Guns Represent Force, And Force Is The Antithesis Of Freedom.

If you advocate the legalisation of guns, you advocate a society run by force. You advocate being told what to do under the direct threat of a violent death.

Simple as that.

Any thoughts, people?

 

To have your guns taken away is to be controlled by armed force without recourse.

 

A society run by force? How is the legalization of self-defense a society run by force?

 

"The solution to everything is the bullet." Doroteo Arango

 

the general idea of a democratic republic is a government controlled by its people rather than a people controlled by their government

gun prohibition is an example of a policy from a society controlled by its government

 

Hitler, Stalin, Mao... Mass murderers all agree that gun control works!

 

I would agree with you if we were talking about something which was not designed to kill other people. You have no right to kill other people. Human beings have believed this for millennia. Your right to own a gun is cancelled out by other people's right to live.

Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

You're trying to make a false association.

 

You do not have a democratic republic, so this is a failed argument. Your political system is a false dichotomy and your economy is controlled by the Federal Reserve bank. You live in an autocracy which guns were precisely useless in preventing.

In short, people in the west are controlled through information, not force. Sure, force is still there as a last resort, but you will consent to totalitarianism before you are forced into it.

 

Does this mean the police and military should operate by the fist?

 

First off guns are designed to accurately put a projectile on a target at distance. The target itself is up to the person using the firearm. Second I don't see how not allowing murder means we should ban guns because the two are not the same thing at all. It also seems you disagree to the right of self defense which can result in the death of a person.

 

Lawl. Don't forget to take away every other deadly object someone might own and use.

 

Please do not make such blatant attempts to deceive. There is no use for humans putting projectiles into targets at distance. Guns are weapons invented to kill. You are trying to manipulate language through omission of relevant facts.

More false language. Guns are weapons and weapons are designed to inflict serious injury or kill. They are useless at defence and extremely effective at attack.

 

I don't believe I ever did claim which nation specifically is and is not a democratic republic, I merely presented the principle of it being a government controlled by its people

 

I don't intend to do that. Just the objects specifically invented to kill other people.

P.S. Lawl.

- - - Updated - - -

While this is true, it is also true that you did mean the United States, making your reply pointless.

 

It's not my neighbor with a gun that worries; he's not trying to force me to do anything. It's the government agent with a gun who does.

Legalizing guns is about as far from running society by force as you can get. It would be a lot easier for a government to force its will on the people if they didn't have guns of their own to point back.

 

Actually, I have the right to kill someone in self-defense if necessary, and considering that I've seen such a right clearly stated even as far back in our history as the Bible, I have to disagree that society has always believed we have no right to kill a person.

 

Not at the moment he isn't, but the entire reason he owns that gun is so that he has the option of killing someone if they don't do what he tells them.

I think we have crossed wires in communication here. It is not my contention that the legalisation of guns is an act of force, so you are misinterpreting what I am saying, I think. If I was unclear then I apologise. It might have been better to say society is run through force, rather than by it. I'm not talking about a singular relationship between a government and its people, but rather the sum of all relationships involving guns in a society.

 

Hunting and target shooting are two uses of guns that do not involve killing people. I would have thought you would have heard of these activities before. Guns can also be used defensively, as they have been by everyone who has used a gun in their own defense. I'm not the one manipulating language here; I'm simply telling the facts. You may not agree with them but they exist and the fact is that there are other uses for guns besides offensively killing people.

 

And unless I did something to justify his killing me, we have laws in place to punish him for it.

I'm not buying into this idea that every gun owner has some deep-down sinister desire to force their will on me. I'm sure there are a few, but far from the majority.

 

And the important words in that sentence which reveal it as a logical contradiction are: if necessary. When is it ever necessary to kill someone to stop them from attacking you?

Never. Unless they have a gun.

 

I am well aware, but you are not being honest because that is not what guns were invented for.

I have just explained to you that they can't. A gun is only useful for attacking things, because as you've just pointed out it fires projectiles at targets from a distance.Your use of the word "defense" is false, because you are talking about attacking someone. It is a fallacy derived from the adage: "the best form of defence is attack".

 

False association? Are you saying that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not mass murderers? I think history proves you wrong!

 

Laws which give dead men precisely zero benefit.

 

No, your false association was between their stance on gun legislation and their identity as mass murderers.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, no it doesn't. They didn't do their killing personally any more than George W Bush, another famous mass murderer, did his killing personally.

But the point is, not only was your statement a false association, you also cherry-picked the mass murderers you named specifically on account of their attitude to gun legislation. In fact, it gets even worse than that, because you are wrong that these men all introduced tough gun legislation. Hitler actually loosened gun laws!

 

It is sad.