Philosophically (not politically) speaking...

Philosophically, the people of a free nation shouldn't fear so much for their safety that they must bear arms at all times. Philosophically, a person should have faith that they will be safe going out in public and that they won't be gunned down in a random hail of gunfire.

Not all killing is murder
State forces are a)not always available and b)able to be used to oppress the citizenry

killing in most places is illegal, whether intended or not

But individuals can also oppress other individuals

because the poor white trash middle class can't own guns
This right is reserved to politicians, CEOs and celebrities

what if the very institutions that keep your safety become tyrannical?

And a state can oppress everyone

This.

Not as easily as a state can, and the oppressed individual can, in turn, defend himself from other individuals. See: defending from criminals
Not killing in self defense

The right to bear arms isn't a question that should be considered in the individual sense (I like vs I don't like it)
This is strictly a question of piratical (real life) protection of your own life.

If it was for my personal liking no one would own guns but since I know human nature every human should have the right to own guns.

What did he mean by this?
t. middle class

An individual with any level of organization can do the same
That just encourages more violence

Violence is a legitimate response to violence

I'm sorry but you are white trash
You should EDUCATE yourself about this
youtube.com/watch?v=jgUhOM1E_8c

Which individual has an equivalent level of organized coercion as a state

Isnt it preferable, then, to have one single entity perform the necessary violence so the individuals don't?

Not always possible or desirable

Any cartel leader

rephrase to killing and limit the circumstances of legal killing to ordinary citizens (i.e. not servicemen or law enforcement...ect)
Depends on the nation and in the case of the US the state. However, there are plenty of other non-lethal methods that are effective for self defense. So I ask you again, why should people have the right to own tools designed to kill?

False

Okay, prove to me that in every case its possible or desirable for the state to justly and promptly use violence in lieu of an individual actor.

You don't respond by grabbing guns that's for sure.
You stop paying taxes, appeal to an international body to depose the current government by holding a transparent and unfalsifiable vote, and put laws in place to preemptively knock down any tyrannical government

The state is a cartel

We already have a nice thread here, pls don't start this shitstorm again.

No, having a single entity with a monopoly on violence never leads to anything good
see: deadly dictatorships in the 20th century
>non lethal alternatives are effective
No
A citizenry needs to be armed to the same extent that criminals/invaders/tyrants are armed

It's preferable for the individual because he then has no need to commit violence by himself, which is axiomatically good

brainlet spotted

>put laws in place
What if the tyrant ignores the laws?
What if the international community is unwilling to help?
What if it happens like most dictatorships of the last 100 years, and your institutions are turned against you?

>. However, there are plenty of other non-lethal methods that are effective for self defense.

But a cartel is not a state
See the many phrases in many cultures that '100 years of tyranny is preferable to a single day of anarchy'
Liberty is inherently unstable

So it would be preferable for someone being assaulted in a rural area to call the police and wait until help arrives rather than grab his gun and save his own life?

>Liberty is inherently unstable
>US has literally had continuous constitutional government for more than two centuries
>UK has had it for more than three
>Netherlands is pushing up on five

>Why can't the state be every man?

Not him, but a cartel can act like a state with a local monopoly on violence

Also those cultures must be shit then, because liberty is the most universal human desire

Wrong, there won't always be a nanny to commit violence for you, and you need the right to do it yourself

On average, yes
If we're speaking in purely theoretical terms, then you could just increase the scope of state enforcers

They can be there needs to be reasons restrictions. No, you don’t need a fucking machine gun that can mow down 50 people in 10 seconds. What the fuck would you use that for? The Founding Fathers would never let you keep that.

If we don’t settle this debate now, years from now, hicks will be making the argument that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own a laser plasma rifles that can disintegrate buildings.

Do you think that would be the opinion of the person being assaulted?

Let's see if you're intellectually honest or not.

Machine guns have been banned in the US since 1986 though.

You can only have the ones that were registered before that, and you have to have the law enforcement bodies of all three levels of government sign off on it.

>cartel
>an organization based around acquiring and distributing illegal shit

Wew lad
Ok, what guns do you think shouldn't be allowed?

Americans are scary as fuck, I once heard an interview with a leader of a pro gun organization and he said that, when sitting at a restaurant, he always faced the entrance and has his back against the wall in case someone attacks and otherwise he wouldn't feel safe. Like what is their fucking problem?

A cartel is not a state though. It just acts like one
>liberty is a universal desire
Imagine being this much of a Whig
>there won't always be a nanny
In practical terms yes, but that's not what we're discussing
Constitution =/= liberty.
If we're talking on purely philosophical levels that's not a concern

You don't get it
It's not about muggings or self defense
It's about the ability to oppose the government if it ever comes to that

>What if the tyrant ignores the laws?
In this scenario he has been deposed by a citizen uprising and a military coup
>What if the international community is unwilling to help?
There are very few cases where an internarional body won't step in, from South Sudan, Yemen, Sri Lanka, international politics want stability
>What if it happens like most dictatorships of the last 100 years, and your institutions are turned against you?
Granted the process takes a few years but we see in Turkey and Hungary that dictators are reviled by the general public and the country as a whole suffers under their rule leading to sweeping reform when the dictator is ousted

Self defense against a government is still self defense.

Ultimately, the second amendment is the logical expression of the right to self defense.

He probably wouldn't be happy. I fail to see the relevance
Surely you agree many cartels are quite violent
Why would I?

If it’s automatic it needs to go.

Ok, since we're not arguing practicality, let's assume there's a police officer at every corner 24/7 and the response time for any crime is measured in seconds
That would eliminate the concern for self defense against criminals, yes?
Now i argue that guns are still necessary to keep a balance of power between the government and the people, and prevent the government (or any other organization) from keeping a monopoly on violence

>He probably wouldn't be happy. I fail to see the relevance
You answered yes spuriously and without empathy so long as it confirmed your bias

But why? Why does there need to be a balance in power in a theoretical society?
I still fail to see the relevance.

Define "automatic"

One shot per trigger pull?

Multiple shots per trigger pull?

criminals being the largest and for first world nations the only plausible threat: Take this into consideration, your populous has strict firearms laws, circulation of firearms is thereby curtailed by the lack of legal private ownership and by extension the sale of firearms from private owners to others (transaction being legal or not) which may be used in illegal activity since the sale is unofficial. Now because there is a lack of circulation of firearms, criminals now resort to using 'lesser' weapons and ordinary law enforcement now use non-lethal tools and better tactics to subdue criminals.

Now try a population with lenient gun laws, where individual citizens with permits (or in some cases not needing them) can stockpile weapons legally, now these citizens may be good folk with no intention of committing violent crime with their weapons, however, a few get the bright idea that they can make a profit from buying legally and selling illegally to undesirables, whom wish to stay off the system of registered or legal gun sales BECAUSE they intend to use the guns for nefarious purposes. Now you have an armed criminal class.

Tell me, which scenario do you feel makes a place safer to live in?

Okay
Because you value your ideals more than your life?
I agree
The revolutions in eastern europe that removed communism are a good example of citizens using weapons to bring about political change and enact the will of the people

That's based on the claim that the government will eventually infringe on your liberties. This is an accurate statement, but it's an empirical historical one, not a philosophical one.

Because SHALL

No.

>your populous has strict firearms laws
>yadda yadda yadda criminals don't get guns
brazil and mexico would like to have a word with your, my friend

I’ll admit I’m no gun expert so for all I know you could be baiting me into a contradiction. With that said it should be one bullet per trigger pull. Pistols and hunting rifles.

>it should be one bullet per trigger pull
Why?

Listen Scalia if the founding fathers didn't want me to have a nuclear bomb they would have written that into the constitution

>why is a balance of power needed
So that either (especially the government) side doesn't go overboard and start oppressing people
I see your point, but let's look at it this way
The options are:
1. Zero guns, everyone is safe
2. Some guns, criminals have guns and can cause major damage
3. Everyone has guns, criminals are rendered ineffective, since every "victim" cand defend themselves

Option 1 and 3 are safe, but only options 2 and 3 offer the citiznery a means to defend itself against the government aswell
So the sad truth is that freedom is not safe, amd safety is not free

yeah, my post said first world countries

those do not count

Are history (reality) and philosophy inherently separate?

What about a first-world country makes it so that banning firearms automagically reduces crime rate? Are you referring to Britain and Australia? Because firearms bans in those countries didn't have any measurable effect on the crime rate.

Why do you need anything more?

One bullet per trigger pull is called semi-automatic.

This is the most popular type of firearm in America.

Multiple bullets per trigger pull is called fully automatic, the registry for those has been closed since the Reagan administration.

A firearm isn't automatic at all if you have to work a bolt or otherwise cycle it manually in between each shot.

When people forget their martial spirit, they outsource violence to a detached minority of professionals who can become more easily controlled by the ruling class. Should that ruling class chose to use that armed minority against the population, there is little that an unarmed populace can do to stop them

Because the government has it and I have the right to defend myself against the government. Having a fully automatic firearm also serves as a pretty nice deterrent against criminals when they realize how outgunned they'd be if they came at you with pistols. Also, we don't operate under the assumption that you're only allowed to have things that you absolutely "need" anyways.

>i'm no gun expert
>but I still have an opinion on them
k e k

Good post

And I'm not a chef but I have an opinion when a dish is bad

theoretically you're not wrong on those options but in the real world all you need to do is look at statistics in the UK versus US or Aus vs US or even Aus pre gun control to post Aus gun control.

The government situation is a null point in first world countries with advanced technologies. If they ever wanted a hostile takeover they'd have it. You may have an AR-15 with the works but against an enemy that could kill you without ever leaving the comfort of their bunker your resistance is futile, especially since the majority of any populous is not willing to fight against its own government/armed forces

I'm going to give you the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rephrase that without using a food analogy.

I'm not a lawyer but I know when my rights are being violated
Idiot

it had an effect on the type of crime and crime related death.

>Because the government has it and I have the right to defend myself against the government.

Nigga stop this hick shit. When the 2nd Amendment was written the country was still young and could easily fall into re hands if a tyrant or some stringer foreign power. That’s not applicable nowadays. And if the government really wanted to come after you, your gun won’t do anything against a drone or the national guard. They have thermonuclear bombs, do you think you’re entitled to that too?

Right. Thanks for the information.

>the government situation is a null point
Governments are not as all-powerful as you think they are. Extrajudicial killings with weapons that are infamous for collateral damage (drones) generally don't work that great against your own citizens.
No, it did not.
Yeah, cuz the government is going to nuke its own soil. Right.

I'm pretty sure any government desperate enough to use nuclear weapons on its own citizens and soil is pretty much well on its way out

I'm not gonna take you on that technology argument because it's way too complicated to explain occupation and why ground forces are needed and "drone strikes" can't police a population.
But can tell you that the fun ban had little to no effect on Australian murder rates, the decline had been going on since the turn of the century and the rate decline kept steady after the ban

You don’t need to know the inner workings of a gun to know that people shouldn’t be running around with them.

People always bring up oppressive government but I have one question: what about when the people don't give a shit about that and aren't even trying to rebel, even when the system is oppressive? Mao was terrible, but China never had anything close to real counter-revolutionaries until long after he died. As long as you create a populace that is content, they stop caring about individual liberties.

>to know that people shouldn't be running around with them
*to know that criminals shouldn't be running around with them

Not him but that's a moot point as a government willing to nuke its citizens is probably already nuking everyone else and civilization itself is done for.

>mao
>content populace
What a meme
They were starving so they couldn't do shit about their government

you're speaking a false-dichotomy. 'content' isn't a term in political science

Criminal can still get weapons so why can't the evey day law abiding citizen to protect themselves from them

They don't matter, because they don't have the vision and ambition to pursue a political agenda.

In the long term, they can be manipulated by whoever is in charge.

do you have statistics to prove that crime related death stayed the same after gun control?

Also it's not just drones, they have air and sea control. Long range precision weapons as well as a monumental economic and logistical advantage
Not too sure what time period you think you're living in but no militia is going to take down a functioning first world government in this day and age.

>'content' isn't a term in political science
I'm not talking about political science, I'm just talking about reality. People that don't know any better or who just want food aren't going to ask for more than food.

>They don't matter
They matter when there's a billion of them