# Gun Nuts Attack Gun Nut **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 24, 2007, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494 "2007-02-24T09:42:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/201 "2007-02-27T09:17:10Z")
Interesting. How did you see the text of my quote? It appears blank to me. Is it something wrong on my end? Let’s see if fixing the quote tag somehow makes it appear. [QUOTE=lowbrass] These guys are all _about_ disingenuous. I wouldn’t even bother trying to argue with him. He’ll just ignore any salient point you make and try to wear you down with a barrage of bullshit NRA talking-points. [/quote] Can you give an example in which I ignored a point that was made and just talked over it? Can you give an example of a disingenuous argument I’ve made here? You paint me with this brush, but there’s all this text here, all these things I’ve said - why not make an actual case instead of just insult me? > [@](#): > > And believe me - they’ve got plenty of them. They spend an inordinate amount of time sitting around coming up with disingenuous arguments because they’re obsessed with guns. No matter what you say, he’ll just continue to shout that _his_ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is right and dismiss any contrary opinions out-of-hand as “ignorant”. Not at all. I haven’t fully flushed out why I believe certain arguments to be flawed, because I have in previous threads. We’ve had pages-long threads that focus on these issues specifically, and I didn’t want to refight them at length, so I only stated what I believed to be the most reasonable conclusion from them. I’ll find those threads later and post links. > [@](#): > > Why bother? You’re never going to change their minds; they already think they have all the answers. :rolleyes: Not at all. Above all, I form my opinions through reason. I was not pro-gun when I got into the issue, and I have the rational arguments are all that keep me that way. If someone were able to present a compelling case that I was wrong, I’d be willing to listen and re-evaluate my world views. You make many assumptions about me that are dead wrong. As far as gun registry/confiscation cites, I’ll find them later too. [QUOTE=lowbrass] Until you come to the word “militia”, that is. 😉 [/QUOTE] “Militia” does not refer to a federally run organized military force - in fact, when you look at the reasons for having a militia, it’s precisely the opposite. The second amendment, written in the 1790s does not refer to the national guard, formed in the 1920s (give or take a decade, I forget). The idea makes little sense because the militia was meant to be a fighting force made up of the general populace, rather than a centralized, organized, government-controlled army or military force which could be used to oppress. So, to try to say that the National Guard, which is technically a division of the US federal armed forces, fills that role is absurd. The roles are very much opposed. It takes a whole lot of willfull ignorance to believe that “the right of the people” in the other amendments means, well, the right of the people, and “the right of the people” in the second amendment means the right of a branch of the federal military. Again, I’ll find some threads covering this debate in more detail. > [@](#): > > It’s kind of tough, and I understand that. Firearms are difficult to classify. A .45acp is not the same as a .45 colt. But a .223 is the same as a 5.56. Technically a little wrong on both counts 🙂 The ACP in .45 ACP stands for “automatic colt pistol” - generally, “colt .45” and “.45 acp” and just “.45” mean the same thing. The 5.56 and .223 are practically identical and interchangable but technically not. The 5.56x45 follows a military specification for the cartridge, length, headspace, pressure, etc. and the .223 follows a commercial one. In practice, though, they’re pretty much interchangable. [QUOTE=Czarcasm] I’ve read it. Would the “organized militia” in our favorite amendment [/QUOTE] The second amendment makes no mention of an organized militia, in the sense that it’s run by and controlled by government. If you simply read the works of the people who write and signed it into law, it was clear that militia was meant to remove the need and risks associated with an organized military force controlled by government. You’re probably getting hung up on the “well-regulated” part, which is an unfortunate choice of wording. The way that it was used has since fallen out of favor over the centuries. In 18th century parlance, you could, for example, regulate a clock. Which meant that you had it in good working order. Not that it was subject to regulations. It makes little sense to create an unorganized militia so that it wouldn’t be subject to government control, and then give the government the ability to control it (and disarm it). As Cecil says [here](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html): “But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.” [QUOTE=Lizard] No shit. That’s what makes it a _cottage industry._ You probably don’t happen to notice all the pot being grown in your neighborhood, either. [/quote] Well, you insist that one exists, despite no evidence, and the likely fact that we’d hear about it if such a thing did. > [@](#): > > If you admit the crimes are sensational and rare, how can you slam the media for covering them? Are you kidding? You don’t have to be a gun advocate to hate the way the media portrays sensationalist things anyway. There are lots of things that are rare and sensational, and not necesarily all of them are negative and violent, which the media will pass up because it doesn’t fit their agenda and/or they’re only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The way the media latches on to small, but isolated and tragic stories, and then covers them endlessly is disgusting. We could start a thread that covers the many ways in which modern media is generally disgusting. > [@](#): > > You obviously did not read the .pdf files I linked to. I’M not the one who characterized it as easy; in the case of the Glock pistol modification, the BATF’s own page says the modification to full auto can be done in 60 seconds with no tools. Does it get easier than that? Okay, I’ll read them in a bit. > [@](#): > > Again, yes and no. It’s not true automatic weapons aren’t disproportionately more powerful, but the difficulty in obtaining them does appear to make them uneconomical for most criminals to use. The difference between one of these weapons and a non-automatic weapon is the difference between being shot once and being shot three times. A WWII-era Browning Automatic Rifle in .30-06 could punch 20 thumb-sized holes right through both sides of a police car, as well as anyone inside or behind it, in 3 seconds. So could an M60 machine gun in 7.62 NATO caliber, or ANY automatic weapon in these calibers. A semi-automatic hunting rifle in the same caliber might only put 10 or 15, but they’d be more well aimed and controlled. If I had an assault rifle, for most situations, I would never make use of the fully automatic mode of fire, because it has limited uses and is inefficient and generally worse for most purposes. Soldiers are trained to, in most situations, only use the semi-automatic mode of fire, because aimed, controlled fire is more effective for most situations. If I had to fight a criminal with an assault rifle (what a silly scenario), I’d prefer him to use fully automatic rather than semi-automatic fire because he’s likely to be minimally trained and the danger he’d pose to me would actually be less that way. > [@](#): > > The Federal Firearms Act of 1934 was passed specifically to address organized gangs armed with automatic weapons who were wreaking havoc. Think of it this way: If you were going into a gunfight with someone armed like that, would you want your only weapon to be a 9mm handgun? No, I’d probably want my weapon to be a semi-automatic rifle, which, even if I had an automatic fire capability, and I’m more well trained than the average person in using that, I’d still keep it on semi-auto. Could anyone with military infantry experience chime in and explain that fully automatic fire out of a rifle isn’t the preferred method of use, but only for specific situations? Edit: How did a missing quote closing tag make the entire post dissapear? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/202 "2007-02-27T10:48:59Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] Can you give an example in which I ignored a point that was made and just talked over it? [/QUOTE] Not so much you specifically, but I made a fairly detailed post about three pages back that got completely ignored by everyone… ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/203 "2007-02-27T17:03:11Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] you screwed up your closing of your **Czarcasm** quote. Mods can delete this post when they fix SenorBeef’s post if they want. I guess you could just leave it as is instead, lol. [/QUOTE] This is exactly right. Thanks for the assist, **CarnalK**. **SenorBeef** , I fixed the quote tag in one of the original instances of your post and deleted another of them. I think I’ll leave the double post, since there’s a bit of discussion about the problem. Also, I’m hoping it will raise awareness of the quote tag problem. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/204 "2007-02-27T17:26:18Z")
Thanks. Is that a new thing with the new software version? I haven’t seen anything like that before. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/205 "2007-02-27T17:31:00Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] Thanks. Is that a new thing with the new software version? I haven’t seen anything like that before. [/QUOTE] I’d assume, as it only started happening when we moved to the new server, but I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/206 "2007-02-27T20:01:55Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] As Cecil says [here](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html): “But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.” [/quote] What’s silly is to think that the framers would insert a clause for no reason whatsoever. If the intent was simply to ensure the right to own a gun for personal self-defense, it would _say_ that. That’s clearly NOT what the framers were trying to convey. Yet that’s the number one reason cited by gun enthusiasts as to why they think they need to own guns. This is just one of the disingenuous arguments gun-advocates make. The second clause is perfectly clear, so I’ll just ignore the first clause. Doesn’t work that way. People who argue that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to own any kind of gun you want, for personal self-defense, don’t have a leg to stand on. Yet they continue to shout that anyone who disagrees with them is “ignorant”. I see it as a difference of opinion, yet virtually every gun-enthusiast whose opinion I’ve heard sees it as “I’m right and you’re stupid”. [Braces for a barrage of NRA talking-points] ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/207 "2007-02-27T20:36:36Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] Are you kidding? You don’t have to be a gun advocate to hate the way the media portrays sensationalist things anyway. There are lots of things that are rare and sensational, and not necesarily all of them are negative and violent, which the media will pass up because it doesn’t fit their agenda and/or they’re only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The way the media latches on to small, but isolated and tragic stories, and then covers them endlessly is disgusting. We could start a thread that covers the many ways in which modern media is generally disgusting.? [/QUOTE] Oh please. Perhaps you don’t know, but I WORK in the media. I get so tired of all this talk about “agenda” from every Tom, Dick and Harry who doesn’t like what they read or hear. You can’t admit something is “sensationalistic” and then turn around and blame _the media_ for how it’s portrayed! You can’t have it both ways without being intellectually dishonest. Is there any way to relate the events at Columbine or the [North Hollywood shootout](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout) in a dry, factual manner? Should nobody get excited when criminals take weapons and mow down dozens of people? Is there a “good” spin we should be putting on things like that? As for appealing to the lowest common denominator, well, yeah. That’s called “business.” Wal-Mart does it. General Motors does it. So does Microsoft. They all want to maximize their number of customers. Should they feel guilty about it too? You have a pretty confused understanding of the words you’re using. Being rare or violent is what _makes_ some things sensationalistic, and there is no way to relate these events with any honesty without portraying their native sensationalism. Sex or violence grab people’s attention; I don’t hear YOU denying you watch or read any of this sensationalism you’re so offended by. Welcome to the lowest common denominator! We’ll assign you to the “right-wing media-conspiracy theorist” section. > [@](#): > > If I had an assault rifle, for most situations, I would never make use of the fully automatic mode of fire, because it has limited uses and is inefficient and generally worse for most purposes. Soldiers are trained to, in most situations, only use the semi-automatic mode of fire, because aimed, controlled fire is more effective for most situations. I wonder how many criminals have been through U.S. Army basic training? > [@](#): > > If I had to fight a criminal with an assault rifle (what a silly scenario) Really? The [North Hollywood shootout](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout) doesn’t seem very silly to me. Nor does the [Symbionese Liberation Army](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army). From the first article: “The gunmen were firing rifle rounds from illegally-modified fully automatic assault rifles … the suspects’ weapons were capable of severely wounding officers and bystanders through cement walls and automobiles.” From the second: “After several other attempts to get anyone else to leave the house, a member of S.W.A.T. fired tear gas projectiles into the house which was answered by heavy bursts of automatic gunfire …” > [@](#): > > I’d prefer him to use fully automatic rather than semi-automatic fire because he’s likely to be minimally trained and the danger he’d pose to me would actually be less that way. Are you thinking at all about the difference between the work of a police officer and the work of a soldier? Just where are all the dozens of extra bullets this criminal fires going to end up? A soldier has to stay alive and kill the enemy; a cop has to PROTECT the public. A bullet from any rifle can go a mile or more. Would you want your kids to be standing around where those bullets are landing? > [@](#): > > Could anyone with military infantry experience chime in and explain that fully automatic fire out of a rifle isn’t the preferred method of use, but only for specific situations? Could anyone explain the difference between your average criminal and your average gunnery sergeant? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/208 "2007-02-27T22:18:40Z")
[QUOTE=Lizard] Could anyone explain the difference between your average criminal and your average gunnery sergeant? [/QUOTE] I suppose that this might put this thread beyond the point of no return, if it’s not there already, so I’ll say this as nicely as I can: I’m doing my very best to give you the benefit of the doubt here, that you really didn’t mean to ask this question. The alternative is utterly unspeakable. I don’t trust myself to say more than that. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/209 "2007-02-27T22:26:02Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] I suppose that this might put this thread beyond the point of no return, if it’s not there already, so I’ll say this as nicely as I can: I’m doing my very best to give you the benefit of the doubt here, that you really didn’t mean to ask this question. The alternative is utterly unspeakable. I don’t trust myself to say more than that. [/QUOTE] Seeing as how you are USAF you should also be pissed off at **Quartz** who wants to shoot pilots: > [@](#): > > That F18 can’t fly if the pilot’s been killed. back in post 11. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/210 "2007-02-27T22:28:28Z")
[QUOTE=Lizard] Could anyone explain the difference between your average criminal and your average gunnery sergeant? [/QUOTE] IMO, you have nothing further to contribute to this, or any, conversation. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/211 "2007-02-27T22:30:12Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] What’s silly is to think that the framers would insert a clause for no reason whatsoever. If the intent was simply to ensure the right to own a gun for personal self-defense, it would _say_ that. That’s clearly NOT what the framers were trying to convey. Yet that’s the number one reason cited by gun enthusiasts as to why they think they need to own guns. This is just one of the disingenuous arguments gun-advocates make. The second clause is perfectly clear, so I’ll just ignore the first clause. Doesn’t work that way. People who argue that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to own any kind of gun you want, for personal self-defense, don’t have a leg to stand on. Yet they continue to shout that anyone who disagrees with them is “ignorant”. I see it as a difference of opinion, yet virtually every gun-enthusiast whose opinion I’ve heard sees it as “I’m right and you’re stupid”. [Braces for a barrage of NRA talking-points] [/QUOTE] What’s disingenuous is your refusal to read not only freely available history, as well as what others have posted, and seriously contemplate them. The militia at the time of the framing was comprised solely of the people, showing up with their own weapons, shot, powder, supplied by themselves at their own cost, kept in their own homes, and used for other lawful purposes as well, such a hunting, recreational shooting, home/self defense, etc. This was pretty much the state of affairs right up to (and partly through) the Civil War, when militias were, of wartime necessity, outfitted and armed by the US Government. These militias performed well enough (20th Maine? Little Round Top?) that the idea was formed to regularize their training and equipment, leading up to their becoming the National Guard of the United States in 1903. The National Guard and Air National Guard are part opf the US Dept. of Defense, under the Army and Air Force, respectively. They are regular federal troops, just like their active duty counterparts, and are recognized as the “organized militia.” They are at the disposal fo the states until such time as they are activated for Federal service, at which time they are full time federal military troops. See Perpich v. Dept. of Defense. Contrast those with the various State Defense Forces, which are much closer to the classic, Colonial-era militias. The “well-regulated militia” spoken of in the first-half of the Second _ **is** _ “The People” spoken of in the second-half of the Second. When the militia is called forth in times of emergency, they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and subject to obey all lawful orders pertaining to training, equipment, deployment, conduct, and operations, thus being “well regulated.” You cannot continue to ignore the overwhelming historical evidence of this and continue to bandy about such words as “disingenuous” concerning those with opposing views in this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/212 "2007-02-27T22:30:52Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] Seeing as how you are USAF you should also be pissed off at **Quartz** who wants to shoot pilots: back in post 11. [/QUOTE] No. One is a statement of objective fact, one is a statement demonstrating that one cannot tell the difference between a member of the military and a criminal. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/213 "2007-02-27T22:36:08Z")
[QUOTE=ExTank] What’s disingenuous is your refusal to read not only freely available history, as well as what others have posted, and seriously contemplate them. [/QUOTE] And there you go - ExTank doesn’t just disagree, he implies that I’m stupid and ignorant. That’s why these kinds of discussions are a waste of time - the arrogance of the pro-gun crowd is just astounding. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/214 "2007-02-27T22:39:23Z")
[QUOTE=ExTank] IMO, you have nothing further to contribute to this, or any, conversation. [/QUOTE] Another example. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/215 "2007-02-27T22:58:39Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] And there you go - ExTank doesn’t just disagree, he implies that I’m stupid and ignorant. That’s why these kinds of discussions are a waste of time - the arrogance of the pro-gun crowd is just astounding. [/QUOTE] I won’t imply it, I’ll state it outright. For the reasons **ExTank** stated. You refuse to even read those facts that might disabuse you from your silly position. Arrogance, meet **lowbrass** , who is stupid and ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/216 "2007-02-27T23:09:34Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] And there you go - ExTank doesn’t just disagree, he implies that I’m stupid and ignorant. [/quote] I never said you were stupid; where you pulled that from is beyond me. As far as you being ignorant, well, your continued misunderstanding of the meaning of the term “disingenuous” is beginning to change my mind on that account. [QUOTE=lowbrass] That’s why these kinds of discussions are a waste of time - the arrogance of the pro-gun crowd is just astounding. [/QUOTE] Arrogance? Have you perhaps looked into a mirror lately? ( **Sensor** beat me to this, dammit!) I understand how difficult that may be, with your head jammed so far up your ass that people can honestly and without hyperbole call you shit-for-brains. [QUOTE=lowbrass] Another example. [/QUOTE] I’m not the one comparing career noncommissioned officers of the United States Marine Corps with “the average criminal;” from where I’m coming from, it’s morally no better than saying, “Every nigger is a crackhead.” I will accept neither as an argument, and condemn both equally. Until an apology, retraction, or explanation is provided by **Lizard,** I will not consider anything else he has to contribute to this or any other discussion. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/217 "2007-02-27T23:20:56Z")
[QUOTE=ExTank] The militia at the time of the framing was comprised solely of the people, showing up with their own weapons, shot, powder, supplied by themselves at their own cost, kept in their own homes, and used for other lawful purposes as well, such a hunting, recreational shooting, home/self defense, etc. [/quote] By the way, I’m going to point out the flaw in your reasoning (not that it will do any good). Everyone agrees that some people that participated in militias supplied their own weapons, so you don’t need to point that out as though we didn’t know it. But here’s your flaw: You state that they used them for other “lawful purposes”. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THOSE OTHER PURPOSES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. Please note that the opening clause is NOT: “Hunting, recreational shooting and home/self defense being necessary…” Both sides of the debate agree that some people provided their own guns to participate in state militias in the colonies, and that to the extent that they participated in militias, they had the right to bear arms (a term which refers exclusively to the use of weapons in _military service_). Where we disagree is where gun-enthusiasts believe that this _transfers_ into an unconditional right, in modern times, to own a gun for PERSONAL self-defense or recreation, for a person who is not in nor has ever participated in, a militia. It’s a legitimate issue of contention, yet the pro-gun folks are completely arrogant about their point of view, and make baseless claims that anyone who disagrees with them is ipso facto “ignorant”. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/218 "2007-02-27T23:22:46Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] I won’t imply it, I’ll state it outright. For the reasons **ExTank** stated. You refuse to even read those facts that might disabuse you from your silly position. Arrogance, meet **lowbrass** , who is stupid and ignorant. [/QUOTE] Just as I predicted… Pro-gun attitude: “You disagree with me; therefore you can’t read.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SherwoodAnderson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@SherwoodAnderson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SherwoodAnderson)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/219 "2007-02-27T23:37:20Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] [QUOTE=Lizard] Could anyone explain the difference between your average criminal and your average gunnery sergeant? [/QUOTE] I suppose that this might put this thread beyond the point of no return, if it’s not there already, so I’ll say this as nicely as I can: I’m doing my very best to give you the benefit of the doubt here, that you really didn’t mean to ask this question. The alternative is utterly unspeakable. I don’t trust myself to say more than that. [/QUOTE] Airman: Lizards question is **clearly** rhetorical and a reductio ad absurdum of sorts of **SenorBeef** ’s argument: that the automatic mode of an assault rifle is not always the most effective use for a soldier on the battlefield hence it is not the most dangerous weapon in the hands of a criminal on the streets. Lizard pointed out elsewhere in the post that the lack of accuracy of the automatic mode is actually another reason why he doesn’t want it on the streets in the hands of a criminal since an inaccurate shot may still hit someone, and that’s what he is alluding to. That should really be obvious to anyone who reads the whole post, and makes me suspect you knew this but went ahead and used your military honor as a tool to intimidate the expression of an opposite view. I hope not, since that would be pretty low, and you can always prove me wrong by acknowledging your mistake and apologize to lizard… ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494/220 "2007-02-27T23:40:26Z")
[QUOTE=ExTank] Arrogance? Have you perhaps looked into a mirror lately? ( **Sensor** beat me to this, dammit!) [/QUOTE] How do you figure? I’ll give you spiteful and insulting, but how have I been arrogant? I conceded that you guys have made points that are legitimate issues of disagreement. I have never contended that that anyone here is ignorant. I think you’re an asshole, and I disagreed with one point of your reasoning, but I never called you stupid or ignorant. I do not pretend that my opinion is the only possible correct one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-attack-gun-nut/393494.md?page=12)