The Most Mysterious Right

[M14 Shooter]

Again that depends. Is Somalia civilised? Not in my opinion. Is NZ (where I'm from)? Relatively...

Its not a relative condition.
Its 'civilized', or it isnt.

Guns are necessary, and the right to have them is protected, because people will always need an effective means to exercise their right to self-defense, indvidivually or collectively.

Government is nothing more than a collective organized to protect the rights of its people, ultimately through force.

If a society is civilized, defined as a society where guns are not necessary as there is no need for people to exercise their right to self defense, it's a society where government is not necessary, as there is no threat to the rights of the people.

 

[Dr Grump]

Its not a relative condition.
Its 'civilized', or it isn't.

Notrhing in this definition that is definitive or exact.

civilised

adjective
1. having a high state of culture and development both social and technological; "terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world" [syn: civilized] [ant: noncivilised]
2. marked by refinement in taste and manners; "cultivated speech"; "cultured Bostonians"; "cultured tastes"; "a genteel old lady"; "polite society" [syn: civilized]

Guns are necessary, and the right to have them is protected, because people will always need an effective means to exercise their right to self-defense, indvidivually or collectively.

If guns are so necessary why are most first world/western nations (most European, North American, Australia and NZ), with the agreement of the majority of their populations, have got rid of, or getting rid of, their societies' guns - with the exception of the USA? What are we seeing that you guys are not? I might add, that the likes of England, NZ and Australia were hardly armed in the first place and our societies are fairly happy with that. I'd say we have more faith in our form of govt, than you have in yours.

Government is nothing more than a collective organized to protect the rights of its people, ultimately through force.

Yep, that is possible in some govts. I would say it would be pretty hard to achieve in a civilised, western society.

If a society is civilized to the point where guns are not necessary, that is, there is no need for people to exercise their right to self defense, its a society where government is not necessary, as there is no threat to the rights of the people.

It's interesting that you have a word for those scared of guns. Is there are world for those so scared of living in their society that they have to hold onto their guns? I trust our form of govt, therefore I find them of no threat to the people. However, with you living in the US, and your current political system, I can see why you see them as a threat to your freedoms - especially the current occupant of the WH.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please note that I edited my last para to more accurately reflect what I was trying to say.

civilised
adjective

That's wonderful... but YOU equated a 'civilized society' to one were guns were not necessary. Thats a binary condition -- they are necessary or they are not.

If guns are so necessary why are most first world/western nations (most European, North American, Australia and NZ), with the agreement of the majority of their populations, have got rid of, or getting rid of, their societies' guns

Stupidty?
Are people still robbed/raped/murdered/assaulted in those countries?
Yes, they are. And so, there still remains a need to exercise the right to self-defense. That people voluntarily give up that right, and the ability to exercise that right with a firearm, doesn't in any way indicate that the need for the right isn't there.

It's interesting that you have a word for those scared of guns. Is there are world for those so scared of living in their society that they have to hold onto their guns?

No one is scared of such a society.
Some, however, understand that a society where guns are not necessary - that is, there is no need to exercise ther right to self-defense - has never and will never exist.

And its also interesting that you didnt address the point I made.

I trust our form of govt, therefore I find them of no threat to the people.

I never said the government was a threat to the people.
Trust of the government isnt an issue here.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's wonderful... but YOU equated a 'civilized society' to one were guns were not necessary. Thats a binary condition -- they are necessary or they are not..

Exactly. And in my opinion they are not.

Stupidty?
Are people still robbed/raped/murdered/assaulted in those countries?
Yes, they are. And so, there still remains a need to exercise the right to self-defense. That people voluntarily give up that right, and the ability to exercise that right with a firearm, doesn't in any way indicate that the need for the right isn't there.

People are robbed, raped, murdered and assaulted in teh US and it is awash with guns. In fact, the homicide rate in the US leaves ours for dead (no pun intended). The vast majority of my fellow citizens agree that we do not want guns available in the way they are stateside. In fact, most first-world countries feel the same way. Do we feel disenfranchised? No. Defenseless? No.

No one is scared of such a society.
Some, however, understand that a society where guns are not necessary - that is, there is no need to exercise ther right to self-defense - has never and will never exist.

No one is scared in this society either. And you are wrong. I live in such a society. We do not think guns are necessary. And we are quite happy with that.

And its also interesting that you didnt address the point I made.

Are you talking about if you have a society that does not have guns then you don't need a govt? Almost a non-sequitur IMO. Guns are at the very periphery of a govt. Govts are elected to run society - enact legislation and run services. So if you have no guns, you don't need a govt to do those things too? As I said, almost a non-siquitur and irrelevent. I would suggest down here, when voting in govts, and when govts draft legislation, guns are not even thought of. A country cannot run itself. Really long bow to draw to even bring guns into it

I never said the government was a threat to the people.
Trust of the government isnt an issue here.

Good

 

[doniston]

Well, if it's one were guns are unnecessary, then its one where government is unnecessary.

BS, That doesn't corelate.

 

[doniston]

Well, if it's one were guns are unnecessary, then its one where government is unnecessary.

BS, That doesn't corelate.

NOT EVEN CLOSE

 

[Gunny]

Liked it so much you felt need to post it twice huh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

BS, That doesn't corelate.

Because...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly. And in my opinion they are not.

You can have whatever opinion you want... but unless you address the point in my argument, my argument stands:

If a society is civilized, defined as a society where guns are not necessary as there is no need for people to exercise their right to self defense, it's a society where government is not necessary, as there is no threat to the rights of the people.

People are robbed, raped, murdered and assaulted in teh US and it is awash with guns. In fact, the homicide rate in the US leaves ours for dead (no pun intended). The vast majority of my fellow citizens agree that we do not want guns available in the way they are stateside. In fact, most first-world countries feel the same way. Do we feel disenfranchised? No. Defenseless? No.

None of this in any way addresses what I said.
The fact that people in those countrie are robbesm raped, murderd, etc, meas that there is a need for these people to exercise their right to self-defense, regardless of how you/they FEEL about it.

Are you talking about if you have a society that does not have guns then you don't need a govt? Almost a non-sequitur IMO.

Its also not what I said.

 

[Dr Grump]

You can have whatever opinion you want... but unless you address the point in my argument, my argument stands:

If a society is civilized, defined as a society where guns are not necessary as there is no need for people to exercise their right to self defense, it's a society where government is not necessary, as there is no threat to the rights of the people..

Who says that the definition of a civilised society is one where people need guns to defend themselves? That might be a criteria? But is it a primary consideration? Secondary? Tertiary? Who says you need a gun to defend yourself? Is that the panacea by which you gauge a civilised society? You have also failed to address my point there is a LOT more to a govt than defending hte rights of the people. How about running a society?

None of this in any way addresses what I said.
The fact that people in those countrie are robbesm raped, murderd, etc, meas that there is a need for these people to exercise their right to self-defense, regardless of how you/they FEEL about it.

And it would seem that in a society where they have those means (the USA), they are more likely to be victims of said crimes than those that limit those means. What is the lesson to be learned?

Its also not what I said.

THen please be more clear or expand...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who says that the definition of a civilised society is one where people need guns to defend themselves?

Its the equation you made, not me.

You have also failed to address my point there is a LOT more to a govt than defending hte rights of the people. How about running a society?

All of which boils down to protecting yoru rights. All of it.
And it ALL boils down to the use of force.

And it would seem that in a society where they have those means (the USA), they are more likely to be victims of said crimes than those that limit those means. What is the lesson to be learned?

None relevant to the duscussion.
The fact that people are robbed, raped, etc, necessarily indicates that there exists a threat to your rights and a need to exercise your right to self-defense, regardless of you how feel about that threat.

THen please be more clear or expand...

I'm not sure how I can be.
You state that in a civilized society, guns are not necessary.
-Guns, and, specifically, the right to them, exist because of the need to exercise the right to self-defense.
-If guns are not necessary, it's because no one needs exercise their right to self defense.
-If there's no need to exercise your right to self-defense, its because there's no threat to your rights.
-Government exists to protect your rights
Thus:
-If there's no threat to your rights, then there's no need for government.

 

[Dr Grump]

Its the equation you made, not me.

Where and when?

All of which boils down to protecting yoru rights. All of it.
And it ALL boils down to the use of force.

I do not need a gun to protect my rights. Try again. Harder this time. Force is needed for a govt to discuss legislation and how it pertains to the law of the land? Really? Not in our society it doesn't. In fact, the use of force is not even an issue in the equation...

The fact that people are robbed, raped, etc, necessarily indicates that there exists a threat to your rights and a need to exercise your right to self-defense, regardless of you how feel about that threat.

And yet in my society (NZ where guns are restricted) vs your society (US where guns are an inherent right under the second) suggests that whether I am armed or not has NO correlation to whether I am a victim or not. In fact, in my society (with less guns), I am more likely to live, than in your society (where guns are prevelent), IOW, you seem to be arguing, that in principle, your POV is the right one, even if in practical terms, it might cost me my life. Great!

Guns, and, specifically, the right to them, exist because of the need to exercise the right to self-defense.

And yet I live in a society that does not agree with that POV, and in fact, compared to the US where that POV exists has a LOT LESS homicides both literally and per capita has restrictions on guns. What can we learn from this?

-If guns are not necessary, it's because no one needs exercise their right to self defense..

Care to explain how my society - which has less homicides than yours and less guns and more restrictions than hyours - has a lower homicide rate than yours. Surely, using your explanation, we are all defenseless citizens who are at the whim of the nasty criminal!

-If there's no need to exercise your right to self-defense, its because there's no threat to your rights.

Really? There may be many reasons for self-defense. Who says you need a gun to exercise said right?

-Government exists to protect your rights
Thus:
-If there's no threat to your rights, then there's no need for government.

Govts exist for many reasons. To protect your rights is but one. It exists to provide services. To enact legislation. Who says it needs guns to protect from threats to yoru rights. Our society is a classic example of where guns are not even an issue in such cases. With guns out of the equation, our rights protected, what is the point of having them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where and when?

You didnt state than in a civilized scoiety, guns are unnecessary?
If guns arent neceessary, doesnt this mean that the reason for needing guns doesnt exist?

I do not need a gun to protect my rights.

That's what you -think-. That's not the case, however.
Guns exist so that you can exercise your right to self-defense.
So long as there is a need to exercise that right, there is a need for guns.

Try again. Harder this time. Force is needed for a govt to discuss legislation and how it pertains to the law of the land? Really? Not in our society it doesn't. In fact, the use of force is not even an issue in the equation...

You eiher arent paying attnetion, or you're being difficult on purpose.
EVERYTHING a gvment does revolves around protecting yoour rights, and, ultimately, EVERYTHNG a gvmnt does involves force or the threat thereof.
Even the simple act of voting is an exercise of force.

And yet in my society (NZ where guns are restricted) vs your society (US where guns are an inherent right under the second) suggests that whether I am armed or not has NO correlation to whether I am a victim or not.

The fact that there are victims indicate that there is a threat to your rights, and therefore a need to exercise your right to self-defense. This is unarguable.

Guns, and, specifically, the right to them, exist because of the need to exercise the right to self-defense.

And yet I live in a society that does not agree with that POV

Which part do you disagree with any why?
If guns, and, specifically, the right to them, exist because of the need to exercise the right to self-defense, then why DO they exist?

Care to explain how my society - which has less homicides than yours and less guns and more restrictions than hyours - has a lower homicide rate than yours.

This isnt relevant to my argument.
You keep trying to argue the difference in crime between the US and NZ. Any such relationship is meaningless to my argument.

Really? There may be many reasons for self-defense. Who says you need a gun to exercise said right?

That's why guns exist - as a means to exercise your right to self defense.
As long as there is a need to exercise that right, there is a need for guns.

Govts exist for many reasons. To protect your rights is but one.

ALL of these reaons ultimately boil down to proecting your rights. All of them.

 

[Dr Grump]

You didnt state than in a civilized scoiety, guns are unnecessary?
If guns arent neceessary, doesnt this mean that the reason for needing guns doesnt exist?

But you are some how relating that govts and guns are interrelated. I don't believe they are. You are entitled to your opinion, I disagree with it.

That's what you -think-. That's not the case, however.
Guns exist so that you can exercise your right to self-defense.
So long as there is a need to exercise that right, there is a need for guns.QUOTE]


No, guns exist for many reasons. To hunt, to make war, to defend yourself. Who says you need guns to defend yourself? There are plenty of other ways to defend yourself.

You eiher arent paying attnetion, or you're being difficult on purpose.
EVERYTHING a gvment does revolves around protecting yoour rights, and, ultimately, EVERYTHNG a gvmnt does involves force or the threat thereof.
Even the simple act of voting is an exercise of force.

And this point is relevent is you totally distrust your govt. I do not. I trust my govt. Is it a perfect govt? No. And when it fucks up, every three years I can get rid of them. No need for guns in that case. You are also one of these people who are so cynical you see the govt as some gargantuan organisation that is out to get you, or you have no control over. I see my govt as a representation of me. Why do I need to fear me? Hint: I don't.

The fact that there are victims indicate that there is a threat to your rights, and therefore a need to exercise your right to self-defense. This is unarguable.

OF course I have a right to self defense. The argument is, do I need a society awash with guns to exercise that right. Obviously me and my fellow citizens so no. Yours is protected in your Constitution. You guys can do what you think is right for you, as can we. I think our system is better, you think yours....shrug...

See, that is the difference between you and I. I see your point of view, you refuse to see/acknowledge mine. You can do so you know, and I won't think any less of you. The true blue gun lover - I have found over the years on messageboards - refuses to acknowledge any point made by the other side - like it is a sign of weakness or something.

Which part do you disagree with any why?
If guns, and, specifically, the right to them, exist because of the need to exercise the right to self-defense, then why DO they exist?.

Guns do not soley exist to protect your rights. They exist for many reasons as already stated. Target shooting, hunting, war, AND to protect yourself. Those reasons are not exclusive within themselves.

This isnt relevant to my argument.
You keep trying to argue the difference in crime between the US and NZ. Any such relationship is meaningless to my argument..

I think it totally relevent to my and your argument. You are saying guns soley exist to protect rights.s I'm telling you I have those same protected rights in a country that hardly has any guns at all. We have many ways of protecting those rights - through laws, courts, the police. You seem to be under the impression that any rights you DO have can ONLY be protected by a gun. Hogwash. Not even in your country is that the case. The vast majority of cases where a citizen thinks his or her rights have been violated are decided in a court of law. Guns do not even come into the equation.

That's why guns exist - as a means to exercise your right to self defense.
As long as there is a need to exercise that right, there is a need for guns.

See my previous point. As I said - hogwash..

ALL of these reaons ultimately boil down to proecting your rights. All of them.

I do not need a gun to protect my rights. Not on any occasion has that occurred. Sure, if my govt turned into a dictatorship, that MIGHT happen, but that is taking things to the nth degree and if we were to do that then I'd never swim again (because there is an infanticimile chance I might drown), I should drive a Sherman Tank (because there is an infanticimile chance I might get killed in a car accident), I have to live three miles underground (because there is very small likelihood of getting struck by a meteorite), I cannot walk anywhere (because there is a small likelihood that somebody in a car might mount the curb and hit me),,hell, I won't even eat (because there is a very small chance I might choke to death). You are trying to make your point by pointing out the worst possible scenario re your govt. What it does boil down to in the end is, do you trust your form of govt? I do. You obviously do not because you believe they can take away your rights. What I have found amusing over the years with pro gunnies who think like this is that most of them are ex military. So it stands to reason a lot of people in the military think like them. What are the chances of the US armed forces supporting a dictatorship? Very remote IMO, which makes your argument even more redundant..

 

[M14 Shooter]

But you are some how relating that govts and guns are interrelated. I don't believe they are. You are entitled to your opinion, I disagree with it.

They are, as they both exist for the same reason -- so that people might protect their rights.
If you need one, then you necessarily need the other, as they both serve the same purpose.

That's what you -think-. That's not the case, however.
Guns exist so that you can exercise your right to self-defense.
So long as there is a need to exercise that right, there is a need for guns.

No, guns exist for many reasons. To hunt, to make war, to defend yourself. Who says you need guns to defend yourself? There are plenty of other ways to defend yourself.

The reason we have the RIGHT to own guns has everything to do with the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively, and nothing to do with hunting. You might not -always- need a gun to protect yourself, but there are certainly times when you DO need one.

And this point is relevent is you totally distrust your govt. I do not.

I havent said a thing about trusting/not trusting my government.
Any argument you put up to this end is a straw man.

EVERYTHING a gvment does revolves around protecting yoour rights, and, ultimately, EVERYTHNG a gvmnt does involves force or the threat thereof.
Even the simple act of voting is an exercise of force.

OF course I have a right to self defense. The argument is, do I need a society awash with guns to exercise that right.

Who said anything about "a society awash with guns"? Not me.

There is a -necessary relationship- between the right to own guns, the right to self-defense, and the need to be able to exercise that right.
So long as there is a need to exercise the right to self-defense, there is a need to have the right to own guns.

Guns do not soley exist to protect your rights. They exist for many reasons as already stated. Target shooting, hunting, war, AND to protect yourself. Those reasons are not exclusive within themselves.

Again:
The reason we have the RIGHT to own guns has everything to do with the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively, and nothing to do with hunting. You might not -always- need a gun to protect yourself, but there are certainly times when you DO need one.

I think it totally relevent to my and your argument.

Its not. The -level- of crime in any given country is meaningless, as ANY level of violent crime indicates that there is a need for the people in that country to exercise the right to self-defense. The level of that crime is meaningless; the fact that it exists at ALL is the determining factor here.

You seem to be under the impression that any rights you DO have can ONLY be protected by a gun.

I havent ever said any such thing. Another straw man.

The vast majority of cases where a citizen thinks his or her rights have been violated are decided in a court of law.

Yes. This is the government protecting your rights through force or the threat thereof. That;s what governments do.
And if your rights dont need protected, then you don't need a government.

I do not need a gun to protect my rights.

You just think that. You thinking that doesnt make it so.

If you were right, and you really do -not- need a gun to protect your rights, then it would be =impossible- for a situation to -ever- occour where you would need a gun to protect your rights.

Do you REALLY believe that there will never be a situation where you -do- need a gun to protect yourself? Ever? Really?

If you cannot -honestly- answer that question with a "yes", then your 'I do not need a gun to protect my rights' is wrong.

You are trying to make your point by pointing out the worst possible scenario re your govt.

I havent made any points about my government. At all. Any point you make to this end is another straw man.

 

[Dr Grump]

.

You and I are arguing different things. You are giving reasons why you have the second in your Constitution. My argument is wider. There is nothing strawman in my arguments at all when taking in my wider issues. They are completely logical.

You say: "Do you REALLY believe that there will never be a situation where you -do- need a gun to protect yourself? Ever? Really?"

To which I say of course not. There might be that situation, maybe, one day. But as stated, taking that to the nth degree I'll stop eating, swimming, walking and driving, too. After all, I could choke, drown, die in a car crash, or get hit while walking..

 

[Threedee]

I'll just make it simple. The rights America was founded on (life, liberty, property, gun rights, civil rights, state's rights, etc.) are absolute and of chief importance. It doesn't matter how many people are victims of guns (the majority of which are illegally obtained anyway), or that property rights lead to inequality, or that people have problems with life trumping their sense of justice in some cases and choice/convenience in others.

The right to guns can make you safer and were intended to secure all of our other essential and Natural rights.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'll just make it simple. The rights America was founded on (life, liberty, property, gun rights, civil rights, state's rights, etc.) are absolute and of chief importance. It doesn't matter how many people are victims of guns (the majority of which are illegally obtained anyway), or that property rights lead to inequality, or that people have problems with life trumping their sense of justice in some cases and choice/convenience in others.

The right to guns can make you safer and were intended to secure all of our other essential and Natural rights.

If you are talking about the US, you are right. If you are talking generally with regard to guns making you safer, I disagree. They do not. In fact, in some instances, the exact opposite is the case...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you are talking about the US, you are right. If you are talking generally with regard to guns making you safer, I disagree. They do not. In fact, in some instances, the exact opposite is the case...

Le us compare "accidents".... less than 1000 people a year are killed or injured "accidently" in the US by weapons. Arguing that Guns must be banned because of "accidents" is a total wash. There are over 300 million people in the US and estimates are there are over 200 million legal weapons. Do the math. Now if you insist this paultry number is still "reason" for no guns then what of Cars? 50000 a year die in accidents to motor vehicles.

Now lets compare murders...

About 14000 people a year are shot and killed by guns, about 10000 of those are victims and not justifiable in someway. Again just using sheer numbers the miniscule number of people murdered with firearms is still much less than those ACCIDENTLY killed by motor vehicles and percentage wise is so small a number of the whole population as to be insignificant. And even if you assumed legal guns killed every person and that every person was killed by a different fire arm the percentage of guns used to kill people is still statistacly insignificant.

Now on to the claim that Countries with strict gun control laws are safer than the US. I suggest you read up on the worlds countries and the gun laws of said countries. You will discover THAT claim doesn't work either.

Your arguments are simply not true.

As for Government, societies larger than a few hundred people exist peacefully together because of the threat of force by the "government" or the "body" of the Society. Man is not a peaceful creature.

Laws are "force" enforcement of laws are "force". Anyone that does not understand that is a few bricks shy of a load or has no concept of reality.

 

[Dr Grump]

Le us compare "accidents".... less than 1000 people a year are killed or injured "accidently" in the US by weapons. Arguing that Guns must be banned because of "accidents" is a total wash. There are over 300 million people in the US and estimates are there are over 200 million legal weapons. Do the math. Now if you insist this paultry number is still "reason" for no guns then what of Cars? 50000 a year die in accidents to motor vehicles.

I have never advocated guns being banned. It is whether they are a right or a privilege. Your Constitution says it is a right. Mine says it is a privilege. I agree with my govt, you agree with yours.

About 14000 people a year are shot and killed by guns, about 10000 of those are victims and not justifiable in someway. Again just using sheer numbers the miniscule number of people murdered with firearms is still much less than those ACCIDENTLY killed by motor vehicles and percentage wise is so small a number of the whole population as to be insignificant. And even if you assumed legal guns killed every person and that every person was killed by a different fire arm the percentage of guns used to kill people is still statistacly insignificant.

You're arguing with yourself. I do not disagree with you in practice. However, I will say this: Last year about 30 or less NZers were killed by firearms - either accidentally or purposefully. That's 1 in 133,000 (our population is 4 mill). Using your 14000 figure for the US that's 1 in 21,000. So I am over six times more likely to be shot in the US than NZ.

However the argument is not that simple and I realise that. To me there is more to it. In NZ, you have an argument with a guy at the traffic lights. You get out and throw a few haymakers at each other, get a few bruises, and walk away. Stateside? Somebody might pull a gun on you. And if they do pull a knife on you in NZ you can run to your car and lock the door. Ever tried to outrun a bullet? Also, a lot of gun lovers in the US think the easiest way to resolve a confronation, whether it be a robbery, assault or theft, is to shoot somebody. How civilised.

However I do realise that these stats would be reduced if you took out the stats involving gangbangers. Ditto here tho..

As for Government, societies larger than a few hundred people exist peacefully together because of the threat of force by the "government" or the "body" of the Society. Man is not a peaceful creature.

Only if you believe the govt is above the law and does not represent the people. I don't feel my govt is that way. you?

Laws are "force" enforcement of laws are "force". Anyone that does not understand that is a few bricks shy of a load or has no concept of reality.

And they are created by people who we put in office, so they are laws that we like or do not like. If we do not like them, we vote the people out.
It is my reality. Obviously your reality is different from mine