Disarmament? Good or bad?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
Of course it wouldnt be good, the entire reason for the right to bear arms was in case we ever needed to protect ourselves from the government.
jzeidler
New member
How about you try defining what exactly that means first.lain:
Disarmament: no citizen is allowed to own a gun.
So you don't really mean disarmament as much as just outlawing one specific type of arm for "average citizens"...That's what I figured but it doesn't hurt to be sure...I'm sure you have no problem with government officials (and by extension people they approve of), and people who can afford to pay for it possessing firearms as well.
Am I right?
lain:
jzeidler
New member
So you don't really mean disarmament as much as just outlawing one specific type of arm for "average citizens"...That's what I figured but it doesn't hurt to be sure...I'm sure you have no problem with government officials (and by extension people they approve of), and people who can afford to pay for it possessing firearms as well.
Am I right?
I'm just starting a conversation, I'm not going to show my hand yet, not till the conversation gets going. But for sake of conversation let's say that only the government has control of guns. Is that good or bad for a country?
Could it be guaranteed that the bad guys won't possess guns?
A totally unarmed populace are at the mercy of those who possess arms.
whitestone
Well-known member
It seems you have given this a lot of thought I think that is you made the correct statement when you said in the o.p. "future generations would suffer,,,ect."
So historically when disarmament takes place it is done by those who want "UN-challenged rule",,,that is
In the far east when one ruler wanted to control a large body of people without resistance they made decrees stating the regular citizens could not own swords,shields ect. their history is full of clever farm tools they learned to defend themselves with,,,nunchacka,sai,tonfa,ect.
after ww2 the axis was disarmed and their ships sunk,bombers destroyed,factories torn down. After ww1 the exact same zeppelins were ordered to be turned over,there was a declaration of restricted warfare and the possession of certain types of warships imposed ect.
In Rome it was imposed that none could print their own coins,draw their swords against any of their soldiers ect.,,, In the English,Scottish,Irish wars disarming it's citizens meant a guaranteed rule for the one who wanted UN-restricted rule. In the Americas the struggle was to keep the Indians from obtaining firearms and being able to resist a soldier in armor,shield &sword.
In history any and all who have the intent to rule by force will disarm it's people the same as Hitler did as he rose. Each and every person who is on my side I desire to be armed,all who are not allied with me I want disarmed. If we examine history it repeats its self over and over and goes back to the beginning of time,same reason different weapons banned in the disarmament.
So who are the hand full here in the U.S. today who push to disarm the citizens and seek UN-restricted rule of it's people? Are they not they who seek to rule over the people with no Resistance? Will they hear your voice or do they intend fully to impose laws on you that you will not like and the easiest way to force you to do it is to disarm you first?,,,the history of the earth is the evidence that proves the exact intent in the hearts of the ruler who wants your firearms,,,,
How worthy of trust is the government? Can it be realistically guaranteed that it will remain that way for perpetuity? :idunno:
jzeidler
New member
No it can't be guaranteed. Cause government can't regulate everything. There would be black markets.
jzeidler
New member
PureX
Well-known member
One, it would be impossible. Two, Obama has no intention of doing that, or even trying to. And three, it will never happen.
What Obama would want, and what any sane American citizen would want, would be a uniform, sensible, firearms licensing and regulation program intended to try and keep firearms out of the hands of drunks, dopers, ragers, stalkers, gang-bangers, convicted criminals, children, and the otherwise mentally/emotionally ill and unstable. As well as ensuring that those who do own and use firearms are well trained, practiced, and regularly tested in when and how to use them, and that they can hit what they aim at.
We will never completely stop gun violence in this country, because 'killing the problem' is built into our cultural psyche at this point. But we could minimize it greatly while still allowing those who want to own and use firearms to do so. Unfortunately, at the present time, we have lost all sense of reason regarding this issue, as it had become a political football as well as a huge corporate lobbyist's hobbyhorse. So there will be no reasonable solution to the insane level of gun violence and death in this country, sought or implemented, for the foreseeable future.
PureX
Well-known member
Not if it has a well armed and well trained police force to protect it, as we do.
PureX
Well-known member
Nothing can be realistically guaranteed in perpetuity.
As long as our military is made up of 'us' (meaning our own brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters) we have nothing to fear from government oppression. (At least nothing that we don't, ourselves, allow.) The big danger sign is not disarming the public, it's the government creating a militia of 'outsiders': paid mercenaries, bully boys, convicts, etc., that would do it's bidding without remorse. So far, I see little sign of this occurring, with the exception of the Bush/Rumsfeld era use of "private security personal" to carry out illegal actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as far as I know, that ended with their administration.
jzeidler
New member
I take my hat off to you sir. That was brilliant. May I have your permission to share this on my Facebook?
PureX
Well-known member
Well, thankfully, we have no "rulers" who want to disarm the populace. Nor any who are trying, or even proposing it. All we have are citizens who are crying out for some sort of sensible gun regulation and oversight that would stop the routine slaughter of innocent citizens by lunatics, criminals, drunks, dope addicts, ragers, gang-bangers, stalkers, jilted lovers, and children who have easy access to guns, because they are everywhere, and so easily abstained.
Buzzword
New member
We're already at the mercy of those who possess BETTER arms (precision bombs, drones, artillery, etc.), aka the government, just as it should be.
The ideal of arming citizens to fight the government is all well and good...if you're living in the days of swords and spears.
Strictly speaking in terms of available weaponry, if the military initiated a coup, or a sitting official decided to institute a police state, there is little the average (or even arsenal-packing) citizen could do to openly stand against it.
Now, could armed and properly trained citizens initiate guerrilla actions against that coup?
Absolutely.
But let's stop bandying around with the idea that pistol-packing rednecks would stand a ghost of a chance against the U.S. military in open combat.
On an unrelated note, a friend recently made the following point:
Why do we have a strictly monitored and constantly-updated sex offender registry, but are not even considering a strictly monitored and constantly-updated gun owner registry?
Do we not have the right to know if our neighbors are stashing deadly weapons next door?
Whether you're for total disarmament or will fight it to your last breath, it seems a common sense initiative that no one has tried, perhaps because of the completely unfounded paranoia regarding the federal government supposedly confiscating weapons.
I'd personally love to know when I move into a new neighborhood which neighbors could come running if I had a break-in, and I'd also love to know which houses could spawn the perpetrator of the next mass shooting.
whitestone
Well-known member
sure I don't mind,, it I think would be good to say also that all of the people should examine the pro's and cons of being disarmed by any of their rulers,in history by example,today reasoning through it's bennafits,and tomorrows whether they suffer because we decide to disarm those who will need to defend themselves then.
whitestone
Well-known member
Yes if the government see's it's citizens as "on their side",then it would only make sense that they would see it a benefit to have a well armed population in the event of invasion, That is a standing military the size of ours,plus an armed population is an overwhelming force. Again though if they see it's citizens as "not on their side",then would it be wise to disarm them,,,
jzeidler
New member
Disarmament? Good or bad?
We will not be going down this road on this thread. One because it is disrespectful, two because it is a nonsensical argument. Gun owners should not be treated like child molesters or other sex offenders because they are totally different. A gun owner is not inherently violent but a child molester is inherently sick. There is no comparison, a gun is an inanimate object that can do no good nor evil. But a child molester is a person who willingly chose to do evil. They are not the same and must not be treated the same. This will not continue on this thread.
We will not be going down this road on this thread. One because it is disrespectful, two because it is a nonsensical argument. Gun owners should not be treated like child molesters or other sex offenders because they are totally different. A gun owner is not inherently violent but a child molester is inherently sick. There is no comparison, a gun is an inanimate object that can do no good nor evil. But a child molester is a person who willingly chose to do evil. They are not the same and must not be treated the same. This will not continue on this thread.