Take away Americans guns

[PureX]

And we know precisely what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has to say about that, authoritatively, so we're really not debating that since it's already an answered, closed question.

The second amendment is so arcane and idiotically vague that it's impossible to tell what it's exact intent, was. Nor was it written by God, Himself, as your absurd veneration of it seems to be implying. It was written before we had a standing army, and referred to the maintenance of a citizen's militia, in place of a standing army. Which is no longer relevant to us, as we now have a standing army.

You falsely extrapolate the idea of a citizen's militia, now, to refer to a 'citizen's right to revolt' militia. When this was very likely not the intent of the amendment. Or to a citizen's right to protect himself, which this amendment doesn't address at all. But even if we give it this obtuse and very unlikely interpretation, the text still says that it be "well regulated". Which is exactly what you're fighting against. So I don't see how your interpretation has a logical leg to stand on. Nor your veneration of these 'sacred words'.

So then, what you and others like you must be debating is whether or not to repeal or otherwise amend the Second Amendment, which is fine. But let's agree that that's what's being debated here.

That should be done, as the amendment is obsolete now that we have a standing military. But since that would require cooperation with our government to a degree that is completely impossible in the current political climate, what is being hoped for is some semblance of reasonable and effective gun regulation.

Once, again, nice try with the red herring (amending the amendment), but that's not the subject that's on the table.

The SCOTUS has spoken loudly and clearly (and recently) on the matter, so if you disagree with what the Second Amendment recognizes and protects as far as individual civilian gun ownership goes, then say so.

No one is opposing citizens owning guns. So your throwing this turd around like it's a gold brick doesn't really have anything to do with the subject at hand. The Supreme Court is not going to protect you from gun control legislation, if it's ever passed.

Because at this point it most certainly is boiling down to a debate over whether or not there is a right to live, because this is the right that implies the right to self-defense, and this is the right that further implies the right to keep and to bear arms.

It's amazing how determined you are to avoid the actual issue at hand.

 

[PureX]

Obama and Hillary are making proposals.
No one comes and takes away your gun ONE DAY, it is done by enacting laws over a long time. First you take away certain clips, then a certain caliber, then a certain type. In this way many become criminals. Why, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

So, to your way of thinking, ANY SUGGESTION of gun regulation, no matter how reasonable it may sound, is part of a plot to take everyone's guns away?

This is what you're implying, here, isn't it?

Do you realize how insane that is?

 

[northwye]

Marxist theory did not originally call for gun control. However,
remember that Marxism follows its own brand of the dialectic, which it
calls dialectical materialism. In Hegel's philosophy the dialectic was
an opposition between two opposing positions, the thesis and the
anti-thesis, and there was to be a compromise result between this
clash. Marxism took over the Hegelian dialectic and made it into a
deceptive procedure for attitude and belief change.

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

So, forms of Marxism - including American Transformational Marxism -
can allow the masses to have guns at one time and at another time and
in another situation the Marxists will demand the people give up their
guns, so the ruling elite and ruling class have more control over the
people.


See: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian..._soviet_union/

"As for Stalin, the NKVD undertook mass gun confiscation of the
peasantry during Collectivization (and given such massive peasant
resistance to it you can see why) and this was the period of the
strictest gun ownership policies in Soviet history. That being said,
outside of urban areas, collective farms, or regions that blacklisted
by the NKVD/Stalin, hunting rifles were still fairly commonplace."

See: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...0%99s-gun-grab

"Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung
(Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged
power."

See: https://americainchains2009.wordpres...d-gun-control/

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 19793,
2,035,000 “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.


“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep
their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
– Fidel Castro

The right to own guns was intended by the Founders to be one way the people could maintain some amount of freedom and individual rights and prevent the federal government from gaining more and more control over the people. Since a large number of Americans still believe in the idea that there must be checks in place on the power of the federal government, to outlaw ownership of guns all of a sudden would meet a lot of resistance. So the tactic to disarm the people must be to do it gradually, by taking away one small part of gun rights at a time. First outlaw extra large magazines for semi-automatic rifles. make it illegal for anyone with a diagnosis by a psychiatrist or psychologist of mental illness to own guns, etc, and then keep on taking one small step at a time until guns are totally illegal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...o-Gun-Control#

But - there is an important interest which is a vital part of the issue of gun control. This is the right to defend yourself, and family from those individuals or groups who clearly come to kill you. The Marxist Left in the U.S. at this point in time does not connect the right to have guns with the right to life and the right to defend your own life and those close to you. And here is where Biblical rights apply, and also Christian morality. It is immoral to take away the guns of any of the people when they may need them to defend themselves against the jihadists, or others.

Dean Gotcher in authorityresearch.com/.../Theory%20is%20a%20secular%20belief.html says "... treating all truth as an opinion (is being)...a perfect Marxist."

 

[rocketman]

No more insane than creating an inroad for the government to further infringe on the constitutional right (not a privilege, a right) of Americans to obtain a weapon. All the gun control in the world will not stop crazies from obtaining them.

 

[PureX]

No more insane than creating an inroad for the government to further infringe on the constitutional right (not a privilege, a right) of Americans to obtain a weapon. All the gun control in the world will not stop crazies from obtaining them.

Why is it, then, that the crazies in all those other countries that have gun control don't shoot thousands of their citizens every year? Are our crazies really that much more intent and resourceful than theirs?

Never mind, you'll be incapable of even considering the question. You'll just see it all as some giant conspiracy designed to infringe the interminable narcissism of the American ignoramus.

 

[CherubRam]

Why is it, then, that the crazies in all those other countries that have gun control don't shoot thousands of their citizens every year? Are our crazies really that much more intent and resourceful than theirs?

Never mind, you'll be incapable of even considering the question. You'll just see it all as some giant conspiracy designed to infringe the interminable narcissism of the American ignoramus.

November 2015 Paris attacks. The attackers killed 130 people. Most of the violent crimes are committed by non-whites. America has a larger non-white population.

 

[annabenedetti]

Marxist theory did not originally call for gun control. However,
remember that Marxism follows its own brand of the dialectic, which it
calls dialectical materialism. In Hegel's philosophy the dialectic was
an opposition between two opposing positions, the thesis and the
anti-thesis, and there was to be a compromise result between this
clash. Marxism took over the Hegelian dialectic and made it into a
deceptive procedure for attitude and belief change.

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

So, forms of Marxism - including American Transformational Marxism -
can allow the masses to have guns at one time and at another time and
in another situation the Marxists will demand the people give up their
guns, so the ruling elite and ruling class have more control over the
people.


See: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian..._soviet_union/

"As for Stalin, the NKVD undertook mass gun confiscation of the
peasantry during Collectivization (and given such massive peasant
resistance to it you can see why) and this was the period of the
strictest gun ownership policies in Soviet history. That being said,
outside of urban areas, collective farms, or regions that blacklisted
by the NKVD/Stalin, hunting rifles were still fairly commonplace."

See: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...0%99s-gun-grab

"Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung
(Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged
power."

See: https://americainchains2009.wordpres...d-gun-control/

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 19793,
2,035,000 “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.


“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep
their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
– Fidel Castro

The right to own guns was intended by the Founders to be one way the people could maintain some amount of freedom and individual rights and prevent the federal government from gaining more and more control over the people. Since a large number of Americans still believe in the idea that there must be checks in place on the power of the federal government, to outlaw ownership of guns all of a sudden would meet a lot of resistance. So the tactic to disarm the people must be to do it gradually, by taking away one small part of gun rights at a time. First outlaw extra large magazines for semi-automatic rifles. make it illegal for anyone with a diagnosis by a psychiatrist or psychologist of mental illness to own guns, etc, and then keep on taking one small step at a time until guns are totally illegal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...o-Gun-Control#

But - there is an important interest which is a vital part of the issue of gun control. This is the right to defend yourself, and family from those individuals or groups who clearly come to kill you. The Marxist Left in the U.S. at this point in time does not connect the right to have guns with the right to life and the right to defend your own life and those close to you. And here is where Biblical rights apply, and also Christian morality. It is immoral to take away the guns of any of the people when they may need them to defend themselves against the jihadists, or others.

Dean Gotcher in authorityresearch.com/.../Theory%20is%20a%20secular%20belief.html says "... treating all truth as an opinion (is being)...a perfect Marxist."

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis wasn't coined by Hegel:

"Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Hegel used this writing model as a backbone to accompany his points in many of his works.

The formula, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, does not explain why the thesis requires an antithesis. However, the formula, abstract-negative-concrete, suggests a flaw, or perhaps an incomplete-ness, in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error, and experience. For Hegel, the concrete, the synthesis, the absolute, must always pass through the phase of the negative, in the journey to completion, that is, mediation. This is the essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics."
​

Having said that, compromise isn't a bad word. Neither is consensus. Those who only see black and white ideology see gray as the enemy.

 

[CherubRam]

So, to your way of thinking, ANY SUGGESTION of gun regulation, no matter how reasonable it may sound, is part of a plot to take everyone's guns away?

This is what you're implying, here, isn't it?

Do you realize how insane that is?

If you make a law to take away 20 round clips, then only criminals will have them. If you make a law to take away every ones gun, then only criminals will have them. The purpose of an armed society is so war lords will not rule, and to prevent any government take over. Presently we have Muslims who would like to take over America for Islam. Also, some Mexicans believe that whites stole America from them, and that they would like to take America back for Mexico. No country would ever think of trying to invade America, it would mean certain political death for that nation.

 

[Interplanner]

If you make a law to take away 20 round clips, then only criminals will have them. If you make a law to take away every ones gun, then only criminals will have them. The purpose of an armed society is so war lords will not rule, and to prevent any government take over. Presently we have Muslims who would like to take over America for Islam. Also, some Mexicans believe that whites stole America from them, and that they would like to take America back for Mexico. No country would ever think of trying to invade America, it would mean certain political death for that nation.

To Purex,
there is already a ton of reasonable regulation. I just heard an interview this week challenging people to go get registered and see how involved it is. That's the point. Even so, it fails.

Answers:
1, stop all immigration for 5 years
2, stop immigration from a broad based list of countries as needed
3, capital punishment for murder. Ex., Australia had success with its gun laws BECAUSE of sharp punishment that was with it. Chicago does not and had 91 murders the same week that ended the day of Orlando. Did Obama say anything? Did he visit?

 

[theophilus]

The media emphasizes the mental illness of many shooters in mass shootings and this emphasis creates the public perception that all mentally ill people are potentially mass shooters, while in fact it is often specific anti-depression prescription drugs that lead to mass killings. But with the Islamic "refugees" it may not be drugs so much which lead to mass shootings, but the teachings of the Quran and the making of these teachings important by the Imams

Quran Quotes:

"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme "- 8:39

"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."

"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

More here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/nicolai-sennels-psychology-why-islam-creates-monsters

 

[northwye]

Most people do not know what Marxism is. While Transformational Marxism does not try to overthrow national governments of Western Europe or the U.S. or Canada by force, Transformational Marxism follows much of Marxist theory.

Marxism starts from a belief that there is no absolute truth and no absolute morality. Both are subject to change. Marxism establishes the foundation for opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Marxism became an international, collectivist movement. Nazi fascism was a form of nationalism which claimed to work for the benefit of Germany against internationalist Marxism. The ruling elite have chosen to make their own use of Marxism to control the people but at the top the elite remain fascist - but not nationalist - and certainly anti-Christian.

The Marxist dialectic is a method for opposing and doing away with absolute truth and absolute morality. Political correctness uses the method of the dialectic in a deceptive way. Though based upon an abstract theory,the dialectic can be used to set up effective ways of opposing the culture of the West, and to overthrow that culture. The dialectic formula can be used to overthrow the "thesis," and replace it with the "anti-thesis, and not with a synthesis. The dialectic is the opposite of the didactic. The dialectic makes use of lies, while the didactic is defined as a method of teaching that is based on the foundation of there being truth.

Transformational Marxism opposes freedom and individual rights and wants to replace both with control over the people in all areas. So political correctness,when used over and over by the controlled media and government officials, becomes a procedure for making racism, sexism etc outstanding in public perception. In social psychology this is called making salient. Then by using the simple formula of political correctness over and over the Marxist Left leads target demographic groups to feel guilty about their identities, and it divides society into factions at war with one another. Its change agents are traitors and when successful political correctness creates masses of followers of these traitors.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

[annabenedetti]

So political correctness,when used over and over by the controlled media and government officials, becomes a procedure for making racism, sexism etc outstanding in public perception.

You're using a lot of words to say that racism and sexism should be allowed to go unchecked and unquestioned, for fear of being politically correct.

 

[PureX]

November 2015 Paris attacks. The attackers killed 130 people. Most of the violent crimes are committed by non-whites. America has a larger non-white population.

 

[PureX]

If you make a law to take away 20 round clips, then only criminals will have them.

Then why don't all the criminals in all the other nations of the world have them, and use them to gun down the unarmed civilians with impunity? Why is it that in all the countries with gun control laws, the number of gun deaths per capita is far, FAR below the number of gun deaths in the U.S.? Why aren't their criminals all using guns? Especially when all the law abiding citizens are unarmed. And in some instances, even the police are unarmed!

And here's the million dollar question: why don't you ever ask yourself these kinds of questions? Why do you just blindly and stupidly defend the spread of deadly weapons, and the enormous increase in violence and death that results?

If you make a law to take away every ones gun,…

NO ONE IS PROPOSING A LAW THAT TAKES AWAY EVERYONE'S GUNS! How many times do I have to keep repeating this before it finally sinks in?

The purpose of an armed society is so war lords will not rule, and to prevent any government take over.

That's idiotic. All the "warlord" has to do is buy a bigger gun. And there's always going to be someone with a bigger gun.

The only thing that can protect you from the "warlords" is the rule of law.

Presently we have Muslims who would like to take over America for Islam.

No Muslim, anywhere, wants to take over America for Islam.

Also, some Mexicans believe that whites stole America from them, and that they would like to take America back for Mexico.

No one in Mexico wants to take America back. They can barely run the country they have.

No country would ever think of trying to invade America, it would mean certain political death for that nation.

No one wants to invade the U.S. We have become a nation governed by greed and stupidity, and populated by ignoramuses that can't even name their own vice president, yet will vote for a cartoon fascist like Donald Trump for no reason at all. No country in it's right mind would want us. We are self-destructing.

 

[CherubRam]

It is non-whites doing most of the killing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[northwye]

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas…” G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health

He should have said that "it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their...faith in Christ and in his doctrines." Saying "religious dogmas" suggests the psychiatrist is also anti-Christian.

Political correctness originated in the Old Soviet Union. It meant the accepted Party Line and those who did not conform to the Party Line were punished. A similar term has been used in other communist countries, such as in Red China. They sent people to Siberia for not being politically correct. Political correctness replaces freedom of speech, and make it into something bad. But this rejection of freedom of speech by the present day Tranformational Marxists applies only to the freedom of speech of their opponents.

I don't know the specifics of when or by whom Political Correctness first became focused upon racism and sexism. But it came out of the ideology of the early Frankfurt School Marxists who taught that Christianity and the family are the cause of racial prejudice and of fascism. The dogmatism of the Party Line in the Old Soviet Union remains in place while the content of political correctness has focused on racism and sexism as a method of overthrowing culture and dividing the people.

Any type of Marxism has no conscience and no morals. Political Correctness may pretend to have the moral high ground on racism and sexism, but since Marxism has no morals it cannot hold the high ground.

Not only those who teach Political Correctness and the entire Transformational Marxist overthrow of our culture of individualism and Christianity - with Christian morality - are traitors. They are also collectivists who have a hive mind or herd mentality.

Scripture, on the other hand, has many men who stood alone as individuals against the heresy of the hive mind, the collectivist mind set of the multitude. Christ himself did this. The remnant who, often as individuals alone, stand up against almost everyone else, have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

It is this multitude with the hive mind who fall for political correctness and believe it has the moral high ground, when in fact it is a deceptive system used by the Marxist Left which is anti-Christian, and has no fixed morality.

 

[PureX]

It is non-whites doing most of the killing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Skin color has very little to do with who kills who. Economics has a lot more to do with it. Ultimately, though, these are secondary issues to the simple fact that when a population is awash in guns, a lot more people will be shot and killed by them. Because guns make killing people very easy to do.

The United States is awash in guns, and as a result, we kill each other in the U.S. in huge numbers compared to the other countries of the world that are not awash in guns.

You can keep throwing out all sorts of tangents and red-herrings but the fact of reality is that the U.S. is already swimming in guns, and as a result, we kill each other far more often than people in countries.

Now, I understand that we cannot collect all those guns and destroy them. But we can try and regulate their ownership and use, sensibly. And even if we only cut our gun deaths in half, we will still be saving thousands of lives every year. And this is really all anyone is advocating for.

Register your guns. Learn how and when to used them, properly. Obtain a license for them that shows you have registered them and that you know how and when to use them. And expect to lose that license if you show yourself to be socially irresponsible.

It's not rocket science, and it's not a denial of the citizen's right to own a gun. It's simply the imposition of social responsibility in regards to deadly weapons.

 

[CherubRam]

Skin color has very little to do with who kills who. Economics has a lot more to do with it. Ultimately, though, these are secondary issues to the simple fact that when a population is awash in guns, a lot more people will be shot and killed by them. Because guns make killing people very easy to do.

The United States is awash in guns, and as a result, we kill each other in the U.S. in huge numbers compared to the other countries of the world that are not awash in guns.

You can keep throwing out all sorts of tangents and red-herrings but the fact of reality is that the U.S. is already swimming in guns, and as a result, we kill each other far more often than people in countries.

Now, I understand that we cannot collect all those guns and destroy them. But we can try and regulate their ownership and use, sensibly. And even if we only cut our gun deaths in half, we will still be saving thousands of lives every year. And this is really all anyone is advocating for.

Register your guns. Learn how and when to used them, properly. Obtain a license for them that shows you have registered them and that you know how and when to use them. And expect to lose that license if you show yourself to be socially irresponsible.

It's not rocket science, and it's not a denial of the citizen's right to own a gun. It's simply the imposition of social responsibility in regards to deadly weapons.

Gun safety is taught to children in the public schools. Gun registration was used in Germany to take away the Jews guns. If you are socially irresponsible, then they do take away your gun. I do not think white people should be blamed for the violent crimes the non-whites commit in America. As a matter of fact, Europe has had an increase of violent crimes from letting Muslims into their countries.

 

[CherubRam]

It is no secret that Muslims kill white people as infidels, because they are white.

 

[PureX]

Gun safety is taught to children in the public schools.

Children have no business using guns. They should be taught to stay away from them.

I'm not talking about gun safety. I'm talking about gun regulation. I'm talking about having to learn the legal particulars of how and when a person can use a gun to hunt, in self-defense, and in defense of other people and property. I'm talking about learning how to use different kinds of guns with proficiency, and how to clearly identify a target before shooting. And how to HIT what one is shooting at. And proving these skills to obtain a license to own and use firearms of specific designs. Similar to the way we must study and test to obtain a license to drive specific types of motor vehicles. And I'm talking about in-depth background checks that weed out drunks, drug addicts, wife beaters, stalkers, convicted criminals, the mentally unstable, terrorist sympathizers, and anyone else who has shown themselves to be persistently socially irresponsible. No license: no guns. Get caught, and pay severely.

Otherwise, anyone who can show themselves to be socially responsible, mentally and physically able to use a firearm properly, and willing to abide by the rules applied to their use, could easily obtain a license for whatever type of firearm they choose to own and use. Just as we do with motor vehicles.

Gun registration was used in Germany to take away the Jews guns.

I really couldn't care less what the Germans did. This is not Germany. This is not 1930. And no one is proposing taking guns away from Jews.