U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2009, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
19,294 posts, read 20,187,710 times
Reputation: 13385

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I suspect that if you were to go back through the archives, you would find that the great majority of the threads about gun regulation or registration or confiscation has been started by a poster who owns guns and during the discussion, takes the gun-owner's point of view. Which is a pretty good indicator of which side is pre-occupied. Furthermore, just about every thread on different topics that gets hijacked into a gun discussion, it will be a gun-owner who goes off-topic.
Which makes it an even more frightening prospect to contemplate the arrival of gay gun owners on City-Data. The rest of us -- those who are neither gay nor armed -- would in all likelihood never be able to post again, as the fanatics blotted everyone else out with their constant need to feed their obsessions...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2009, 10:59 PM
 
5,763 posts, read 13,346,051 times
Reputation: 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I suspect that if you were to go back through the archives, you would find that the great majority of the threads about gun regulation or registration or confiscation has been started by a poster who owns guns and during the discussion, takes the gun-owner's point of view. Which is a pretty good indicator of which side is pre-occupied. Furthermore, just about every thread on different topics that gets hijacked into a gun discussion, it will be a gun-owner who goes off-topic.
Of course those who live under the threat of having a right taken away are especially emotional about this. The question posed above seems not to concern itself with who is most vociferous, but to get at the issue of why people who choose not to own guns can't simply make that choice for themselves, and leave others alone to make the choice they feel best suits their own needs.

Last edited by ogre; 05-28-2009 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2009, 11:00 PM
 
5,763 posts, read 13,346,051 times
Reputation: 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Which makes it an even more frightening prospect to contemplate the arrival of gay gun owners on City-Data. The rest of us -- those who are neither gay nor armed -- would in all likelihood never be able to post again, as the fanatics blotted everyone else out with their constant need to feed their obsessions...
Huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2009, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Boise
2,008 posts, read 2,911,986 times
Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
With a new Constitution. Would we even consider seriously a 2nd Amendment? What are the compelling reasons that we have such a love affair with the gun.
As ridiculously stupid as modern Americans are, I wouldn't want us re-writing the constitution. The people who wrote it actually had a brain in their head and it was full of more than "who's going to win American Idol".

That being said, I am a little fence sitting about the gun. I do find it rather interesting that most of what is highlighted in the constitution are things like freedom, slavery, and generally rights. Then there's an ammendment about one of our more primative tools.

I do think that guns are dangerous. Just a couple weeks ago a 14 year old shot her best friend in the head on accident. I kind of thought to myself "Guns don't kill people, 14 year old girls kill people". The reality of guns is that it transforms anyone into a figure of authority. Quite an irony considerning what authority means to those who support guns the most.

For example, a malnourished, one armed midgett can walk into a gas station and demant all the cash in the drawer. Without a gun, they guy is going to get laughed out of the store. With a gun though, they are going to do exactly what he says.

The guy behind the counter could also have a gun, then it becomes a situation of who's faster, sneakier, sharper... a lot like the situation one would face in a state of nature. Which seems ironic considering that we live in societies to escape this state.

I can understand the view from the other side also in that Governments aren't always in the best interests of the people. And for them to say we get the guns and you don't seems more like a tactic to me; we have to consider that this is the government we're talking about. If they're willing to sink as low as Iraq, I don't think they have a limit.

While I can understand that Guns provide necessary defence sometimes, they are also necessary tools for the bad guy too. It seems that they do just as much good as bad. People are really just another animal, we just have a more developed brain and some better perceptions. And we act like it much of the time. In this it seems than an armed populace is a pretty outlandish way to provide security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2009, 12:07 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,837,028 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis View Post
As ridiculously stupid as modern Americans are, I wouldn't want us re-writing the constitution. The people who wrote it actually had a brain in their head and it was full of more than "who's going to win American Idol".

That being said, I am a little fence sitting about the gun. I do find it rather interesting that most of what is highlighted in the constitution are things like freedom, slavery, and generally rights. Then there's an ammendment about one of our more primative tools.

I do think that guns are dangerous. Just a couple weeks ago a 14 year old shot her best friend in the head on accident. I kind of thought to myself "Guns don't kill people, 14 year old girls kill people". The reality of guns is that it transforms anyone into a figure of authority. Quite an irony considerning what authority means to those who support guns the most.

For example, a malnourished, one armed midgett can walk into a gas station and demant all the cash in the drawer. Without a gun, they guy is going to get laughed out of the store. With a gun though, they are going to do exactly what he says.

The guy behind the counter could also have a gun, then it becomes a situation of who's faster, sneakier, sharper... a lot like the situation one would face in a state of nature. Which seems ironic considering that we live in societies to escape this state.

I can understand the view from the other side also in that Governments aren't always in the best interests of the people. And for them to say we get the guns and you don't seems more like a tactic to me; we have to consider that this is the government we're talking about. If they're willing to sink as low as Iraq, I don't think they have a limit.

While I can understand that Guns provide necessary defence sometimes, they are also necessary tools for the bad guy too. It seems that they do just as much good as bad. People are really just another animal, we just have a more developed brain and some better perceptions. And we act like it much of the time. In this it seems than an armed populace is a pretty outlandish way to provide security.
social contract says that we put off the urges and rights of an animal state in order to cooperate and coexist as a society.

however, i don't think that anyone is under the delusion that all members of society are fully compliant with the principle behind social contract.

in fact, when a criminal violates another's body, property, or anything else, they are voluntarily leaving the social contract and returning to an animal state. the rights of the animal state say that if the criminal is strong enough, he can take what he wants; social contract says that we stick together to ensure that we maintain rights and protections that we would not otherwise have.

if he voluntarily exits the social contract, he cannot be dealt with realistically within the confines of social contract. for that reason, society has various defenses: standing armies, authorized police, judges capable of pronouncing punishments, etc. all of these serve as ways to protect society from those that voluntarily give up the social contract.

a single individual still has the right to protect their self, their rights, their family, their society, and their possessions in the same way as society in general. an individual that lives within the parameters of social contract, and yet maintains a defense against animals, does not intrinsically become an animal himself. if he later violates or alienates others within the social contract, then he would be voluntarily giving up his responsibilities and protections that are part of the social contract.

society as an entity can voluntarily give up the social contract as well; tyranny may look like a social contract, but what it is in essence saying is that "i am bigger and stronger than you, therefore i rule," which means that it is following animalistic laws.

the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights understood that tyranny was a breach of social contract, and that it needed to be defended against. thus, the 2nd amendment, providing law-abiding, socially contracted citizens the ability to both fight animals on the criminal level, and on the governmental level.

human nature has not changed in today's world, and individuals still voluntarily leave the social contract in order to prey upon others. governments still leave the social contract in order to prey upon others as well. in my opinion, to claim that we no longer need to worry about defending ourselves, we would be ignoring not only the rights that we all have, but the responsibilities as well.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2009, 01:27 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,532,141 times
Reputation: 1573
If we started over today nothing would've changed, simply because we would still be doing things the old way.
What we need is an evolution of the mind and not just another revolution (read: pushing a reboot button to start over).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top