- Sep 27, 2012
- 92,326
- 54,063
- 2,605
The black market would increase. Look at HISTORY and what happens when people ban something.LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic?LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic? You want to disarm the law abiding citizens with the hope & a prayer that the non law abiding citizens won't be able to arm themselves through the black market? when did anything like that ever happen in the history of mankind? and while you're at it are you going to disarm the greatest purveyor of violence in the history of mankind (aka government) too?The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well."Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.
How many times do you have to see government prohibitions in action before you realize they don't automagically change criminals into law abiding, peaceful people, they only make being a criminal more lucrative.
Well that answers the question as to which "side" you're on, did you receive your "Screw the individual, I'm a statist!" coffee mug, tote bag and badge in the mail yet?Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership.
The only answer to violence is to deal with the root cause, violent individuals and the best place to start reducing that count is with the locale were most of the violent individuals reside, in government, NOT by trampling all over the individual liberty of law abiding, peaceful citizens that are only seeking to protect themselves.No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
I'd love to take credit for creative thinking here, but I don't believe I'm the sole holder of that belief. It isn't a belief, actually; it is a FACT that the majority of guns confiscated in crimes were illegally held and they had ONCE UPON A TIME been legally owned, eventually falling into the wrong hands. Guns float. Less guns floating, less criminally held. It's a fact.
And it works in Europe and every place else where guns are not a God Given Right. Nothing's perfect but we in this country have an obscene amount of gun murder and at least a huge reason for that is how many guns are lying around.
Gun banning would only work if it is WORLDWIDE
Emotion is a Nation killer.