Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

1) iYou advocate the banning of firearms, citing potential for harmful misuse and the fact that you feel safer without them around. Which position is derived from fear?

Wow. Absolutely stunning, irrefutable argument. This is one subject I will, for the most part, stay away from. I'm one of those passionate persons, unable to resist call the bullshit anti-gun arguments bullshit. And they are. There is no good, reasoned argument against the legal, lawful ownership of firearms. No, not one.

I admire you Firestart, as well, for sticking to your "guns", but you have not presented one single argument based on objective fact; merely your feelings on the subject, which is the bane of all arguments against private gun ownership. The first thing Hitler and Stalin did when they took over was to disarm the populace. Once the populace didn't have the psychological edge owning the means to defend themselves against a superior force brings, they became sheep, easily led through cowardice to resistance. Your old signature used to say (paraphrased) that the downfall of any system of government was that it was run by humans. What happened to that philosophy? If humans are inherently fallible, and power corrupts, then wouldn't the readily available means to correct that imbalance be an absolute necessity? Bottom line (and I'm a police officer...for the government) is that if the government has guns, I want them. If only the police have guns, you live in a police state. It is the right...screw that...it's the responsibility of every man to defend himself and his family from those who would do them harm. To rely on the government to do it for you is the most insidious form of cowardice imaginable. Police respond to crimes, usually too late to help you or the ones you love. It's up to you to defend them.

Say all guns were rounded up and banned. Criminals still have money...they can buy a CNC machine and crank them out by the thousands. Building a gun is easy. Even if you ban them, they'll still exist, and criminals will find a way to obtain them, even if they have to make them themselves (and if you don't believe they can, you're a fool). Anybody who has ever worked in a prison is constantly amazed at the ingenuity of criminals with nothing to do but figure out ways to find better, more efficient ways of doing crime. They don't work, so their minds aren't occupied with normal concerns like paying bills...they figure out ways of making more money. They're very good at it.

The type of law enforcement I do now is predicated on the fact that 99% of the people I deal with have guns. Does that bother me? No. It's a truism, but an armed society is a polite society.

If you really want your mind changed, check out the gunfight books by Massad Ayoob (Stressfire is the first one that comes to mind).

That being said, I'm a firm believer that every right comes with a responsibility. Given today's climate and sensitivity of sheeple, along with exploding populations and closer living with other humans, I believe every gun owner should be familiar with their weapon, and be trained in some shape, form, or fashion, in its use. That makes for safer, wiser, and more effective gun owners, which ultimately helps private gun ownership's cause. Yes, there will always be obnoxious cowboys who substitute a gun for brains and a dick. Training would mitigate that somewhat, and ostracize those who misuse firearms.

My $.02.