Guns in the US: The basis of a civilized democracy?

[Figleaf]

I can't reply ... neither option captures the truth.

[Black Dog]

I think its obvious that a well-armed society is a free one. Look at places where firearms ownership is regulated and restricted, places like Canada, Australia, Japan, Great Britain. Socialist cesspools all! Now look at places where gun ownership by individuals is the norm: Somalia, Iraq, Sudan. Bastions of freedom where you will only pry an AK-47 from the owners cold, dead hands (which isn't as hard as it sounds, given the ready availablity of cold, dead hands clutching firearms).

[Charles Anthony]

Now, BDog, can you briefly compare apples and oranges for us too?

[Black Dog]

Now, BDog, can you briefly compare apples and oranges for us too?

Certainly. Both are fruit. Both grow on trees. Both are packed with vitamins and nutrients and are a important part of a balanced diet. Both are almost spherical in shape. How's that for starters?

[Liam]

I think the right question is whether a civilzed society tolerates/allows gun ownership(?).

[kuzadd]

I can't reply ... neither option captures the truth.

Interesting,

so do you disagree that the iraqi populace was terrorirised by the US invasion?

do you disagree that the intent of the war, was to bring about political change?

what do you think?

[Charles Anthony]

so do you disagree that the iraqi populace was terrorirised by the US invasion?

do you disagree that the intent of the war, was to bring about political change?

What do those questions have to do with the thread?

[August1991]

I think its obvious that a well-armed society is a free one. Look at places where firearms ownership is regulated and restricted, places like Canada, Australia, Japan, Great Britain. Socialist cesspools all! Now look at places where gun ownership by individuals is the norm: Somalia, Iraq, Sudan. Bastions of freedom where you will only pry an AK-47 from the owners cold, dead hands (which isn't as hard as it sounds, given the ready availablity of cold, dead hands clutching firearms).

Thank you Black Dog, for your sarcasm. Or is that irony?

----

In this coming century, the US Supreme Court will have to decide whether the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" includes the right to have a nuclear weapon (or it will have to decide something similar). I bet now that the US Supreme Court will interpret the Second Amendment to restrict severely this right.

Or, after someone explodes a personal nuclear device in an American city, there will be an amendment rescinding the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not "American" and it was an understandable error of the writers of the Constitution. If America is to survive, it will have to be rescinded.

BTW, the Articles of Confederation also failed as the basis of a State, for the same reason.

[bush_cheney2004]

In this coming century, the US Supreme Court will have to decide whether the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" includes the right to have a nuclear weapon (or it will have to decide something similar). I bet now that the US Supreme Court will interpret the Second Amendment to restrict severely this right.

Or, after someone explodes a personal nuclear device in an American city, there will be an amendment rescinding the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not "American" and it was an understandable error of the writers of the Constitution. If America is to survive, it will have to be rescinded.

BTW, the Articles of Confederation also failed as the basis of a State, for the same reason.

Why are you so insistent that this will happen? The US Constitution established the foundation of a nation, and the Bill of Rights was not "written" with "understandable errors". The Second Amendment was a purposeful and direct challenge to the disarming of Great Britain.

It takes 3/4 of the states to adopt a constitutional amendment. Good luck....

Personal possession of scheduled nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological "weapons" is already prohibited by federal and state laws.

[Charles Anthony]

Personal possession of scheduled nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological "weapons" is already prohibited by federal and state laws.

Those laws can technically be contested.

In this coming century, the US Supreme Court will have to decide whether the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" includes the right to have a nuclear weapon (or it will have to decide something similar).

Now the argument against the "right to bear arms" passes through its comedic stage and enters the realm of absurd hysteria.

Or, after someone explodes a personal nuclear device in an American city, there will be an amendment rescinding the Second Amendment.

Extending the argument against our God-given right of self-defense to "the right to have a nuclear weapon" is blindly misunderstanding the inherent evil of monopolized state defense.

I have the God-given right to own a pink Cadillac but unfortunately, I can not afford it. [i will try to be a good boy for Christmas.]

Furthermore, nobody extends credit to every single person who wants a Cadillac but has no collateral.

The market for nuclear warcraft is controlled by statesmen. States own and research and produce and maintain and sell and transport nuclear weapons -- not a cheap affair. I would expect that statesmen are highly selective when choosing their customer base.

Certainly. Both are fruit. Both grow on trees. Both are packed with vitamins and nutrients and are a important part of a balanced diet. Both are almost spherical in shape. How's that for starters?

Great start!

Now, do you prefer your freshly squeezed apple juice with or without the pulp?

---------

Here is a different and perspective:

So far, we have looked at gun control from what we will call a macro-geographical perspective. In order to determine appropriate weapon restrictions, we must know the geographical context at large. If we are talking about the Earth, a 'doomsday' thermonu-clear device, able to blow up the entire planet and all the peoplc who inhabit it, is

per se

offensive. Its power cannot possibly be confined to the guilty. Harboring such a weapon is thus an offense, and may properly be prohibited, but not in the vastness of space, an altogether different geographical domain. Similarly, a pistol must be banned from the supercrowded 'phone booth' world, because, by stipulation, its offensive power cannot there be limited; in contrast, in our real world, revolvers would be allowed, since they most certainly can be pinpointed.

There is no real solution to this micro-geographical issue, since it is really a continuum problem. How far from B's nose does A's fist have to be before B is properly entitled to launch defensive forceful countermeasures? Again, there perhaps is no better answer than relying on context and the opinion of the 'reasonable man'. This may not be as satisfying philosophically as a more definitive answer, but, as the problem stems from the (continuous) nature of reality, this is the best answer that can be given.

Block, Walter and Matthew Block, "

Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control

," Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2000, pp. 289-298