User Tag List

First 12202122232432 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 561

  1. #211
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    But why arm them? They're paid to keep other people in check. Why should we pay their wages to spend so much time hunting when millions of Americans are more than willing to do this for FREE
    Because if you let those millions do that work, the work of keeping them in check afterwards will get all the more diffucult. The more guns you have, the more shooting there is.

  2. #212
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    To get more philosopical here, the argument for gun ownership is based upon the concept of self-defense being a natural right. That was the underlining foundation for the Second Ammendment in American law. As Cicero explained:

    "Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition, and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself. They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power."

    So unless there's agreement on the basic right to self-defense, there's not going to be much agreement on gun ownership and control; since both sides typically are operating under different basic presuppositions here.

  3. #213
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Like I've told you before, if you haven't found your answer in our discussion the failing is yours own not ours.
    Your reluctance to answer me now, or to direct me to an answer given before, shows me that you sense how weak and insufficient those 'answers' are.

  4. #214
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    But we can divide those shootings into those that are necessary and those are senseless. Something like a school massacre can be labeled as senseless and addressed as a problem, like a crime. We can also come onto a common ground and label a killing in self-defense as something noble, a pure sign of the American individuality. Boldly and heroically, the home owner defends his family and property from some arguable evil and all rejoice, the community enriched in a level of safety it has only recently known. Add good, homemade jerky into the mix, and you can see why one would want to keep things just the way they are.

    Or we could take something from these people. We could accept that self-defense is something evil (many already see it as a necessary evil) and work around that. We could find yet another middle ground and, for example, ban handguns. We're in a unique situation though, because no other nation has the sheer volume of weaponry. We have to work with what we have.

  5. #215
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    To get more philosopical here, the argument for gun ownership is based upon the concept of self-defense being a natural right. That was the underlining foundation for the Second Ammendment in American law. As Cicero explained:

    "Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition, and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself. They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power."

    So unless there's agreement on the basic right to self-defense, there's not going to be much agreement on gun ownership and control; since both sides typically are operating under different basic presuppositions here.
    No one is arguing against self-defense.

  6. #216
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    No one is arguing against self-defense.
    Perhaps not directly, but in implications of arguments that's often what it leads to.

  7. #217
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Perhaps not directly, but in implications of arguments that's often what it leads to.
    If two people disagree on what is reasonable for self-defense, does one have the right to keep the other from practicing (in his or her own way) what we have established is a natural right?

  8. #218
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    But we can divide those shootings into those that are necessary and those are senseless. Something like a school massacre can be labeled as senseless and addressed as a problem, like a crime.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    We can also come onto a common ground and label a killing in self-defense as something noble, a pure sign of the American individuality.
    I would rather stick to 'necessary'; I see nothing noble about defending oneself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Boldly and heroically, the home owner defends his family and property from some arguable evil and all rejoice, the community enriched in a level of safety it has only recently known. Add good, homemade jerky into the mix, and you can see why one would want to keep things just the way they are.
    Delusion. There is a man willing to kill in this community. Steal the apples from his tree and you are shot to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Or we could take something from these people. We could accept that self-defense is something evil (many already see it as a necessary evil) and work around that. We could find yet another middle ground and, for example, ban handguns. We're in a unique situation though, because no other nation has the sheer volume of weaponry. We have to work with what we have.
    I agree that it should be possible to find a way to ban handguns and, later, more. For if the criminals have none, the victims need none. I also agree that your country is a unique case. Therefore, you will need to start by redefining what it means to defend, to protect, to kill. Self-defense does not mean shooting guns.

  9. #219
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    But we can divide those shootings into those that are necessary and those are senseless. Something like a school massacre can be labeled as senseless and addressed as a problem, like a crime. We can also come onto a common ground and label a killing in self-defense as something noble, a pure sign of the American individuality. Boldly and heroically, the home owner defends his family and property from some arguable evil and all rejoice, the community enriched in a level of safety it has only recently known. Add good, homemade jerky into the mix, and you can see why one would want to keep things just the way they are.

    Or we could take something from these people. We could accept that self-defense is something evil (many already see it as a necessary evil) and work around that. We could find yet another middle ground and, for example, ban handguns. We're in a unique situation though, because no other nation has the sheer volume of weaponry. We have to work with what we have.
    Marm has made the argument for "sensible gun ownership" here before. I'm suprised this hasn't been stressed enough in this discussion(at least as far as I can see). Gun ownership isn't bad in itself, although that doesn't mean all forms of gun ownership are created equal. Gun ownership is allowed under the natural right for self-defense, but that implies you hold responsibility for the defense of yourself, your property, and your loved ones(and even to your community). Responsibility of course means one has to be responsible, that is use prudence and common sense. One common problem is that we tend to devalue personal responibility as a whole, and this of course has implications for gun ownership. This combined with a general sense of atomization of society, and promotions of childish narcissicism only add fuel to the fires. I believe this is more the underlining issue than guns per se. I also reject the implied assumption that people are innately too stupid to be able to handle guns; of course as a Christian I do believe in the fallible nature of human beings, and that includes human institutions like the state. So humans can use guns in both positive and negative ways, as humans perform both positive and negative things overall. You can eliminate guns, but the basic issues will still remain and you've haven't really solved them.

    My incoherent two cents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    If two people disagree on what is reasonable for self-defense, does one have the right to keep the other from practicing (in his or her own way) what we have established is a natural right?
    Depends on the argument. There is no one size fits all solution here. Some people are in greater needs for guns than others for self-defense, or even have greater capability to handle guns properly for such ends. However as I said above, a common assumption or implied argument in these discussions is that people innately lack the ability to use guns properly for purposes of self-defense. This even applies for countries too. Some countries have greater need for looser restrictions on firearms, while other countries don't. The Swiss have relative lack regulations, but of course much of this is tied to the notion of the people as a whole being responsible for the nation's defense. It's more a communal than an indvidual thing, wheras much of the American argument is more individual based. I think a proper understanding is a balance of communal and individual aspects to the question; since self-defense by nature has both communal and individual aspects and implications.

  10. #220
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    If two people disagree on what is reasonable for self-defense, does one have the right to keep the other from practicing (in his or her own way) what we have established is a natural right?
    Your 'natural right' originates in Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government', does it not? If so, it is based on the assumption that all men are created and, thus, owned by god. That is a wobbly point of view to argue from.

Similar Threads

  1. Teachers stage fake gun attack on kids
    By digesthisickness in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 04:35 PM
  2. I've got issues...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 10:28 PM
  3. Iraq-Bound Soldier Hires Hitman To Shoot Him
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO