Stream

Join this community to post or comment
 
THIS is why we need more gun control now!!! Nobody needs to be armed. That is the job of the government. If civilians were fully disarmed, the crime and violence rates will go down, and we will see no more mass shootings.
 
Most of the following will be my paraphrasing based on two videos, called "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control" and “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part one will be mostly from "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control", while part 2 is more based on “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part three will be of my own creation. Everything is of my opinion. By no means is this article meant to represent the views of any other individual or group. And BEFORE YOU READ, let me just tell you that I do NOT associate myself with the left-right paradigm, and I agree with liberals on some social issues (such as marriage), and I consider myself agnostic. I am NOT anti government, for reasons explained in a video called “So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?”. Also, please make comments.
Part one: A lot of people agree that we all have divine rights, which are rights which should not be taken away. Just to name a few, many agree that we all should have the right to access clean water, good food, peacefully assemble, speak without fear, practice religion (as long as others are not affected negatively) and even access good healthcare that is, if necessary, free. But there is a right we often forget; the right to defense of self and others. The strange thing about rights, is that, they are actually boundaries. Freedom of speech, for example, can't exist unless boundaries are established to prevent those in power from harming or imprisoning those who speak against them. But who's ultimately responsible for upholding those boundaries? You may believe you have to right the speak. But what happens to those rights when a group of armed men start moving from building to building, home to home injuring, killing and/or kidnapping those who disagree with them. 
This exact scenario unfolded over and over again throughout history.
It keeps repeating not really because history has been forgotten, but rather it hasn't been properly understood. What if the people who are the victims of the exact same scenario had a fighting chance? 
You believe that the government should have the monopoly on force. But in reality, the gang of armed men that I described often IS the government. 
It was the governments of the world which were responsible for the genocides, ethnic cleansings, and mass murder of civilians. It was the governments who exterminated political and religious dissidents. It was the governments which built the concentration camps and secret prisons. It was the governments who committed the worst crimes against humanity. Governments have been shown to be the most corrupt, most ruthless organizations on the planet. Even all of the worst mass shooters combined can not even come close to the scale of damage overpowered governments have caused.

When the people have no means of defense, the government has no real boundaries. We can not simply hope that their minions (often military and law enforcement who obey) to disobey. That only allows the process to start all over again. You may believe that government may be free of corruption, but in reality, positions of power attracts tyrants, bullies and psychopaths like manure attracts flies. It always has, and always will. Government attracts these types of individuals because of power over others. And for the icing on the cake, they get a paycheck! What more can such a person possibly ask for? 

Once the types of individuals described get in, who would you turn to? You can not get safety by giving more of your power and rights away to someone else. The root of the problem is a total monopoly on force. The solution is to give NO MONOPOLIES PERIOD. We as humans simply are not mature enough to deal with that type of temptation. True power balance MUST be maintained. The right to self defense is that counterbalance. It is the boundary which truly makes other rights possible. We are ultimately the ones responsible for protecting ourselves and each other. However, the right to defense is meaningless without the MEANS of defense (such as a heavily armed population). This is why I believe the right to defense of self and others is a core right of animals, including humans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender identity, national origin, color and/or other characteristics.

Part two.

People who are rational, sober minded and follow a code of ethics and morals neither seek out nor create violence and de-escalate it at every level. This should be how all people operate, especially those who are armed. Perhaps the best people we can find are those who despise violence, but are willing to unleash it on violent predators if they have no other way to stop the predator(s). The right to the defense of self and others should not be selectively right for some people, such as law enforcement officers and military personnel while selectively wrong for others, such as average people who do not commit violence. Besides, in my view, law enforcement officers and military personnel are just citizens granted permission and extra (but not unlimited) power by we, the average people. Law enforcement should directly protect our communities while the military provides an external defense, only to be deployed directly in communities if absolutely necessary (in situations such as disasters, invasions, major civil unrest or a crisis in that manner).
A lot of people would agree that it is right to cause pain, injury or even death to a violent psychopath who had already killed multiple people and intends on killing more. But a question that confuses some is rather or not it is right to do it to people, rather they be regular people, or a law enforcement officer or military personnel. While this may sound scary and be controversial, yes, it is the right thing to do rather or not someone is wearing a uniform. Law enforcement officers and military personnel are still human beings. They, like pretty much all human beings, are not perfect, and can still go bad, just as any other person can.

To round part two up, and science people may like this part, as explained in “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”, a lot of plants and animals practice their right to self defense. Cacti, for example, have sharp spines which teach animals to stay away. Similarly, porcupines have spines which do the same. A bird that uses a ranged defense mechanism is the Southern Grey Petrel, which had a stomach which produces wax esters and triglycerides, which can be projectile vomited onto predators. Some Tarantulas what’s called “urticating hairs/bristles”, which can be flicked off into the air at a target using their rear legs. These hairs can irritate, and could even be lethal to small animals. Many species of insects have chemical weapons at their disposal. The Bombardier Beetle, for example, uses thermal chemical reactions to launch a boiling, noxious chemical spray in rapid pulses from special glands in their abdomen. Some ants (specifically, Wood ants) can spray acid. Some Geckos can fire a black or pale sticky fluid from glands in their tail for distances up to about a meter with good aim. The Spitting Cobra can spray venom from forward facing holes in their fangs, spitting up to 1.5 meters. The California ground squirrel has been known to fight predators such as snakes by kicking dirt into their eyes. Elephants have been known to throw various objects. 
Some primates, including humans, have been known to throw various objects. And, as a bonus, I’ll mention that Turtles and Tortoises, along with shellfish, have protective shells, which is animal body armor, if you will.
Why is this important? A lot of politicians say that they want the human species to be disarmed. Though not only is this within itself is a violation of a divine right, but also, it is not possible to fully disarm every last human on the planet. To disarm people, the people doing the disarming must be armed, and thus it becomes more like power re-distribution than disarmament.
Part three.

So you think that a democracy (or republic) will always be sterile of corruption? Democracy is as sterile of corruption as religious holy books are of violence. Though this may sound cliched, I have changed this argument around, let's look at Nazi Germany. The Weimar republic was in a bad situation from the end of World War one to the start of Nazi Germany. Then Adolf Hitler came up, promising the people a lot of good stuff would come when he was in power. And guess what? He goose stepped his own people into a history of bloodshed. He disarmed everyone EXCEPT for the so-called "master race", which made it easier to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political enemies and more. Adolf Hitler came from the right. Josef Stalin came from the left. Yet both were capable of doing the exact same thing.

Some people make the argument that the weapons possessed by civilians is little to no match to those possessed by the government. However, not only do many of the individuals who use this argument have little to no law enforcement or military experience, and often don’t have much knowledge, or at least don’t think deeply think about history. Just ask people from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Afghanistan just to name a few. Guerrilla forces from these nations, along with various criminal and resistance fighter alike (often from third world countries) resisted often better equipped militaries, and succeeded. Sure, in some cases they did get help from external sources (communist bloc governments supplied communist Vietnam during the Vietnam war while the United States government supplied anti communist Afghanistan), but neither the less they won. Besides, anti armor and anti aircraft weapons can be captured from government armories and military units. Things such as aircraft, armored vehicles and artillery are often meant for SUPPORT and will NOT guarantee victory. I will not deny that technology will be a factor, but it definitely is not the only factor. It is not easy for military or law enforcement units to keep fighting when they gain little to no progress for their hard work.

I’ll wrap this up with some quotes. Most from good people, one (Mao Zedong) from one of the most evil. And I know that Malcolm X. WAS racist against whites, though eventually he changed his mind.

"Concerning 'nonviolence' - it is criminal to teach people not to defend themselves, when they are the victims of constant brutal attacks." "I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence." "Non Violence is okay as long as it works." "If you have a dog, I must have a dog. If you have a rifle, I must have a rifle. If you have a club, I must have a club. This is equality." - Malcolm X.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” - Martin Luther King.

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." - Ron Paul.

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong.

P.S: do you wish to keep your community safe from crime and violence? Then we must address other issues, such as economics, availability of services, substance use and population density just to name a few. There are places with a lot of guns that are not that violence, such as Kennesaw, Georgia (which requires every household to have a firearm) and Svalbard, Norway, which requires everyone to know how to use a rifle against polar bears. Restricting inanimate objects such as weapons (there are plenty of examples of homemade guns and ammunition) is not enough to address the actual disease rather than the symptoms. If I had my way on weapon control, I may improve the background check system (specifically updating information about people), and make it illegal for a violent felon to own weapons or knowingly transfer weapons to violent felons. Though it is already illegal for felons to own weapons, I feel it is slightly overzealous (so people sometimes end up losing their right to keep & bear arms for a "white collar" crime such as, say, a fake insurance card vs a "blue collar" crime such as unjustified homicide).
2
1
SayNoTo Democide's profile photobrian thomas (Big B Speedy)'s profile photo
3 comments
 
Thanks for +1ing, +brian thomas! =D
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
FTA:  "You've heard the mantra a million times: "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The only problem, it turns out, is that being a "good guy" isn't good enough.

"A new study by researchers at Mount St. Mary's University shows that proper training and the ability to know how and when to apply lethal force is essential to not only "stopping a bad guy" but not killing yourself and other innocent bystanders."
Sorry wannabe Jack Bauers, turns out you suck at saving the day.
2
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoPistolero Jesse's profile photo
4 comments
 
Hm. I shoot better hand gun than most of the LEO I've shot with in competition so... I could care less what this study has to say. Those police won't be there at the instant they are needed. Only to clean up the mess in progress which might be me or my family already dead.
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
I know this isn't the most un-biased site, but what do you think about the event that they are citing?  
Civil society is based on one thing and one thing alone: the rule of law.  We abide each other, our neighbors, and strangers all upon the basis that the law will be enforced to protect us and enable good commerce. … Continue reading →
1
Scott Mc Ginnis's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
2 comments
 
Police can't be everywhere, and sometimes they can't even be bothered. 
Add a comment...

Brett Wilkins

Discussion  - 
 
Another mass shooting.
Matthew Fields shot and killed his wife, Rebecca Manning, and her two sons before turning the gun on himself in his Suwanee, Georgia home.
1
joshua Deshautelles's profile photo
18 comments
 
Also, I like to think of the good in a community. I just don't put my survival on it. That whole hope for the best, prepare for the worst thing. 
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
It is not as bad as suggested in the Daily Beast article I posted earlier ("Bernie Sanders Parrots the NRA"; http://thebea.st/1LYFh8n).  Bernie gets an F grade from the NRA, but he did support two bills protecting gun manufacturers from liability suits.  Bernie describes himself as a moderate on guns, and says he can bring the two sides together.  I'll look forward to that.

h/t to +Mark Frank  for bringing this to my attention.
Bernie Sanders on Gun Control; Senators
2
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Good review of firearms research.

FTA:  "This study suggests that it's really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes," Hemenway told Live Science.

It's possible that people stockpile guns in response to higher levels of crime. The researchers tried to tease out whether this was the case by testing whether gun ownership levels were a prerequisite for crime or a response to higher crime levels. Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around.

"It's difficult to imagine how the hypothesis that increased ownership reduces criminal behavior could be valid, given our findings," Monuteaux said.

. . .

"It wouldn't make sense to argue that people only go out to buy guns if the nonstranger homicide rate goes up, but not if the stranger homicide rate goes up," Siegel told Live Science. The data, he said, points to a picture in which confrontations between families, friends, bosses and acquaintances become lethal in the presence of guns.

"The types of fatalities that occur with nonstrangers are often situations where the presence of a gun makes all the difference in the world," Siegel said. "Having guns available makes the difference between having a fatal confrontation and a nonfatal confrontation."
 
Is an armed society a peaceful society? New research suggests the opposite: Firearm assaults, firearm robberies, firearm homicide and overall homicide are more common in states with more guns.
3
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
8 comments
 
+joshua Deshautelles What I would like to see is that investigated.  As you know I strongly support basing this on experience and good research.
Add a comment...
 
A new #study  shows that states with a higher rate of #gunownership  have a higher rate of #crime  
2
1
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoXenophrenia's profile photoRon Dobbs's profile photo
9 comments
 
+joshua Deshautelles it's for the people who immediately reply no when you say this to them ... they won't believe a study either ... but at least there is documented proof and not just a duh to go on ;-)
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
3
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Sad perspective, with some truth to it.
3
1
Jason G.'s profile photoPaul Frank's profile photopinoy tenor's profile photo
5 comments
 
+Jason G. Some Americans did indeed decide that gun control does not work as +joshua Deshautelles  suggests, though I don't know that I have met one whose decision was prompted by Sandy Hook.  While I am not one of those -- before or after Sandy Hook -- most importantly those decisions have not been made as the result of a strong, vigorous research program conducted by researchers on all sides of this question.

The topic here is actually different from any reports provided by myself or you gentleman.  In the first place this report is hyperbolic -- the gun control debate is not over.  But I think it makes a valid point that after the initial visceral response to Sandy Hook, there has been a de facto resignation by many who supported stronger gun control.  Those who have fought for stronger gun control did not en masse become convinced it was no longer necessary.  Rather they lost the battle for grand-scale change and along with it they lost a bit of their heart.
Add a comment...

About this community

GUN CONTROL NOW! "A time comes when silence...is betrayal." -MLK Jr.
 
Who really benefits from gun control?
4
1
brian thomas (Big B Speedy)'s profile photo
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
what you guys think about these statistics?
2
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Juvenile parody.

Yay!
"Built on the foundation of freedom and love for our founding father's principles..."
1
Michael Brown's profile photo
 
He does say that it requires proper training.  

Also in the description of the video it says "Owning A Gun, a satire PSA."
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
1
Paul Frank's profile photoDave Derrick's profile photo
9 comments
 
+Paul Frank - a good point. I'm all for intelligent debate, its not always possible here, but at least your making sensible posts ☺ I also believe some form of control is required.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
From accompanying email:  "We already knew that the Charleston shooter bought himself the gun he used to kill nine people in a horrific act of terror last month.

"But the FBI just announced yesterday that he didn't pass his background check -- and should never been able to get that gun.

"He was flagged by the FBI for further investigation, but because of an NRA-backed loophole in the law, the gun dealer was allowed to make the sale after three days passed -- even though the check was incomplete.

"The Charleston shooter got his gun because the clock ran out on his background check, just like thousands of other dangerous people every year.

"Tell Congress to close this deadly loophole NOW. Click here to automatically sign the petition. Dangerous people like the Charleston shooter should not be allowed to purchase guns when their background check is incomplete.

"Tell Congress: Close the Charleston Loophole NOW

"FBI data shows this loophole has allowed more than 15,000 prohibited people to buy guns in the past five years. It's a deadly flaw that the gun lobby has fought to protect.

"Several states have laws requiring that sales may not go forward even after the three-day period has elapsed, but only Congress has the power to take action at the federal level.

http://act.everytown.org/sign/NICS-Charleston-petition

"When lives are at stake, we shouldn't take shortcuts. Completed background checks have blocked more than two million sales to dangerous people and saved countless lives. Every gun sale should be backed by a verified clean record.

"Let's make sure Congress feels the pressure on this issue.

"Megan Lewis "
Tell Congress to close the Charleston loophole now.
3
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
3 comments
 
+Bigstones Mc Gee  Not creating a reasonable deadline does indeed leave things open to government indolence -- (or worse!) -- but having a hard and fast three-day limit has its own problems.  For the record 15,000 people "fell through that crack," not one.  A review of policy which considers both problems is in order, including one that allows red flags to slow the process resulting in additional -- but not unlimited -- processing time.

This loophole may or may not have been crucial to the Charleston deaths.  That is not to deny the system unconscionably failed Carol Bownes.  The goal here is that fix the system and save every innocent death possible, not trade off pro-gun-control crowd deaths for pro-gun crowd deaths.  And to revive my old theme, and strong and vibrant program of firearms research is the best way to to inform the best possible policy decisions.  I'll repeat it once more:  _The NRA behavior in obstructing such research is tantamount to negligent homicide on a massive scale!_

Thanks for the comment.  Cheers, Paul
Add a comment...

William Urmson

Discussion  - 
 
Hillary's coming to git yer guns teabillies. Hillary's gonna git yer guns and I can't wait! Ah hahahahahahahahah~ WJU
1
Dave Derrick's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
5 comments
 
He is not here for a discussion, he is just here to talk shit, and call names.  

And I will continue to report it as Spam, don't worry.
Add a comment...
 
Black Lives Matter!
At services today, during our general prayers, we offered a prayer for those killed last week in Charlestown, South Carolina.  Much has been made about the sentiments of the shooter, and it may have sprurred a renewed interes...
1
SayNoTo Democide's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
2 comments
 
The logic is kind of funny. Black lives matter, so let's disarm them so they're defenseless. 
Add a comment...
 
The real menace?
One of the more intersting stories to come out of the aftermath of the Charlestown shooting was the report that non-Muslim extremists have killed more people than Muslim extremists.
1
Add a comment...