead to restriction.

AKDejaVu

[Maverick]

Miko2d,

I responded earlier in the previous thread. I didn't come to this one first.

I only want to reiterate a point I made on the other thread. That is why punish / restrict the many for the actions of a few. Just because some things / activities are restricted does not grant a blanket permission to do the same to other activities. Where does a government gain the ability to know better than I how to live my life or what I should own absent any overt criminal or harmful act on my part?

At what point do the restrictions become "too much" for the population being controlled by the government? Is it the government's purpose, or reason for being, to control the population being governed or is it the population's responsibility to control the government?

I suppose my position on government is best summed up by, That gonvernment governs best which governs least. I can't quote it exactly but that is what I meant.

Miko, was that better?  

Mav

 

[miko2d]

Mav, To use the bold font type [b] before and [/b] after.

AKDejaVu,
 Any society assumes some restrictions. That is an inevitabel tradeoff for the benefits we get from it. People with a history of violent behavior and mentally unstable should be prevented from owning a gun, same way that some people are prevented from driving a car or flying a plane.
 As for new regulations, in most places we have plenty of regulations already. New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws. No way to get a carry permit unless your busines involves carrying valuables.

miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-19-2000).]

[funked]

Ya know what, it doesn't even matter if we are "logical" or not.  I don't need a good reason to own a gun or anything.  As long as I am not hurting anybody with it, F_CKEM!

[StSanta]

Yeah

Same for me and my nukes, or biological weapons  



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"

[Toad]

There is an incredible amount of original source information on what the founding fathers intended to accomplish with the 2nd Amendment.

For those that don't like the 2nd, the founding fathers wisely incorporated a way to amend the constitution. Let those who feel the need attempt to make the change.

I don't feel the need. I have never used a gun unlawfully and I am not the problem.

If the "antis" spent just 1/2 their time making sure CRIMINALS get punished they'd accomplish far more for society than they do now.

Funny how they can rant and rave against guns but you never see the Liberals when it comes time to take action against the criminals.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-20-2000).]

[mietla]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
Funny how they can rant and rave against guns but you never see the Liberals when it comes time to take action against the criminals.

That's because they want to use crime as a justification for killing the Second Amendment. The last thing they want is to lower the crime rate by punishing the perps.

[Shade324th]

ULTRA CONSERVATISM MODE ON!:    

Ok, my .02 is it even matters.

It seems to me that the "lefties" are going about it the wrong way.  

They treat the symptoms, not the disease.

My Grandfather died of cancer six months ago.  Did I see doctors saying "The cancer makes his stomach ache.  Lets give him some Mylanta and make his stomach better."  No they weren't.  they realized that it was the CANCER causing the pain, and went right for the disease itself.

Ok, the reason I say that:

It seems to me that we as a society are saying things like:
1) "Teen pregnancy is getting high!"

Treating the Symptom:  Legalized abortion.

Treating the Disease:  Parents raising thier kids to be educated on issues of sex.

2)  "Gun violence is raising!"

Treating the Symptom:  Ban guns.

Treating the Disease:  Enforce the friggin law!

My idea on lowering violence in America(Brace youselves...and please hear me out.)

Public Executions.

Why?

First off, NOT becuase I think public executions are good.  Lets first look at WHY execution for murder is a good thing.

The current average sentence for first degree murder in this country is FOUR years.  The average someone serves in prison before parole is FOUR years.  If you rob a national bank in this country it is a mandatory 14 years without any prayer of parole.  That is truly telling of what we really value in this country.

So lets say we take all the proven first degree murderers out there and hang them on national TV in times square.  The Libs will say that "We shouldn't treat violence with violence."  That is roadkill for one reason:

There is a difference between VIOLENCE and PUNISHMENT.

So anyway, we take all the murderers and hang them.  What will that do? This:

Lets say FunkedUP pisses me off to no end and I go buy a gun, wait out side his house, and plan to kill him.  I could do that today, and know full well with a good lawyer I would do 4 years, if ANY real jail time at all.

But I just saw a bunch of murderers hanged for murder, I'm gonna think twice before doing it.  Maybe I'll just take a crap in a bag and light it on fire, put it on FunkedUp's dorrstep, and ring the bell.  Yea...justice.  

So anyway, the reason capital punishment needs to be re instated and ENFORCED REGULARLY is becuase its not about killing the murderer, ....its about sending a message to all would-be murderers that we as a society will not stand for this level of cold blooded violence.

So, to sum it all up, the guns are not the problem.  Start ENFORCING the law, and if that truly doesnt work...THEN lets talk about taking away the guns.

Cheers.



[This message has been edited by Shade324th (edited 09-20-2000).]