Thread: Here is why banning guns wont work

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Of course it matters. In a democracy, the military are citizens, so by helping tyranny, they would actually be oppressing THEMSELVES. Which is absurd..

Originally Posted by lutherf

I think that you are missing a really big point here. In a Democracy the military may well be citizens but they represent the interests of the majority rather than of the whole of the people. See, rule of law in a Democracy falls to the majority and those in the minority, well....tough shit to them. A Democracy functions on the process of exclusion rather than inclusion as all new rules have the potential to exclude as much as half of the constituency from representation or participation.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Well, IMO, that's a distinction that makes no difference as far as my argument is concerned. At least none that I can see.

The distinction is that when you say "THEMSELVES" you are ignoring the tyranny of the majority against the minority.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The distinction is that when you say "THEMSELVES" you are ignoring the tyranny of the majority against the minority.

Well, no. It's just besides the point. The Constitution protects everyone's rights, even the minority's, so again, there's no way for the majority to oppress the minority without harming themselves.

Edit: Oh, wait. Do you mean that the minority is only safe from the tyranny of the majority because they own guns? Seriously? Are you honestly that afraid of your countrymen? Do you think they respect your shared institutions less than you do? That would be a somewhat paranoid attitude, if you do...Not healthy at all.

Here's yet another example of why banning guns not only won't work but it a poor idea:

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store - ABC4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

I'm sure this will just be ignored by the gun ban proponents, but if you were the next in line to be stabbed in that grocery store, I'd bet your tune would change....

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Here's yet another example of why banning guns not only won't work but it a poor idea:

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store - ABC4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

I'm sure this will just be ignored by the gun ban proponents, but if you were the next in line to be stabbed in that grocery store, I'd bet your tune would change....

Like I'm going to stand in line for some fucker to stab me with a knife...

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Like I'm going to stand in line for some fucker to stab me with a knife...

It's a figure of speech. What if you were about to be the next victim? I bet you'd be damned glad that the law abiding, lawfully armed citizen had a gun....

Originally Posted by MattInFla

It's a figure of speech. What if you were about to be the next victim? I bet you'd be damned glad that the law abiding, lawfully armed citizen had a gun....

Certainly. And if someone offered to give me a gun at that moment provided I campaign for the rights of Frenchmen to own firearms, I'd probably do it. Guess what, I bet if you were in the same situation without your gun, you'd probably agree to campaign for gun control in exchange for a gun, too. What does it prove?

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Well, no. It's just besides the point. The Constitution protects everyone's rights, even the minority's, so again, there's no way for the majority to oppress the minority without harming themselves.

I know you think you are making a point. It is just not expressed clearly. The Constitution establishes a republic as its form of government not a democracy, which is why everyone's rights are protected.

Edit: Oh, wait. Do you mean that the minority is only safe from the tyranny of the majority because they own guns?

Yes. Calling me paranoid does not a cogent argument make. History shows the majority do not care about the institutions when the South exercised their most sacred civil right, exercised the principles of their heritage - to alter or abolish their government. At the end of the day, history shows that holding parchment and claiming respect for institutions and principles is an inadequate substitute for arms.

The gun control crowd do serve a good purpose....As cannon fodder. They will take up a good day or so for the government to deal with allowing most of us with guns to load up.


Joking aside the minuet the government decides they want our guns the shovel market is going to go through the roof. People like to use other countries as example of how orderly taking guns can be.....The problem with this is those other countries have never lived like Americans and were already used to a tyrannical government. In the USA the cities will fall quickly but one they get in to the wooded country or the hills it will be a whole different story. This is what makes the USA great ....It is what makes it the greatest republic ever made. We are a free people even now in spite of liberals and progressives.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I know you think you are making a point. It is just not expressed clearly. The Constitution establishes a republic as its form of government not a democracy, which is why everyone's rights are protected.




Yes. Calling me paranoid does not a cogent argument make. History shows the majority do not care about the institutions when the South exercised their most sacred civil right, exercised the principles of their heritage - to alter or abolish their government. At the end of the day, history shows that holding parchment and claiming respect for institutions and principles is an inadequate substitute for arms.

Then they shouldn't have started a war if they wanted peace.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I know you think you are making a point. It is just not expressed clearly. The Constitution establishes a republic as its form of government not a democracy, which is why everyone's rights are protected.

How is that even remotely relevant? In any case, democracies can have Constitutions, so it looks to me as if you need to work on your definitions.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Yes. Calling me paranoid does not a cogent argument make. History shows the majority do not care about the institutions when the South exercised their most sacred civil right, exercised the principles of their heritage - to alter or abolish their government. At the end of the day, history shows that holding parchment and claiming respect for institutions and principles is an inadequate substitute for arms.

Maybe, but so are what you call "arms", that are actually toy guns compared to what the big boys use. You might as well use a knife, for all the good it will do.

They didn't start the war. Lincoln did when he invaded South Carolina. Who started other revolutionary wars is not the point. The point is history shows parchment is not the pathway to freedom; guns is. Ask the Native Americans.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

They didn't start the war. Lincoln did when he invaded South Carolina. Who started other revolutionary wars is not the point. The point is history shows parchment is not the pathway to freedom; guns is. Ask the Native Americans.

I am not going to get into a arguments about the reality of the civil war with NeoConfederates....Needless to say they attacked ships and a US base first...All cause the new territories were going to be slave free. This is historical fact. None of which has anything to do with guns. So we will disagree on what started the war that almost killed the freest country in history. As for are abuse of the Native Americans.......What did you think those of the southern persuasion would have treated them any better? mmmmm No I would think they would have killed raped and enslaved them as well.


Now that all I am discussing of this on this thread so I cant derail it further.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

How is that even remotely relevant? In any case, democracies can have Constitutions, so it looks to me as if you need to work on your definitions.

I know, being a Liberal, you cannot help but make semantic arguments. This is not about definitions but practical applications. A democracy, meaning majority rule, cannot have a Constitution that protects individual rights. Either you rule by majority or you do not. This is what differentiates a democracy from all other forms of government. America is not and never was a democracy.

America is a Constitutionally limited federal republic based on the principles of individual freedom and minimum government - and that has made all the difference.