Newt: Every Human Should Have a Gun!

[Formaldehyde]

Does the right to bear arms really exist in Colombia and Somalia or are they just overtly crime ridden places where criminal groups have easy access to black market weapons?

Is it better to openly discriminate regarding who can possess handguns instead of covertly doing so?


Link to video.


Link to video.

Homicide rates skyrocketed at the beginning of prohibition, then took a huge drop after its repeal. Homicide rates again spiked in the early 1970s when President Nixon declared America's war on drugs. More that 35 years later, homicide rates in America's inner cities fluctuate but continue to peak.

 

[del62]

newt gingrich can get lost

one of the great things about living in the mainland UK is that not even the boys in blue carry guns,

people should only be able to own a gun is if they have a very good reason to do so (like farmers) and there are no good reasons for those who live in a city.

 

[kochman]

newt gingrich can get lost

one of the great things about living in the mainland UK is that not even the boys in blue carry guns,

people should only be able to own a gun is if they have a very good reason to do so (like farmers) and there are no good reasons for those who live in a city.

Thanks for deciding for everyone... what if they go into the country, to do things like... you know... hunt?

 

[Farm Boy]

Woot! I get a pass! HEEE-HAWWWW!!! <BANG BANG BANG>

Curious though, why do I get a gun and my townie cohorts don't?

 

[kochman]

Woot! I get a pass! HEEE-HAWWWW!!! <BANG BANG BANG>

Curious though, why do I get a gun and my townie cohorts don't?

Because, you don't need to shoot coyotes in the city... duh...

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Because, you don't need to shoot coyotes in the city... duh...

...Um. Are you sure?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I had to look twice at that photo before realizing it was a sedated coyote...

Glad Rick Perry wasn't around instead...

 

[Bugfatty300]

Not a "right" in terms of the government enshrining the rights in law. It happens like that when the government doesn't have a say in the matter, because it lacks the power to enforce any gun control. It doesn't matter what the national governments of Columbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, have to say on the matter: They cannot enforce their laws. The result is lawlessness and death, not democracy.

Again, you're arguing against inept/inexistent governments and not really making any meaningful statement about the right to keep and bear arms.

The ability of criminals to kill and terrorize with impunity has a about as much to with the right to keep and bear arms as writing fraudulent checks has to do with the right to freedom of expression.

 

[Cutlass]

Again, you're arguing against inept/inexistent governments and not really making any meaningful statement about the right to keep and bear arms.

The ability of criminals to kill and terrorize with impunity has a about as much to with the right to keep and bear arms as writing fraudulent checks has to do with the right to freedom of expression.

Then what are you talking about? Having arms and having some legal right to them is at best not much at all of a distinction. If you've got the guns, and no one can take them from you, who cares what the law concerning it is?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Then what are you talking about? Having arms and having some legal right to them is at best not much at all of a distinction. If you've got the guns, and no one can take them from you, who cares what the law concerning it is?

Pretend for a second that you live in one of these countries where you allege the right to keep and bear arms exists in what ever form because the government has trouble enforcing the laws or trouble dealing with violent insurgencies...

Imagine buying a bunch of rifles and ammunition from a illegal source, trafficking them across international borders and living in a ranch, cave or tent in remote area for years like a real "free" gun-toting trafficante, Zapatista, FARC, Tamil Tiger or a Taliban.

Get a death threat from Los Zetas and then get robbed and beaten by other violent criminals while trying to buy an illegal gun for protection.

Keep an illegal gun for protection in your home and then go spend years in a prison after your neighbor rats you out to police. Just because they can't nab the guys running around in the jungle doesn't mean they won't come after an easy target like you...

There's a pretty big distinction between doing something that is actually a legally protected right versus doing something illegal that the government just has problems dealing with.

 

[Cutlass]

Pretend for a second that you live in one of these countries where you allege the right to keep and bear arms exists in what ever form because the government has trouble enforcing the laws or trouble dealing with violent insurgencies...

Imagine buying a bunch of rifles and ammunition from a illegal source, trafficking them across international borders and living in a ranch, cave or tent in remote area for years like a real "free" gun-toting trafficante, Zapatista, FARC, Tamil Tiger or a Taliban.

Get a death threat from Los Zetas and then get robbed and beaten by other violent criminals while trying to buy an illegal gun for protection.

Keep an illegal gun for protection in your home and then go spend years in a prison after your neighbor rats you out to police. Just because they can't nab the guys running around in the jungle doesn't mean they won't come after an easy target like you...

There's a pretty big distinction between doing something that is actually a legally protected right versus doing something illegal that the government just has problems dealing with.

Fine. But that has nothing to do with what the government is like when there is gun rights.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Which I never even commented on.

I'm just pointing out how it is a little silly to claim that the right to bear arms exists in certain countries simply by virtue of the laws not being enforced effectively or equally and then using them as arguments against such rights.

 

[Cutlass]

Which I never even commented on.

I'm just pointing out how it is a little silly to claim that the right to bear arms exists in certain countries simply by virtue of the laws not being enforced effectively or equally and then using them as arguments against such rights.

I didn't use them as arguments against any rights. I was simply pointing out that there are no examples of wide gun ownership resulting in democracy or human rights.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I didn't use them as arguments against any rights. I was simply pointing out that there are no examples of wide gun ownership resulting in democracy or human rights.

You insinuated that the right exists in those countries and that it "brings constant murder and kidnapping." I mean, that's whats you said. :shrug: Sorry if I misunderstood that sentence.

What do you think is bringing murder kidnapping to those countries?

 

[del62]

Woot! I get a pass! HEEE-HAWWWW!!! <BANG BANG BANG>

Curious though, why do I get a gun and my townie cohorts don't?

There may be some cases were it is suitable for a farmer to need a gun for pest control that is all, this would have to be fully licensed of course.

I cant think of any use for a gun in a town other than criminal use. We have a Police Force to protect us from criminals and they have armed response units so they dont carry guns as a matter of course.

When you compare deaths from firearms between the UK and US you will see the difference.

 

[Cutlass]

You insinuated that the right exists in those countries and that it "brings constant murder and kidnapping." I mean, that's whats you said. :shrug: Sorry if I misunderstood that sentence.

What do you think is bringing murder kidnapping to those countries?

Yes, and what was the context of that statement?

Call me crazy, but this actually sounds like a good idea. The freedom to bear arms would go a long way in bringing about equal rights in places like Iran and China.

I was pointing out to him that it hasn't happened. And, quite frankly, there isn't a lot of reason to think that it might. Now if the people of China or Iran had guns, things would certainly be different there. But that does not mean that they would liberty and rights in other respects. You were the one that tried to make a distinction between having guns and having a legal, government recognized right to having guns. In this context the legal right really isn't an issue so much as the possession is an issue. A country that already has democracy and liberty may choose to allow the private ownership of guns, but they are not compelled to allow liberty and democracy because of the ownership of guns.

And while Formaldehyde makes a good point that in a country with liberty for some, excluding a portion from the ownership and possession of guns can go hand in hand with denying that minority other liberty, it does not necessarily follow from that that if they had been fully armed that they would have gotten liberty.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Random out of nowhere question: Why are people so for rebellions in Iran and China, but were so against rebellions in similarly dictatorial nations like Egypt and Libya?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Random out of nowhere question: Why are people so for rebellions in Iran and China, but were so against rebellions in similarly dictatorial nations like Egypt and Libya?

Mooslims.
Lybia and Egypt were tyrannical regimes that kept the Islamofacists in line.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Mooslims.
Lybia and Egypt were tyrannical regimes that kept the Islamofacists in line.

Ah, yes, of course. So dictatorial regimes are a-ok, as long as the people they're repressing are Muslim. And the regime isn't (devoutly so).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Ah, yes, of course. So dictatorial regimes are a-ok, as long as the people they're repressing are Muslim. And the regime isn't (devoutly so).

Exactly. It's about ideology and names.
I also bet if the Chinese ruling party would change it's name from Communist to Patriotic or something else a lot more people in the West would be fine with it.