The 2nd Amendment

Individual

So you do accept fear as part of the equation for yourself? Sorry, Balbus, he's all yours.

 

Bal,

If the possibility of ever having the need of a gun were to be non-existent, meaning absolutely ZERO, then few people, if any would ever bother to carry one, but the 2nd amendment would still exist to assure that their right to own one, or more would still not be infringed.

Like odonII explained to you, a rational person, exercising reason takes whatever precautionary means necessary relative to the knowledge available, be it a gun, a spare tire, fire extinguisher, etc.

If you have a car do you not have a spare tire? Are you afraid of getting a flat tire? That's essentially the kind of irrational argument you keep presenting. Your constant attempt to try and make every thread a social issue makes every thread title meaningless. Perhaps you would be more appropriately titled as "provocateur" or "instigator" rather than "moderator". It seems to be more often the case that failing to dazzle with brilliance, you resort to the baffle with bullshit tactic, name calling, denigration, topic avoidance, or any other means you can think of in an attempt to win an argument by eliminating those who disagree with you simply because they tire of continuing, knowing there will be no end unless they just give up and agree with you.

 

To be fair, that was me. *blush*

 

Fear occurs when a situation occurs making it necessary. Like when a knife was presented in an attempt to rob me, fear then became a part of the equation as I really wouldn't have liked to have to pull the trigger, but it quickly resided when the person with the knife turned and ran away. Yes, I really did fear for his life, and was happy he didn't do anything which would have made me end it.

And yes, I would have feared for my own life had I not had a gun at that moment, and would consider anyone who claims otherwise to be either a fool or an idiot to not fear the loss of their life if it was inevitable and premature. Natural death on the other hand is something that I accept as unavoidable, and other than taxes an absolute unavoidable certainty.

 

I view it only as a precaution. What was that old boy scout motto? "Be prepared." Lord Baden-Powell, a Brit none the less.

 

Indie

First up you ignore loads of my questions, so it seems to be a bit hypocritical to get all self-righteous because I miss one. As I’ve told you before I’m happy to answer - the problem with you is that you are not.

Second I don’t think I’ve ever said I would lack such fear. What I’ve said is that the likelihood of the fear often promoted by pro-gunners is so remote that I don’t think about as they clearly do.

Of course fear would be part of the emotions I’d feel if I and/or my family were to be facing a life threatening situation. Any sane human would.

I have fears for my family; they are mainly around ill health or injury from accident. For those reasons I am a great supporter of the NHS and campaigned on its behalf and I’ve also campaigned for such things as road safety. But as I’ve pointed out earlier someone calculated the chances of being killed in a shooting in the UK is one in a million, the chances of being murdered is one in 85,000 but the chance of being killed in or by a car is one in 200.

It is a matter of risk many pro-gunners seem to feel the risk of attack is so high they feel they need lethal weapons to protect themselves from it. Where I am I don’t - I might if I was in a warzone but this is not a war zone and supposedly nor is the US.

If my child asks me why she has to wear a seat belt, I tell her that she is more likely to be killed in an accident without it; I’m using fear to promote the seatbelt.

What I’m pointed out is when pro-gunners talk of murder, beatings, rapes etc they are using fear to promote guns.

I and other like me have done a lot to improve traffic safety in the UK, from traffic calming (speed bumps and 20mph zones), more zebra crossings, dedicated cycle routes etc etc. I’ve voted and even campaigned for those that promote such things.

What I’m highlighting is that many pro-gunners don’t seem interested in making their society a better place they seem to shrug and say nothing can be done they seem to sneer at those that suggest it could be done and many seem to support social, economic and political views that would actually make things worse.

 

Individual

The question of fear, in this debate, is pre not post or the intervening feelings.
Do you fear something, and is that a reason to have a gun?
Not the fact a situation might make you fearful.
Balbus is intimating that people that own guns are fearful.
If you are fearful - regardless of a situation - and have a gun to abate that fear, then you might just be holding a gun due to fear.
I can't help you in that debate, as you fall into his prism of fear.
Being prepared is a sign of being fearful, as far as Balbus is concerned.
You do indeed seem to fall into his argument head first - with no shame.
He is saying that because he does not have any reason to have fear of attack there isn't any need to hold a gun for that reason.
I have yet to hear a reason why he thinks a person should - given he isn't apposed to gun ownership - own a gun, I've just heard the reasons why not.
Perhaps a nod to being fair in a debate he ultimately doesn't wish to see any other reason than fear.
It is true, any programmes you might note are not concerned with de-arming you - due to an ambiguous amendment, It has just been argued gives you the right to bare arms.

 

Odon

Oh I have on several occasions said I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible having guns, for hunting, keeping down vermin etc

You were in the debate it here http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=466356&page=11

Thing is that it is possible to get a gun in the UK, many people have shot guns and if you are law abiding and seem responsible it is possible to get a license. It is just that most people don’t feel the necessity to have a gun. I mean what would I do with a gun in the city? Hunting, I’d rather preserve the wildlife we have, rather than shoot it. Keeping down vermin, I think calling a professional exterminator would be more efficient and less time consuming than sitting out on my porch in the hope a rat will show up (say nothing from the flak from my neighbours). As to home defence, well, as I’ve said there just doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear about that here.

 

Etc?
I know you have no qualms about people owning guns for those purposes.
We are talking about owning guns for other reasons.
There isn't any need for a debate about owning guns for 'sport' - that really isn't the point..
I'm saying you have an issue with gun ownership due to reasons you can't fathom - but seek to understand with the notion of fear, and nothing else.

 

Odon

and nothing else – what rationally based ‘else’ have you got?

 

But they should never be used for protection of ones self, family, friends, strangers, or property?

 

I'm talking about you not me.

 

Indie

I’m asking why so many pro-gunners seem to feel so threatened that they feel like they need such lethal weapons to protection themselves, their familiers, friends and property?

 

Odon


And I’m asking you can you put forward another rational explanation for people wanting guns to protect themselves from harm other than they fear that harm?

 

I don't have to.

 

Obviously the 2nd amendment does not mandate gun ownership, nor are those who support the 2nd amendment asking those who do not own a gun to go out and purchase one. Those who do not wish to own a gun maintain that right, but S. 150 would abridge the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens who might own or wish to own guns for what ever their reason.

If some persons buy or own a gun due to fear, so what? I'm not aware of any of those persons, but they may exist, and if they do what has that to do with the 2nd amendment?

If that's all you have to offer on the subject of the 2nd amendment, then I think we've read enough, and should go on or else just close the thread based on repetition eliminating any possible progress.

 

On that we agree.

 

Don't worry, I have a theory about you too.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

Let's think about this. Every sheriff in every county in the state I live has formally announced to the white house that they will refuse to uphold unconstitutional gun laws coming out of Washington. So the only people that would come take my guns are the feds, or the UN under the feds approval.

Second, breaking into the home - with force and guns - of a law abiding citizen of the US who exercises rights guaranteed under our bill of rights, then proceeding to kill said homeowners family pets, is not "an innocent police officer".. that is the state committing crimes against US citizens. Are you really this brainwashed by statism? I find it disgusting.

What do you think my forefathers would do in that situation?

 

Rather your wife shoot a shotgun huh? Have you even fired a 12 gauge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafkVM-jnbE"]Buy a Shotgun Joe Biden Lying AR-15 - YouTube

My definition of sporting rifle is your definition of assault rifle. Since I use them for sport and target practice.. and not assaulting anything.

And what makes you the judge on the validity of my argument? The slippery slope theory didn't just appear out of thin air.