Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As someone who lives in a country where owning fire arms is extremely uncommon, I find the concept of owning fire arms as a necessity for "freedom" as completely bizarre. I mean, I have only lived in western democracies my whole life and owning a gun has never been a part of the national psyche no matter where I have lived. I can only gather that the argument for and against firearms is only symbolic now. But surely more regulation on the ownership of tools designed to kill other human beings can only be a good thing?

Well, gun control laws, as I've said, don't really have much to do with gun violence, which is rooted in things like culture, prevalence of gangs, demographics, and so on.

 

So, what you're really saying then, is you basically just wanna ban guns because you don't like them.

 

I mean, well.. fair enough. At the end of the day, that's why most liberals want to ban guns (though they won't admit it), just because they don't like the culture of the people that tend to own them, and so they wanna piss them off and take something away from them. It's basically the same mentality a lot of conservatives have when it comes to, say, abortion. A lot of their support against it, though they won't admit it, has to do with simply pissing off feminists and liberals, because they don't like their culture, and a little dose of slut shaming as well.

 

Odine, you've provided a perfect example of how most liberals and conservatives ultimately have the same type of reasoning. In other words, I don't like xyz, and so let's just ban it, whine bitch moan, *shakes fist*, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hear all the time about how us gun grabbing 2nd amendment supporters are causing mass deaths by gun violence every year. If we would just give up our guns everyone would be safer. I say BS. It's not

I've found that freedom almost exclusively means "people I like being able to do what I like, and people I don't like not being able to do anything."

Kurgan, you are failing to see the obvious solution to this 2nd Amendment problem. When the originalist, plain-text reading of the Amendment lends it a sort of anachronistic tone, we need to bring it

As someone who lives in a country where owning fire arms is extremely uncommon, I find the concept of owning fire arms as a necessity for "freedom" as completely bizarre.

One example is the freedom to choose what kind of 911 call to place.

 

Option A- "There is a crazy meth-head trying to break into my house. If you get here quick enough, and I wiggle to his liking to make the rape enjoyable and longer lasting, you may get here soon enough to save my life."

 

Option B- "There is a crazy meth-head trying to break into my house. If you get here quick enough you may be able to save HIS life."

 

I have known very few people involved in shootings, but here is a news story on one of them. There are a lot of cases where guns are misused, this isn't one of them.

 

http://m.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/machete-brandishing-man-charged-with-six-felonies/article_859cc1de-a0da-11e3-851b-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm

 

There are a lot of long and contentious arguments about the role of firearms in a free society. Most times arguing doesn't change a persons stance in the slightest.

 

I honestly don't care that much what they do in other states, but ever time they start talking about nation-wide gun reform I get a bit nervous. I hate to see people depend on the federal government for everything. The way things are going we may as we'll just redraw the U.S. as one big state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's why most liberals want to ban guns (though they won't admit it), just because they don't like the culture of the people that tend to own them, and so they wanna piss them off and take something away from them. It's basically the same mentality a lot of conservatives have when it comes to, say, abortion. A lot of their support against it, though they won't admit it, has to do with simply pissing off feminists and liberals, because they don't like their culture, and a little dose of slut shaming as well.

Is this based on your feelings or something more tangible? I almost hope you're right because it seems an easier thing to expose and get by. I've always felt it's more that they truly do not understand the necessity in either. To most liberals-it's that they don't see the need to own anything beyond a BB gun and with the conservatives, if you don't want a baby, you just don't have sex-why would anyone need an abortion, then?

 

It actually goes back to culture! If you don't know anything about another's life and how they live it-it makes relating to them impossible without effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

that's why most liberals want to ban guns (though they won't admit it), just because they don't like the culture of the people that tend to own them, and so they wanna piss them off and take something away from them. It's basically the same mentality a lot of conservatives have when it comes to, say, abortion. A lot of their support against it, though they won't admit it, has to do with simply pissing off feminists and liberals, because they don't like their culture, and a little dose of slut shaming as well.

Is this based on your feelings or something more tangible? I almost hope you're right because it seems an easier thing to expose and get by. I've always felt it's more that they truly do not understand the necessity in either. To most liberals-it's that they don't see the need to own anything beyond a BB gun and with the conservatives, if you don't want a baby, you just don't have sex-why would anyone need an abortion, then?

 

It actually goes back to culture! If you don't know anything about another's life and how they live it-it makes relating to them impossible without effort.

 

I think it's a bit more complicated. A lot of progressive/liberal people are truly scared of guns (this is my feeling). I think this can be tied to what draws people to that ideology: harm avoidance and equality are the top two values of many people who call themselves "liberal;" speechwriters and strategists have long known and exploited this and a growing number of social scientists are now exploring this phenomena as well.

 

Assuming you don't carry a gun on your person (very likely), does somebody else walking around with a gun not represent an almost visceral apex of inequality and potential harm?

 

Now this is the core. I think it is true belief. But then you bring in the "other:" these callous, superstitious primitives who dress funny, talk funny, live funny, and don't seem to even care that the sticks-that-make-bloody-holes are killing our nation's children at an alarming rate. For the most part, your friends and neighbors don't have much interest in guns, but these people who live elsewhere in the country in their backward manner all seem to be clinging with ferocity! What is wrong with them? Are they evil, or just stupid? Opposition to these troglodytes and frustration at not being able to budge them to the side of sanctified reason, not even a centimeter -- despite them clearly being on the wrong side -- eventually creates the deathmatch mentality that leads to giggling whenever things don't go the trogs' way.

 

So while it does indeed become a culture war and a game of sticking it to.... them, at its core, I do believe opposition to normal people owning firearms stems from the harm avoidance/equality fetish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As someone who lives in a country where owning fire arms is extremely uncommon, I find the concept of owning fire arms as a necessity for "freedom" as completely bizarre. I mean, I have only lived in western democracies my whole life and owning a gun has never been a part of the national psyche no matter where I have lived. I can only gather that the argument for and against firearms is only symbolic now. But surely more regulation on the ownership of tools designed to kill other human beings can only be a good thing?

Well, gun control laws, as I've said, don't really have much to do with gun violence, which is rooted in things like culture, prevalence of gangs, demographics, and so on.

 

So, what you're really saying then, is you basically just wanna ban guns because you don't like them.

 

I mean, well.. fair enough. At the end of the day, that's why most liberals want to ban guns (though they won't admit it), just because they don't like the culture of the people that tend to own them, and so they wanna piss them off and take something away from them. It's basically the same mentality a lot of conservatives have when it comes to, say, abortion. A lot of their support against it, though they won't admit it, has to do with simply pissing off feminists and liberals, because they don't like their culture, and a little dose of slut shaming as well.

 

Odine, you've provided a perfect example of how most liberals and conservatives ultimately have the same type of reasoning. In other words, I don't like xyz, and so let's just ban it, whine bitch moan, *shakes fist*, etc.

It's not that I don't like it and I lose sleep over it or anything, or want guns to be banned. I just find the whole 'gun ownership is a right' thing ****ing weird. Even weirder are the people who want to buy M16s, fully automatic machine guns and hand cannons. I mean, it doesn't really affect me at all so... Whatever. Were I to reside in such a country where it would affect me, Pong's last post pretty much summed up how Id feel about the issue more eloquently than I could put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

No reason at all for full auto for home defense, and most civilians who would be prone to buy a full auto is either a gang banger up to no good or a hyuck, hyuck redneck militia POS Glenn Beck listener from Montana or Idaho for no other reason than "just becuz." Sorry, you can't convince me of a logical, well thought out justification for anyone other than law enforcement or military to EVER possess full auto. If you believe that fully auto weapons should be open to the public, then fine, but I am just going to have to agree to disagree and write you off as an effing hillbilly militiaman running around in a forest with a gigantic beer gut and ZZ Top beard, trying to add some meaning to their otherwise worthless existence. Sorry, that's just the way it is.


I have only been able to find 2 cases of murders committed with legally owned automatic weapons since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. One of those was by a law enforcement officer.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

I only know 1 person with a class 3 weapon. He is more like a historian than a "hillbilly militiaman". He can discuss the virtues of the old Mauser actions for hours on end. His house is like a museum. What harm is caused by a person like that owning a Thompson?

The process for purchasing a class 3 weapon is far more involved than anything a military recruit goes through. I just don't see a problem with legal ownership as currently regulated. I personally have no desire to own one, but each to his own.

 

The line has to be draw somewhere, and like I said, if the argument for owning firearms is self protection against crack heads, how is owning a semi auto AR15, or Berretta 92, both civilian versions of actual military weapons, or a Glock 19 or a Remington 870 shotgun which are weapons commonly used by law enforcement agencies all over the US, somehow inadequate? Why do we need fully auto weapons, which were originally designed for combat? Why do we need 50 cal weapons designed to shoot down airplanes during wartime? I mean just because cars can go 100MPH plus and some find it fun to drive at that speed and may be even race car drivers and can do it, doesn't mean we need to have 100MPH speed limits.Look, if you live in Crackville, USA and it is so dangerous that you feel you need weapons of war, and find weapons of law enforcement inadequate, wouldn't the best choice then just to MOVE??

 

Let's look at the National Firearms Act in 1934. It was passed BECAUSE people were abusing fully auto guns like Tommy guns, and BARs. Where did these guns come from? Well, the Tommy gun was developed for WW1, but not in time to be used for the war. So what did the manufacturer do? Sold to the public. Anyone with cash, and people with cash back then were bootleggers and other criminals. Even back then, it was recognized that fully auto weapons are too much firepower and exceeds simple self defense purposes, and were weapons that had surpassed the original conception of the second amendment. So, a law was written to counter act that.

 

Many freedoms we enjoy have limits for safety, and when it was found a freedom has been abused, legislation is passed to place limits on those freedoms. Firearms are no different. I am not arguing for gun grabbing, I am arguing that there is absolutely no reason for fully auto weapons or weapons with such high caliber (IE firearms designed to shoot down airplanes or punch through armored vehicles) so as to punch through walls and hurt innocent people, have no place in a civilized society, and should not be legal.

 

Does that suck for the very fringe minority of people like your friend who owns a Tommy gun? Sure, but if the argument is his house is like a museum, then maybe those guns need to be deactivated and displayed IN a museum, OR maybe he needs to downgrade his weapons to be semi auto. Just as I am sure there are people who are race car drivers who can handle driving on freeways 100+mph, so to there may be people who are responsible with fully auto weapons. But in a civilized society, there is no need for either, and for the greater good of that society, limits need to be imposed to reduce potential danger. When it comes of firearms, my limits are no fully auto weapons (or mechanisms that allow for bump firing) or excessively high calibers owned by civilians at all, and I have yet to see an argument to convince me otherwise.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The line has to be draw somewhere, and like I said, if the argument for owning firearms is self protection against crack heads, how is owning a semi auto AR15, or Berretta 92, both civilian versions of actual military weapons, or a Glock 19 or a Remington 870 shotgun which are weapons commonly used by law enforcement agencies all over the US, somehow inadequate? Why do we need fully auto weapons, which were originally designed for combat? Why do we need 50 cal weapons designed to shoot down airplanes during wartime? I mean just because cars can go 100MPH plus and some find it fun to drive at that speed and may be even race car drivers and can do it, doesn't mean we need to have 100MPH speed limits.Look, if you live in Crackville, USA and it is so dangerous that you feel you need weapons of war, and find weapons of law enforcement inadequate, wouldn't the best choice then just to MOVE??

 

Let's look at the National Firearms Act in 1934. It was passed BECAUSE people were abusing fully auto guns like Tommy guns, and BARs. Where did these guns come from? Well, the Tommy gun was developed for WW1, but not in time to be used for the war. So what did the manufacturer do? Sold to the public. Anyone with cash, and people with cash back then were bootleggers and other criminals. Even back then, it was recognized that fully auto weapons are too much firepower and exceeds simple self defense purposes, and were weapons that had surpassed the original conception of the second amendment. So, a law was written to counter act that.

 

Many freedoms we enjoy have limits for safety, and when it was found a freedom has been abused, legislation is passed to place limits on those freedoms. Firearms are no different. I am not arguing for gun grabbing, I am arguing that there is absolutely no reason for fully auto weapons or weapons with such high caliber (IE firearms designed to shoot down airplanes or punch through armored vehicles) so as to punch through walls and hurt innocent people, have no place in a civilized society, and should not be legal.

 

Does that suck for the very fringe minority of people like your friend who owns a Tommy gun? Sure, but if the argument is his house is like a museum, then maybe those guns need to be deactivated and displayed IN a museum, OR maybe he needs to downgrade his weapons to be semi auto. Just as I am sure there are people who are race car drivers who can handle driving on freeways 100+mph, so to there may be people who are responsible with fully auto weapons. But in a civilized society, there is no need for either, and for the greater good of that society, limits need to be imposed to reduce potential danger. When it comes of firearms, my limits are no fully auto weapons (or mechanisms that allow for bump firing) or excessively high calibers owned by civilians at all, and I have yet to see an argument to convince me otherwise.

I know why the NFA was passed. I also know that it was nearly 100% successful. How many civilian owners of full auto weapons have used them to commit crimes since then? How many soldiers have used theirs to massacre entire villages? I trust the civilians who are able to pass the background checks necessary to obtain a class 3 firearm a whole lot more than a soldier. I went through MEPS in 99', I know what a joke their "psychological and moral exam" is. Your fear of legally owned automatic weapons is unfounded. You are worried about a problem that was solved 80 years ago, as you clearly are aware based on your knowledge of the NFA.

 

As for your car example, why not just use the same solution you have for automatic weapons? Ban all sports cars. There is no legitimate need for them unless you are law enforcement or a closed circuit race car driver is there? Force the guy with the 67' Chevelle SS to either make the car non-functional, put it in a museum, or replace the 396 with a 4-banger. After all, anyone who thinks performance sports cars should be available to the general public must be a redneck alcoholic Kyle Busch wannabe, or compensating for a tiny dick right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

I know why the NFA was passed. I also know that it was nearly 100% successful.

No it wasn't. Allowing civilians access to fully automatic weapons or high caliber weapons, like .50 caliber rifles is a loophole, as far as I am concerned. In my view, there is no reason for civilian access to those weapons. And you have not provided any argument to persuade me otherwise.

 

 

I went through MEPS in 99', I know what a joke their "psychological and moral exam" is.

Thanks for the 15 year old anecdote. However, that is less than meaningless.

 

I trust the civilians who are able to pass the background checks necessary to obtain a class 3 firearm a whole lot more than a soldier.

Just an opinion. Neither more or less valid than my opinion.

 

Your fear of legally owned automatic weapons is unfounded.

If it were unfounded, why would there be regulations at all?

 

How many civilian owners of full auto weapons have used them to commit crimes since then?

Irrelevant, as far as I am concerned, since I don't think they should have them in the first place.

 

 

You are worried about a problem that was solved 80 years ago, as you clearly are aware based on your knowledge of the NFA.

Clearly, I don't think it was solved, because I am of the opinion that ZERO fully automatic weapons, or high caliber weapons strong enough to bring down aircraft or punch through armor should be available. Again, you have failed to provide a good answer why they should remain legal to civilians.

 

 

As for your car example, why not just use the same solution you have for automatic weapons? Ban all sports cars. There is no legitimate need for them unless you are law enforcement or a closed circuit race car driver is there? Force the guy with the 67' Chevelle SS to either make the car non-functional, put it in a museum, or replace the 396 with a 4-banger. After all, anyone who thinks performance sports cars should be available to the general public must be a redneck alcoholic Kyle Busch wannabe, or compensating for a tiny dick right?

Apples and oranges. And by the way I was talking about speed limits, not cars specifically. All drivers of cars, regardless of horsepower, are required to obey speed limits. As for changing engines...um you are aware that engine size doesn't always equate to high horsepower, right? A '67 396 chevelle was only rated at 325-375 hp, depending on version. There are 4 cylinders that can double that, whereas there were 1970s 350 v8s in camaros that barely made 170 horsepower. So your logic doesn't hold up there.

 

But you do make a good point. There should be a limit on how much horsepower a car can have on the street. What horsepower would you say is sufficient? 100? 200? 300? 500? Depends on the weight of the car, and terrain it drives on, doesn't it?

 

That said, I'd trust a guy driving a mustang or camaro over some civilian who NEEDS an automatic rifle "just becuz" but can't logically justify why it is necessary in a civilized society. If the guy in a sports car has a small dick, what does that say about the gun nut from Montana's penis? Nonexistent, maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one support a more liberalized gun culture. I think there should be fewer restrictions and taxes on firearms. I have no problem with people owning fully automatic weapons or even artillery and explosives. Would society be less safe? Almost assuredly. But I think more people dying is not really that big of a deal, given how overpopulated the planet is becoming. I honestly value a government that takes a laissez-faire approach to people's private lives more than I value societal safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are worried about a problem that was solved 80 years ago, as you clearly are aware based on your knowledge of the NFA.

Clearly, I don't think it was solved, because I am of the opinion that ZERO fully automatic weapons, or high caliber weapons strong enough to bring down aircraft or punch through armor should be available. Again, you have failed to provide a good answer why they should remain legal to civilians.

 

I thought the lack of crime committed with them was a good answer. Not what you were looking for I guess.

 

 

As for your car example, why not just use the same solution you have for automatic weapons? Ban all sports cars. There is no legitimate need for them unless you are law enforcement or a closed circuit race car driver is there? Force the guy with the 67' Chevelle SS to either make the car non-functional, put it in a museum, or replace the 396 with a 4-banger. After all, anyone who thinks performance sports cars should be available to the general public must be a redneck alcoholic Kyle Busch wannabe, or compensating for a tiny dick right?

Apples and oranges. And by the way I was talking about speed limits, not cars specifically. All drivers of cars, regardless of horsepower, are required to obey speed limits.

 

So when it comes to cars you are willing to trust the citizens to be responsible and follow the law (even though they have proven not to be), but with automatic weapons you aren't (even though they have proven themselves responsible for the last 80 years). You say you aren't a gun grabber. You really are.

 

We obviously are not making any ground here. We aren't looking at this from the same perspective. We will simply have to disagree and leave it at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

I thought the lack of crime committed with them was a good answer. Not what you were looking for I guess.

No it's not because it doesn't answer the questions I've repeatedly asked. I asked why are fully auto or calibers high enough to defeat armor and bring down airplanes even necessary to be owned by civilians inour society. You failed to provide a single reason. I asked if the goal is self defense, why a semi-auto civilian version of a military or law enforcement, or weapons that are under calibers that DON'T punch holes in armor or bring down airplanes, isn't sufficient. You failed to answer that as well. They were pretty straight forward questions. Instead, you cloud the discussion with sports cars, and other off topic minutia.

 

 

So when it comes to cars you are willing to trust the citizens to be responsible and follow the law (even though they have proven not to be), but with automatic weapons you aren't (even though they have proven themselves responsible for the last 80 years). You say you aren't a gun grabber. You really are.

 

 

Again, irrelevant and a bad analogy on your part. Because ,by your logic, the only way to prevent any abuse of vehicles is to ban them all. Are you saying you are a car grabber then? Get real, because I don't believe for a second you would give up your car.

 

And by the way, the reason the NFA, by your own implication, has been so successful is because it is so difficult to obtain a class 3. It has effectively made civilian purchases of fully auto or extreme caliber weapons very difficult and expensive to obtain. You create a false dichotomy by saying that low crime statistics is a result of trustworthy class 3 gun owners. It's not. Its because there are so few of them. What I am saying is that the NFA has proven that society doesn't need these weapons around and there is no logical argument for such weapons to be in society in the first place, so why not just close the loophole altogether. In other words, the NFA has been so successful, there is no reason not to take it one step further, and set the limit at not allowing civilians to possess full auto or hyper caliber weapons. It's my opinion no private citizen can justify having that kind of firepower anyway, when semi auto does the job just fine, if the argument is self protection. We need only look to what happens when they are illegally obtained and illegally used to see the danger outweighs any benefit (which you fail to provide, anyway).

 

Incidentally, a gun grabber is one who wants them all banned. That is not what I am advocating at all. All I am saying is that in a society such as ours, that there should be reasonable gun limits. Does that sound like a gun grabber? Hell I OWN firearms myself. By the way, if you support back ground checks and the prevention of sales to criminals or mentally unstable people, and you think I am a gun grabber, then by your logic, you, too, are a gun grabber.

 

 

We obviously are not making any ground here. We aren't looking at this from the same perspective. We will simply have to disagree and leave it at that.

I said as much in post #22. Yet for some reason, you keep pushing the issue, but fail to answer direct questions put to you. Instead, you muddy the waters and deflect with false dichotomies and flawed analogies.

 

I for one support a more liberalized gun culture. I think there should be fewer restrictions and taxes on firearms. I have no problem with people owning fully automatic weapons or even artillery and explosives. Would society be less safe? Almost assuredly. But I think more people dying is not really that big of a deal, given how overpopulated the planet is becoming. I honestly value a government that takes a laissez-faire approach to people's private lives more than I value societal safety.

See, I cannot agree with you at all here. But, I can at least respect your honesty on the matter. Unlike Marc, and a lot of gun enthusiasts, you at least admit there is no benefit to society having such weapons. That is twisted and insane in my view, but at least you have an honest opinion. The problem with people like Marc, I suspect they secretly feel the same way, but they are just not being honest and upfront about it. They instead, choose to divert attention from the topic with straw man arguments and fail to provide a reason why they think such weapons belong in the hands of civilians, beyond just saying "why not?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought the lack of crime committed with them was a good answer. Not what you were looking for I guess.

No it's not because it doesn't answer the questions I've repeatedly asked. I asked why are fully auto or calibers high enough to defeat armor and bring down airplanes even necessary to be owned by civilians inour society. You failed to provide a single reason. I asked if the goal is self defense, why a semi-auto civilian version of a military or law enforcement, or weapons that are under calibers that DON'T punch holes in armor or bring down airplanes, isn't sufficient. You failed to answer that as well. They were pretty straight forward questions. Instead, you cloud the discussion with sports cars, and other off topic minutia.

 

I love to go out long range target shooting. The .50 BMG is an ideal cartridge for shots of 1000 yards or more. It's high ballistic coefficient and large bullet weight mean it maintains velocity for longer ranges and has much less drift from wind. That to me is plenty of justification to own one.

 

 

So when it comes to cars you are willing to trust the citizens to be responsible and follow the law (even though they have proven not to be), but with automatic weapons you aren't (even though they have proven themselves responsible for the last 80 years). You say you aren't a gun grabber. You really are.

Again, irrelevant and a bad analogy on your part. Because ,by your logic, the only way to prevent any abuse of vehicles is to ban them all. Are you saying you are a car grabber then? Get real, because I don't believe for a second you would give up your car.

 

Of course I don't want to ban cars. I was pointing out the flaw of your own analogy. You were claiming the fact that people have to follow speed limits when driving as justification for banning automatic weapons. When it comes to cars you think laws governing their operation are sufficient. With automatic and large caliber weapons you think banning them outright is the answer.

 

 

And by the way, the reason the NFA, by your own implication, has been so successful is because it is so difficult to obtain a class 3. It has effectively made civilian purchases of fully auto or extreme caliber weapons very difficult and expensive to obtain. You create a false dichotomy by saying that low crime statistics is a result of trustworthy class 3 gun owners. It's not. Its because there are so few of them. What I am saying is that the NFA has proven that society doesn't need these weapons around and there is no logical argument for such weapons to be in society in the first place, so why not just close the loophole altogether. In other words, the NFA has been so successful, there is no reason not to take it one step further, and set the limit at not allowing civilians to possess full auto or hyper caliber weapons. It's my opinion no private citizen can justify having that kind of firepower anyway, when semi auto does the job just fine, if the argument is self protection. We need only look to what happens when they are illegally obtained and illegally used to see the danger outweighs any benefit (which you fail to provide, anyway).

You think they should have to justify some reason to own them. I think this is supposed to be a free country. If you want to take away freedoms you have to prove there is sufficient need.

 

 

 

Incidentally, a gun grabber is one who wants them all banned. That is not what I am advocating at all. All I am saying is that in a society such as ours, that there should be reasonable gun limits. Does that sound like a gun grabber? Hell I OWN firearms myself. By the way, if you support back ground checks and the prevention of sales to criminals or mentally unstable people, and you think I am a gun grabber, then by your logic, you, too, are a gun grabber.

My point is that we already have "reasonable gun limits". You want to take away weapons (automatic and high caliber) from law abiding citizens without any justification other than "they don't need them". That is gun grabbing.

 

 

We obviously are not making any ground here. We aren't looking at this from the same perspective. We will simply have to disagree and leave it at that.

I said as much in post #22. Yet for some reason, you keep pushing the issue, but fail to answer direct questions put to you. Instead, you muddy the waters and deflect with false dichotomies and flawed analogies.

 

You are simply looking at this from the perspective that we are not a free people, and should therefore have to justify any liberties allowed to us. I am looking at this from the perspective of a free man. If you want to take freedoms from me the burden is on you to justify that. You can't, so you try to deflect that burden onto me.

 

 

I for one support a more liberalized gun culture. I think there should be fewer restrictions and taxes on firearms. I have no problem with people owning fully automatic weapons or even artillery and explosives. Would society be less safe? Almost assuredly. But I think more people dying is not really that big of a deal, given how overpopulated the planet is becoming. I honestly value a government that takes a laissez-faire approach to people's private lives more than I value societal safety.

See, I cannot agree with you at all here. But, I can at least respect your honesty on the matter. Unlike Marc, and a lot of gun enthusiasts, you at least admit there is no benefit to society having such weapons. That is twisted and insane in my view, but at least you have an honest opinion. The problem with people like Marc, I suspect they secretly feel the same way, but they are just not being honest and upfront about it. They instead, choose to divert attention from the topic with straw man arguments and fail to provide a reason why they think such weapons belong in the hands of civilians, beyond just saying "why not?"

 

What benefit is there to society from coin collections and gaming consoles? Is that what you think we should judge what is legal or illegal by? The benefit to society? "Why not?" is exactly the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I love to go out long range target shooting. The .50 BMG is an ideal cartridge for shots of 1000 yards or more. It's high ballistic coefficient and large bullet weight mean it maintains velocity for longer ranges and has much less drift from wind. That to me is plenty of justification to own one.

No it's not. Not when that same round can literally saw an arm in half. Excessive force for a simple task of target practice. Do you swat flies with a sledge hammer, too? Refer to Post # 22 for further clarification on my thoughts of such opinions.

 

My point is that we already have "reasonable gun limits". You want to take away weapons (automatic and high caliber) from law abiding citizens without any justification other than "they don't need them". That is gun grabbing.

And my point is they aren't reasonable, because no civilian should own a fully auto or high caliber. As far as I am concerned "they don't need them" far outweighs " just becuz." Again, you fail to offer a single logical reason military grade weapons designed for killing people by the bushel or destroying armored vehicles and aircraft of war should be accessible to civilians that are law abiding. Why is it so important to outgun a typical law enforcement agency? No reason to have one unless your goal is to fight/train to fight the government of this nation, serve as a mercenary, or to murder as many people as you can, all of which are illegal to do. When civilian grade and law enforcement grade weapons are readily available to provide self defense and target practice, it's not gun grabbing because a reasonable and suitable alternative is readily available. It's the same thing as complaining you can't drive to work because you aren't allowed to own an M1 Abrams tank, when cars and trucks are everywhere for you to own.

 

You are simply looking at this from the perspective that we are not a free people, and should therefore have to justify any liberties allowed to us. I am looking at this from the perspective of a free man. If you want to take freedoms from me the burden is on you to justify that. You can't, so you try to deflect that burden onto me

Well, we never DID have absolute freedom. Go wave your .50 BMG in front of your local police station and see what happens.

Of course I don't want to ban cars. I was pointing out the flaw of your own analogy. You were claiming the fact that people have to follow speed limits when driving as justification for banning automatic weapons. When it comes to cars you think laws governing their operation are sufficient. With automatic and large caliber weapons you think banning them outright is the answer.

Apparently you didn't understand the point of the analogy I originally made. Speed limits in cars =rate of fire in firearms. I thought that was self evident. It was you that diverged on some tangent about banning sports cars. Hence why your analogy is flawed.

 

 

What benefit is there to society from coin collections and gaming consoles? Is that what you think we should judge what is legal or illegal by? The benefit to society? "Why not?" is exactly the point.

Um, maybe because coin collections and gaming consoles never killed anyone? A "Why Not" answer is such an absurdly simplistic answer. If it saves one human life, which apparently you don't value, it's enough to ban fully auto and excessive caliber weapons. Even in your citation of "only 2 instances" is enough justification to ban them as far as I am concerned.

 

I would be afraid to allow someone with your mentality to have a BB gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I love to go out long range target shooting. The .50 BMG is an ideal cartridge for shots of 1000 yards or more. It's high ballistic coefficient and large bullet weight mean it maintains velocity for longer ranges and has much less drift from wind. That to me is plenty of justification to own one.

No it's not. Not when that same round can literally saw an arm in half. Excessive force for a simple task of target practice. Do you swat flies with a sledge hammer, too? Refer to Post # 22 for further clarification on my thoughts of such opinions.

 

A saw can literally saw an arm in half as well. So can most large bore hunting rifles. Who cares?

 

 

Of course I don't want to ban cars. I was pointing out the flaw of your own analogy. You were claiming the fact that people have to follow speed limits when driving as justification for banning automatic weapons. When it comes to cars you think laws governing their operation are sufficient. With automatic and large caliber weapons you think banning them outright is the answer.

Apparently you didn't understand the point of the analogy I originally made. Speed limits in cars =rate of fire in firearms. I thought that was self evident. It was you that diverged on some tangent about banning sports cars. Hence why your analogy is flawed.

 

You are having a really hard time with this for some reason. Setting a speed limit does not make the car incapable of exceeding that limit. You are depending on the driver to be responsible and not exceed that limit. Banning automatic weapons is completely different. If you were talking about putting governors in every car to limit the speed then maybe your analogy would make some sense.

 

 

What benefit is there to society from coin collections and gaming consoles? Is that what you think we should judge what is legal or illegal by? The benefit to society? "Why not?" is exactly the point.

Um, maybe because coin collections and gaming consoles never killed anyone? A "Why Not" answer is such an absurdly simplistic answer. If it saves one human life, which apparently you don't value, it's enough to ban fully auto and excessive caliber weapons. Even in your citation of "only 2 instances" is enough justification to ban them as far as I am concerned.

 

I would be afraid to allow someone with your mentality to have a BB gun.

 

Luckily your opinion means exactly the same as mine, jack ****.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

A saw can literally saw an arm in half as well. So can most large bore hunting rifles. Who cares?

Except you can't exactly go on much of a killing spree with a saw, and most large bore hunting rifles don't have the rate of fire of machine guns or the capability of bringing down aircraft. A concept you seem to have trouble understanding.

 

 

 

Luckily your opinion means exactly the same as mine, jack ****.

 

 

Indeed. And since we are at an impasse, where neither of us will convince the other, I am done in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FASCINATING stuff in here-probably our most successful gun debate ever!

 

I'd like to know, from everyone in this thread-what is your goal? No matter what your stance is-if you had ultimate power; what would you do regarding guns, legally and WHY-what outcome do you hope for-and be specific on that last part, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know, from everyone in this thread-what is your goal? No matter what your stance is-if you had ultimate power; what would you do regarding guns, legally and WHY-what outcome do you hope for-and be specific on that last part, please.

As I've said above, I'm personally indifferent. I've lived in both places with strict gun control and no gun control. I couldn't care less.

 

Like all social issues, the only reasonable and practical solution is to just let individual localities determine their own policy. Most social issues have their root in contrasting cultural animus, and those issues are then used by national politicians, or rather- exploited, I should say, to trick masses of people into voting for national party blocs.

 

There's no way to get two people with a vastly differing cultural background and vision of how society should operate to agree. And besides, it's rarely practical either, which is my bigger concern. What works in a rural ranch in Montana where the nearest Sheriff is 80 miles away, may not work in Manhattan, and vise versa.

 

As I said above, this is what this debate is about (and social issues):

 

I mean, well.. fair enough. At the end of the day, that's why most liberals want to ban guns (though they won't admit it), just because they don't like the culture of the people that tend to own them, and so they wanna piss them off and take something away from them. It's basically the same mentality a lot of conservatives have when it comes to, say, abortion. A lot of their support against it, though they won't admit it, has to do with simply pissing off feminists and liberals, because they don't like their culture, and a little dose of slut shaming as well.

The only way to practically solve that solution is to have no national policy whatsoever.

 

 

I advocate this approach for pretty much every social issue, most of which I tend to be indifferent on as well. I could go into much more detail, but I would leave national policy making to only issues that effect the true national interest, such as international trade, national defense, health care, the national system of taxation, interstate infrastructure (i.e. interstate highways, canals, etc), and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know, from everyone in this thread-what is your goal? No matter what your stance is-if you had ultimate power; what would you do regarding guns, legally and WHY-what outcome do you hope for-and be specific on that last part, please.

I have no goal.

 

If I had ultimate power, I would legalize guns of all type and strongly encourage my citizens to own and be educated about guns. I would, however, require more stringent background checks on individuals, as well as a training course and registration for scarier guns.

 

Exceptions:

 

1) If you deemed crazy or are on any sort of medication for any mental condition or even any medication known to have behavioral side-effects, no guns. Sorry, I don't care about your rights. You don't get them.

 

2) If you ever commit a crime using a firearm, no guns, ever again. I don't care if you have "served your time" or been "rehabilitated." Sorry!

 

I would also legalize dueling with blades and pistols.

 

As far as ultimate outcome, I really don't care if it reduces crime or adds to it. I just personally believe that a society full of armed citizens who know how to defend themselves is a little more independent, a little less likely to be fucked with in the rare instance that some ****ing is to be had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Carrie Mathison and Pong. I do think that it makes sense to have different laws in different places based on the circumstances that exist in them. I definitely agree that more education when it comes to firearms would be good everywhere. And dueling would solve a bunch of problems, let the hotheads kill each other off in a controlled environment.

 

My only goal in this thread was to show that nationwide gun reform wasn't the right answer. In some places there is a very healthy gun culture that is a positive influence in the community. I hate the stereotypes that get thrown around about the gun culture in this country being a bunch of hillbillies running around in the woods dressed in cammo with ar-15s, plotting their revolt against the government. To me the gun culture in America is embodied by people like Philip B. Sharpe, Elmer Keith, and G. David Tubb. Not by Ted effing Nugent.

 

I thought, briefly, about trying to explain what I believe the gun culture in this country to be, but that would be pointless. You either know that there is more to it than the stereotypes, believe them, or don't care.

 

And anyone who would tell me to "Go wave your .50 BMG in front of your local police station and see what happens" has no freaking clue. Waving an interesting rifle around on main street in my town is like waving a bag of weed around at a Greatful Dead concert. Everyone has their own, but they still want to check yours out. I am sure that there are a lot of places where it would send people running for cover, this isn't one of them. Instead of "Put the weapon down and put your hands behind your head", I would be more likely to get "You better have brought more than one box of shells this time you cheap bastard".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this really hits kind of close to home today and this past week.

 

Last week someone sent a bunch of emails to a local school district concerning a Sandy Hook type gun invasion at a the elementary schools in the area. Of course the news got a hold of this and parents were pulling their kids out of school on the Thursday targeted by the email. Nothing happened but a lot of pain in the ass. I had to spend my conference period fielding phone calls from panicked parents and then they only have one door open to the school which made for a long day of just getting on campus without disruption. Lots of police were present too.

 

Then today, a high school near me had a teen who's parents came in to report that possibly the student who had run away taking the weapons Mom and Dad had at home. He planned to make demands from the public broadcast system. He had three guns, one was an AK and a knife. Because his parents thought enough to report him to the police and the school we just had lockdown at this school for about an hour but it was a whole day wasted as kids parents took them out of class and nothing was taught.

 

I own a shot-gun. It's locked up and hidden. I feel it is my right to own this.

 

I do not feel like you need an AK anything to shoot anything.

 

Why was this student able to access guns?

 

I still want to own my gun. But I look at those people who buy or convert guns to fully automatic high round velocity guns like AK-47s and such with the same disdain I would the jackass still driving an Hummer or jacked up pickup to get to work - in the suburbs or cities who's never camped before.

 

It is so worthless and I worry for your sanity if you feel that you need these types of weapons. Not only are you easily swayed to spend money on this, the only way it gets to be used is in a gun range or when its taken by your mentally unstable family member.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're trying that student who's seventeen as an adult. I don't know if his parents are going to be charged.

 

http://www.ksat.com/news/madison-high-school-student-found-with-3-loaded-guns/25694804

 

I live just about two miles from this school.

 

There's a Sandy Hook grandfather who is trying to get gun lockdown rules where you have scan a thumbprint from a special gun rack to gain access to the weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd like to know, from everyone in this thread-what is your goal? No matter what your stance is-if you had ultimate power; what would you do regarding guns, legally and WHY-what outcome do you hope for-and be specific on that last part, please.

As far as ultimate outcome, I really don't care if it reduces crime or adds to it. I just personally believe that a society full of armed citizens who know how to defend themselves is a little more independent, a little less likely to be ****ed with in the rare instance that some ****ing is to be had.

See, I get your point here but I think that the idea of independence being a direct result of firearm ownership is an illusion. It seems to me that firearms are more representative of independence and freedom, because of them being written about as a right in the constitution. And this is in tern interpreted dogmatically by many. The correlation between gun ownership and freedom however, seems (to an outsider like me that is) to be more symbolic than anything. Symbolic in the sense that people view fire arms ownership as integral to their freedom (which if you spend any time in many democratic western societies outside the USA is not the case) and any discourse or opinion contrary to this particular right is viewed as a direct encroachment of their personal freedom. I would argue that freedom hasn't got a thing to do with it, and it's more like taking a toy off a child you already told could have said toy, and then they can't understand why and view it as an encroachment or punitive to their lives. Which isn't really the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any sense. By its definition, "freedom" means being exempt from coercion, interference, control, etc. Any governmental law, by its very definition, restricts absolute freedom in some way, whether large or small. A speed limit restricts your freedom to drive as fast as you want. A law against murder restrict your freedom to kill. Most people are OK with that one, since very few people think someone is entitled to the freedom to kill.

 

So to say gun control laws don't restrict freedom, or are illusory, or is "symbolic," is quite frankly, nonsensical gibberish. Of course gun control laws restrict freedom, that is to say, those laws restrict the freedom of an individual to possess and use a gun.

 

Now, you may think that particular freedom isn't very important, or that the government has a strong interest in restricting that freedom, or that people are silly for caring about that freedom, or that you don't think that freedom is necessary for human happiness, or whatever. And there are arguments for all of those. But if that's what you think, then you should just say that, instead of what you said above, which is not precise, and in fact, is wrong, and mostly unintelligible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd like to know, from everyone in this thread-what is your goal? No matter what your stance is-if you had ultimate power; what would you do regarding guns, legally and WHY-what outcome do you hope for-and be specific on that last part, please.

As far as ultimate outcome, I really don't care if it reduces crime or adds to it. I just personally believe that a society full of armed citizens who know how to defend themselves is a little more independent, a little less likely to be ****ed with in the rare instance that some ****ing is to be had.

See, I get your point here but I think that the idea of independence being a direct result of firearm ownership is an illusion. It seems to me that firearms are more representative of independence and freedom, because of them being written about as a right in the constitution. And this is in tern interpreted dogmatically by many. The correlation between gun ownership and freedom however, seems (to an outsider like me that is) to be more symbolic than anything. Symbolic in the sense that people view fire arms ownership as integral to their freedom (which if you spend any time in many democratic western societies outside the USA is not the case) and any discourse or opinion contrary to this particular right is viewed as a direct encroachment of their personal freedom. I would argue that freedom hasn't got a thing to do with it, and it's more like taking a toy off a child you already told could have said toy, and then they can't understand why and view it as an encroachment or punitive to their lives. Which isn't really the case.

 

I'd say that in the vast majority of cases, it is more symbolic than anything. It's got more to do with the culture you identify with and the kind of society you think you want to live in -- and even then, it's mostly window dressing.

 

So I agree with you there.

 

To say it's not really an encroachment or punitive... eh, maybe not "punitive," but by definition it encroaches on personal freedoms. Just because you don't want those shiny steel baubles and wouldn't mind giving the up doesn't mean other people feel the same.

 

-------

 

On a personal note: I have never been a gun owner, have never had any desire to own a gun, never got that much out of shooting despite being told I'm quite good at it. But I'm buying a house in a crap part of town in a few months, filling it with tens of thousands of dollars worth of musical instruments and recording equipment, and I'm not sure I trust my Poodle or any security system to keep people's grubby paws outta there. So I'll probably buy a bazooka and praise Allah daily for the 2nd Amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.