T Nation

Liberty Control


Once upon a time there was a nice little thread over in the Get a Life Forum entitled "Handgun Lovers". While most of the nice folks posting there stayed with the theme, singing the praises of their personal sidearms, somebody had to spoil it with a snide remark about how handguns have no other purpose than to kill people, and calling other posters "gun nuts".

To my discredit, I rose to the bait, along with others of my armed brothers, and before long the thread devolved into a gun control debate.

To correct this oversight, Here is a new thread, where freedom lovers and hoplophobic maniacs alike can discuss the matter to their hearts' content.

I shall lead off first by stating my position. I believe that as a free man, I have the right to protect myself, my family, my friends and my country from violent attack, by whatever means necessary. Hopefully the situation will not require the use of deadly force, but in the event that it does, I believe I have the right to arm myself with an appropriate weapon, train myself in its efficient use, and use this weapon effectively to stop the attack.

The weapon I choose is not really the point, but just for the sake of argument, I choose a powerful and concealable handgun.

I truly have no desire to take human life indiscriminately, but I will kill if failure to do so means that I or someone I love will suffer or die as a result.

I further declare that any man or woman who would attempt to deny me these rights is not only my enemy, but the enemy of all free men and women, of the very idea of personal liberty, and of the Constitution of the United States.


Now, who is with me, and who is against me?


Count me in. And it doesn't extend only to the 2nd Amendment.

The PC police, the ACLU, has put a stranglehold the free exercise of religion, and free speech clauses. The press thinks they are bullet proof and have bastardized the freedom of the press clause to give them god-like status.

As for the 10th Amendment - The Fedseral government has totally raped that one from having any real meaning anymore. And that is indeed very sad. People want to bitch and moan about PATRIOT Act - but have willingly signed there rights over to the Fed without so much as a protest.


Not to slam your post based on gun control but we just had this discussion a little over 2 months ago started by me. You can refer to my link at the bottom if you would like peoples' responses I don't know how willingly most of them will restate their stance so quickly.



2nd. Ammendment gives you the ability to defend the rest so I'm in.

V you write some good stuff. I enjoy your posts even though I don't see eye to eye all of the time.

The pistol thread was a good topic. Bunch of gun guys talking shop. Some of those clowns are against everything, all of the time, and will endlessly tell you about it. I honestly skip right over them but someone else referenced the original so I went back and read them. Same old shit different topic.

Like the .45 !!


Im with you.

and I love the term hoplophobe...


Also wanted to post this quote from one of my favorite icons in the American story. Its amazing how timeless it is.

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." Samuel Adams, 1771


I'm not a gun lover. I hunted a little as a teenager and have fired a few different guns, and while they're kinda cool, guns just don't float my boat. Having said that, I think gun control is utterly useless at best and steps on personal liberty, at worst. Stats show that gun control does nothing to lower gun related crime. Conversely, while there is a small corrolation between more guns and less gun related crime, a closer look at the stats show no causation.
The bigger concern for me is those people who feel we should ban guns simply because they are inherently dangerous. How they miss the fact that this becomes a very slippery slope astounds me. Where do you stop? and for that matter where do you begin? For exmample, if you own both a gun (any kind) and a swimming pool, statistics show your child is over 100 times more likely to die in the pool than by the gun. So what which then is inherently more dangerous. How about recreational vehicles or even cars for that matter.
The best we can do is education, education, education and accept that the cost of personal liberty is the acceptance that we may kill ourselves or someone else if we're not responsible with our "inherently" dangerous stuff.


I'm with you Brother! I've been a cop for 15 years plus and from day one I have always believed the old adage, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." I love guns! Especially BIG GUNS. As for handguns there is plenty to do with them besides killing people. You can kill small or large furry creatures and eat them. If thats not your bag, you can go out and plink at targets. It's good clean American fun and anyone who doesn't like it should just leave it alone. Furthermore, if we started executing murderers and rapists I bet there'd be much less crime. It's a fact that in every state where there is a carry conceal law there is less crime!


Gun control doesn't work, just ask anybody who lived in Toronto this summer.


I am with you. The right to bear arms is as important to a free society as the right to free speech.

An armed society is a polite society.



AMEN again!


Last September I started a thread on deadly force by posting an article regarding a homeowner shooting a naked intruder with lube in hand. Noticeably absent were anti-handgun posters.


I recently read one of the most balanced reviews of the history and effect of handgun licencing in the U.S. According to Snyder, the author of the article, the original intent of handgun licencing laws was to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and immigrants.


Of course, one of the most comprehensive studies ever done on the effect of handgun licensing is the Study done by John Lott. In a nutshell, Lott found more guns, less crime. John R. Lott Jr. and David B Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," Journal of Legal Studies 26 (1997).

I don't expect the anti-handgun posters will read the studies I referenced. But I posted them any way.

Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils


I don't know too much about handguns, other than I think they're just damn cool.

I agree that every house should have a gun. I'm more of a rifle guy- I think they are truly works of art, especially the older ones. But any government that takes the guns from its citizens is certainly not a free one.

In NJ, getting a carrying permit is damn near impossible. I don't know whether to support this or not, being as guys from Paterson or Newark have'em anyway, and don't really care about that law, as if they are going down, it aint for not having a permit.

However, I'm not real comfortable with regular folks carrying guns everywhere I go either. I just don't have that much faith in people to do the right thing.

Overall though, that is my only issue with guns. Whether we should have them or not is not even a question to me. When you take a man's gun, you take the ultimate check and balance, not too mention an essential right to protect himself.


The above statement is the peak of Absurdity. I can only hope Zap doesn't mean it serious.

Here in Europe it is rather complicated to obtain a Handgun. And where are no guns, no one can be shot. It is that simple.
In the US of A every moron can get a gun, so it seems you just have to get one yourself to feel kinda safe.

Oh sure, there are european gangsters with pistols, but I guess for every armed criminal here you have thirty in the States.
Here in Germany, we've had one whacko going postal in his highschool.He was shooting around heavily armed, killing himself in the end. That was around 2002.

It was a totally new situation, so everyone found this very disturbing and the question was raised, if we had to make the law even more strict to prevent gun abuse.
The thing is: In America, people are so gun-crazy , they demand the opposite, saying, an armed determined teacher could have ended this quick.

This is where I see the difference - On the one side are people like Mr. Zap, who believe that everyone should aim at each other's head, ensuring a nice society through fear of retribution.
On the other hand ... how about just having a nice society without guns?

Apart from this, I'm just like every guy, meaning I find guns way cool.


This is ridiculous. No, not everyone "has to get one to feel kinda safe". I don't have one. I feel plenty safe.

But the point is, there is no reason to not be able to obtain a handgun if it is within legal parameters. I think 90% of people who have a gun in their house haven't actually shot anyone with it. But to have a gun to protect your family, just in case is an absolute right. Maybe that's just an American thing. But it don't bother me at all.

I think it would deter someone from breaking into houses if they knew most people had a gun in the house- just the thought is enough to make them want to find an easier target.

Listen, I don't know how things are in Germany. Maybe you guys are more peaceful than us moronic Americans. But either way, I live on the border of a nasty fucking city. So me having a gun (if I did) would not be something that I would think is irrational.

And where there are no guns except in the hands of the police and the government...well, I don't think that's a very good thing at all.


I think you have been sold a line of B.S. Have you ever tried to purchase a handgun in the U.S.? Spouting untruths is no way to win an argument, or even to make a valid point.

And if we disarmed the public by gutting the 2nd amendment, we will still have armed gangs - and absolutely no recourse for the law abiding public.

I'm sorry if you don't like the rights that we have explicitly enumerated in our constitution. But they are there not only to preserve our personal freedoms, but to insure that our republic remains free of tyranny.


Schwarz: Zap was quoting Robert Heinlein. This is the full quote: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

There in Germany, before World War II, I recall there was a highly prevalent gun culture, with handguns, shotguns and rifles in most households. Although I have no figures, I am assuming random acts of gun violence were quite rare, Germany being a highly civilized and polite society. In the early thirties, however, restrictive gun control laws were passed by the new government. First guns were registered, then they were confiscated, then...

Well, do I really need to continue?

Not to pick on Germany, the same thing happened in Russia before Stalin's purges, and in China before Mao's cultural revolution.

History seems to be teaching us that fewer personal weapons = a greater probability that government will behave badly.

I'm not sure that is what Mr. Zap believes at all. If all citizens are armed, No "aiming at each others' heads" would be necessary. Take a look across your southern border. Tell me whether the Swiss, who are bristling with automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, are walking around pointing weapons at each others' heads. Now that is a polite society.

Fine. Go create one and live there. I've never been to one, so I'm not sure that such a thing exists. I've been to a few really miserable societies where there are no guns, and many really wonderful societies where there were many guns.

Even here in Japan (a very nice, polite society, by the way), a place famous for its restrictive gun laws, there are guns everywhere. Most of my neighbors own guns, as do I. Not because we want to blow each others' heads off, but because we really, really like the flavor of venison and wild boar.

It is not easy to own firearms in Japan, but people want them, so they get them. Paradoxically, it is far easier for the Yakuza (Japanese Mafia) to get handguns and submachineguns than for the average person to get a .22 rifle. They just smuggle them in from Korea or the Philippines. So gun control laws are entirely ineffective in controlling guns.

Oh, well in that case, juchei! Du bist OK.


Facts aside, believe what you want, my friend.

Here are two things to consider since you are generalizing about all of Europe:

First, Im pretty sure the Swiss will disagree with you about the importance of firearms in a free society. I long discussion with a freedom-loving Swiss gentleman some years ago at a range I frequent. The man was practically a scholar on the founding fathers. In short, he got it.

Second, please read(you dont even need to read the article and trifle yourself with details)...



gun control works! ask the experts. . . Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, just to name a few.

people need to realize that the reason democracy came about was because of the militia in ancient Greece. in a nut-shell, all of the adult males were armed as part-time citizen-soldiers in order to defend their state. this was because the Greek states did not have either the will or ability to create a standing army, yet they still needed to defend their land from greater powers, such as Persia.

with all of these armed citizens around, the authorities realized they needed to give the citizens a voice in government, so as to avoid violent revolution. this was a major turnaround in society, because for once, the government was afraid of the people, not the other way around. it was a great system, because if the govt did not enact the will of the people, they risked their positions and possibly their lives.

compare that to today's watered-down representative govts. if the politicians don't respect the will of the people, they might get voted out of office. so what. a member of another party comes in with mostly superficial differences.

people don't realize the main reason behind the 2nd Amend. was to protect the people from oppression from the govt, with personal protection and protection from foreign powers close behind.

finally, the arming of the populace protects all other rights. i want to clarify that i'm not endorsing anarchy when i say this, but one cannot rely on the law and the courts to protect the people. it was the intention of the founding fathers for ultimate power to rest with the people, and for the people to have the RIGHT and DUTY to overthrow oppressive regimes.


Schwarzfahrer, if you can find one society that doesn't have guns, i'll let you fuck my sister. hell, i'll let you fuck both my sisters.