All I have to say is SenorBeef is an asshole.
Not sure if you are aware, but there is at least a little disagreement on what the 2nd ammendment actually means. But, if the SC ever rules that it applies to individuals rights to own weapons without any sort of govt regulation I am happy to ammend it. If the Russians ever invade, or President Hillary declares martial law, I think the first thing I’d want is my pickup truck so I can head to the hills. Maybe we shouldn’t register them either in case Hillary decides to take them away.
I guess you are right, there is no use for any laws. After all, only law abiding people obey laws.
I’m never sure what “the primary reason for owning a gun” is. Sometimes its hunting, sometimes its target shooting, or battling the black helicopters, or collecting, or having funs with your friends plinking cans. I wish you guys would just pick one and go with it.
Guns themselves don’t scare me when they are in the hands of hunters, target shooters, collectors, policemen. Then there are people that seem to get a hardon talking about what weapons are best to shoot an assailant, what happens if multiple people invade your house, and how to lay down suppressing fire when the ruskies invade. I get the feeling they will be disappointed if they never get to fire their weapon at another human being. Those people scare me.
SenorBeef Are you sure about only the anti-gun side using emotion and fear? Look at these quotes: “how I can maintain my Second Amendment rights while simultaneously having my name on a list that will tell someone exactly where to go when they decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says”
“Is an assailant going to give me a time-out so I can unlock it, load it, and point it at him?”
“how large a database that would be? Oh, yeah, there would be names attached to it as well, invading my privacy and creating a potential list for confiscation”
I’m explaining myself. If you’re convinced, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine too. We can, remarkably enough, agree to disagree. As much as I try to be dispassionate with my arguments on this subject I often fail in doing so. That doesn’t necessarily condemn the argument, however.
I disagree with Sarah Brady and her ideas, but even I can understand why she holds those positions. My opinions might change one day too if my wife or son were shot. But I’m not her. That doesn’t mean that I can’t respect her right to say what she does, but I would request that my stance be given the same courtesy.
But isn’t that the point? The NRA seems unwilling to restrict a “hell of a rifle” because of the slippery slope argument. I’m certainly not that knowledgeable, but aren’t there a lot of rifles that can penetrate two walls each made up of shingles, 3/4" plywood, insulation, and wallboard? Certainly that 50 calibre super sniping rifle could do it
Oh, and sorry for being snarky in my previous post.
Sure, the .50 BMG could do it, at the price of $2,500 per rifle and $1.25 a shot. Not to mention that the rifle is about as cumbersome as you could possibly imagine and stupendously heavy. In other words, totally impractical for defense. You have nothing to worry about in that regard unless your neighbor starts clearing a killing field, in which case I would recommend a call to the police because he’s definitely unhinged.
What for? It’s a passionate topic. I don’t take it personally, I just try to take the passion out of it so it doesn’t become another silly shouting match. Unfortunately, you can’t take the wiseass out of me. 
If you’re curious, this is pretty standard pricing for .50 BMG rounds. Not something you’d want to use regularly unless you were Bill Gates or The Donald.
Why’s that?
This one should be simple. Different people own guns for different reasons. Why does there have to be one reason as if all gone owners are one monolithic entity?
I didn’t say only they did, but that they were more likely to.
No, I look at that as a philosophical viewpoint. If you believe that second amendment exists in order to prevent the government from having a monopoly on force so that the people could effectively resist it if need be, which is a reasonable position to hold in my view, then restricting the government from being able to infringe on that by knowing who is armed and precisely how is something that would concern you. It would be silly to want to restrict the government from disarming people but then giving them the tools for disarmament.
You suggest that all guns should be locked up at all times. That negates one of the main reasons people own guns - self defense. He was simply making that point.
This is the same as the first point.
It’s not self defense I’m worried about, it’s the guy that plays with a rifle while drunk or high, makes a mistake cleaning it, etc.
There was a tragic accident in Oregon a few years ago when a man had a rifle (I think) set up in a gun vise. While he was working on it it went off and penetrated the wall of his shed and killed his daughter sleeping in a tent a hundred yards away. This was someone who worked on guns a lot and just made a mistake.
SenorBeef I think it just goes to show that you think arguments you agree with are rational and ones you don’t agree with are emotional. I think trotting out that old shibboleth about the govt using the gun registry to confiscate guns is an emotional tactic. I also think the idea that people armed with rifles are going to fight a repressive govt armed with tanks, F16s, flame throwers, etc. is irrational. First because it is impractical, second because there are other more effective ways to make sure out govt doesn’t get out of control, and third because I am more scared of David Koresh, survivalists, and other nutters than I am of my own govt.
Not at all. When I started reading up on the gun control debate, I was at a point of my life where I was reevaluating my views, taking nothing for granted, and striving to make my view of the world as logical and rational as possible.
I had no particular stance on the gun issue - I had a mild unease about guns and people having them, but nothing strong either way. I read up on the debate without a bias.
What I mean by emotional is that, for example, rabid anti-gunners will bring up the prospect of dead children. The idea of dead children is meant to provoke an emotional response that bypasses logical debate about the issue. And they will lie to achieve this - for instance, they released a report about how many “children” were dying from gun violence, except that “children” meant anyone I think 23 and under, maybe 21 and under. In any case, the majority of the “children” killed by gun violence in their study were gang members in their late teens and 20s who were engaged in criminal behavior, and yet they painted it as “OH MY GOD ALLOWING GUN OWNERSHIP MEANS LOTS OF DEAD KIDS”.
I understand where you think I’m coming from, and you’re incorrect. Most people have already have their perceptions of the world decided, and they view everything through those biases and reinforce them. This is where you get, for example, the absolutely stupid “our guy/party/whatever is always right and their guy/party/whatever party is always wrong” political stances that you see even among the intelligent people of this board.
So you think that I had the idea formed that gun ownership was good, and that gun control was bad, and due to my biases, I see people who disagree with me as dishonest and irrational.
But that’s not true. I came into the debate with an honest willingness to evaluate the merits of each argument. If anything, I was probably leaning by default more towards the anti-gun side. But it’s an issue that interested me very much - and, actually, was sort of a microcosm example to me of how people formed their perceptions irrationally, once I learned more about it. I read up on it - facts, issues, debates - and in my experience, the rabid anti-gun types exclusively attempted to lie and manipulate to cause a reaction, rather than attempting to reason with people.
I was unbiased going into the debate, but after learning about it, the debate was so clearly in favor of the pro-gun side (with my other generally libertarian leaning values playing a role) that I became convinced and became a pro-gun advocate myself.
I understand why you (and whoever else) may react to my statements in that way, and I probably chose my words poorly. But it is not simply a matter of me thinking that people agree with me are more rational and intelligent - but the reverse - I was undecided on the issue, and the people who were rational and intelligent convinced me to agree with them.
I’m not saying that there aren’t rational gun control views, as there are. And this board is far more likely to have objective, intelligent people than average. If you were to read gun control debates in other places, or read about the tactics people like Sarah Brady use, you would start to come to understand what I’m talking about.
Most people who are rabidly anti-gun, in my experience, feel that they’re right, emotionally, and so they think that the ends justifies the means if they have to lie to get other people to feel the same way. There are people who are pro-gun who also work this way. But, as I’ve tried to say, most people who step back, attempt to not become emotionally involved, and evaluate the arguments of the issue objectively, tend to become pro gun rights.
Guns have been confiscated by governments plenty of times in history. In pretty much every case, before this happened, they introduced a gun registry as a “common sense crime control measure”, or whatever, which was then used later to aid in the confiscation. It has happened in the US, too, with New York City and Washington DC, perhaps other places.
Most people who believe philosophically in the second amendment in the same way they believe in the first or fourth, for example, view the infringement of gun rights to be a fundamental governmental intrusion into their freedoms.
If the government wanted to register everyone who was a journalist, or had a blog, or any sort of opinion pieces that people read, and a description of what kind of stuff they write, people who support freedom of speech might view this as a suspicious abuse of power by the government. I wouldn’t say, if people objected to this, that they were attempting to appeal to people’s emotions. I feel gun registration, while not perfectly analogous, fits along the same line of thought.
I don’t feel that the view is irrational although I do feel it’s unlikely to come up. I started this thread on the subject here:
Historically speaking, governments have been the vehicle through which all of the greatest atrocities in human history have been committed. They’ve also been the primary vehicle through which freedoms have been oppressed.
In Western society, we’ve become complacent with a historically unusual amount of peace and prosperity in recent history, and we’ve lost track of the fact that government, unless kept in check, can be an evil force.
Of course, responsible citizenship in terms of governmental participation, voting, etc is the primary way of keeping that in check. However, an armed populace is another valid way of maintaining that check. A government can’t oppress nearly effective a population that has the will and tools for resistance.
I realize this might seem nutty to you, and I know we’re not on the cusp of becoming a totalitarian oppressive state (although thanks goes to GWB for making people a little more leery of government), yet the ACLU still defends even the smallest infringements on the right of free speech vehemently (as well they should), and I think that gun rights should be defended in the same way.
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg-hist.html
The New York Guard has air support…
Hell, I’m concerned with the people who drive cars when drunk or high. They’re more likely to hurt someone else.
Dan, three simple statements.
There is a significant difference between car ownership and operation, and gun ownership and operation, because the latter is a constitutional right, and the former is not. Even if the most negative version of the 2nd amendment is taken, it still involves gun ownership and operation. Cars have no such issues.
Cars are at least as, and probably more, lethal than guns, when operated wrongly or poorly.
A gun is a tool. Tools do what men say. Don’t be afraid of the tool.
I’m not sure how you can say that. Many have made the case that the 2nd Ammendment deals with the states’ right to form their own militias, not to an absolute right for individuals to own guns with no govt restriction. IANAL, but if the 2nd ammendment does confer such a right then I would support amending the constitution in a way that allows reasonable regulation.
There are many, many tools and substances that are regulated: explosives, poisons, radioactive compounds, etc. People with guns kill more people each year than any of these.
I suspect that if rational gun rights advocates look inside themselves, they will see they oppose gun regulation because guns are really fun. They make big noises, put big holes in things, and are interesting to talk about.
With a few exceptions, most of us really don’t need a loaded, unlocked gun handy to be safer. The $1,500 you’d spend on a quallity gun to keep your family safe would be better spent on a doctor’s checkup, fire alarms, upgrading your car’s safety eqipment, etc.
There’ve been a few high quality debates in GD about the meaning of the second amendment. The historical evidence of the case makes the “collective rights” case completely unfounded, and essentially created by judicial activism in in the last century or so.
Did you write this with the intent to be extremely insulting?
There are people who believe philosophically in the right to bear arms in the same way that they believe in free speech or free religion. That it’s an essential natural right that’s a fundamental part of freedom. They would be willing to fight and die for it, if necesary. Or donate time or money in support of its causes. I would support gun rights even if I’d never touched a gun, because I believe it to be the philosophically right thing to do.
And you’ve reduced this to “people like things that make big noises”?
That’s true, but you’re ultimately responsible for your own safety (and if applicable, that of your family). The police aren’t responsible for protecting you. People have fire extinguishers even if relatively few houses burn down, because it’s a tool that you probably won’t need, but if you ever do, you’ll certainly be glad you have it.
I’m not sure where you’re pulling that number out of. My most expensive gun ran me $800 or so, and I consider it to be the finest handgun made. A high quality shotgun could be had at $200, and a good pistol that I would feel comfortable relying on can cost as low as $350.
I am sure they will quote the relevant SDMB debates as precedent when the issue goes before the Supreme Court. How the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted is still an open issue. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.
Coming from someone who stated that the vast majority of anti-gun (a loaded term in and of itself) advocates are irrational and use emotional arguments, that’s a pretty funny thing to say.
Yes. I don’t believe for a minute that the majority of people poring over gun magazines, attending gun shows, and talking in breathless, almost pornographic detail about spray patterns, penetration power, and discharging their weapons care a whit about the finer points of the constitution. If they did, they’d be out in the streets demonstrating against the Patriot Act rather than sitting home polishing their guns
The fact that I am responsible for my family’s safety is exactly why I don’t have an unlocked gun lying around the house. I have also never heard of a fire extinguisher going off accidentally and burning down a house or someone using one in a moment of rage to kill a spouse.
I can’t help it that you’re cheap. 
What the supreme court rules now doesn’t change what the intent was when the Constitution was written. It does determine what it currently means legally, but to subvert the original intent with a modern interpretation that’s pretty clearly at odds with the original intent is effectively rewriting the Constitution through the judiciary.
I went out of my way to try to make it clear that I wasn’t personally insulting anyone here, and that there were indeed rational gun control arguments. And I was aware of how my words could be construed as insulting.
So I was wondering if you were aware of how your words were insulting, and if it was deliberate.
While I’m sure there are some people like that, you seem to think of the majority of people who believe in gun rights to follow this ridiculous caricature.
But let me quote you:
“I suspect that if rational gun rights advocates look inside themselves, they will see they oppose gun regulation because guns are really fun”
When you refer to rational gun rights advocates, I assume you mean people like some of us in this thread who have given thought to the gun control issue an advocate for it. You’re saying people like us - not even the hyperbolic stereotype you just described - people like us who care about the issue and are educated on it and speak about it are only doing so because guns make loud noises.
Either that, or you’re sarcastically implying that what I describe as a rational gun rights advocates are merely the stereotype you just described.
That’s a decision based on your situation and what you view as your own risks and needs. It’s not necesarily irresponsible if someone else has different risks, needs, or comes to a different conclusion.
Guns don’t go off and accidentally kill people either. The media and gun control types like to portray guns as some kind of force in and of themselves, as if they just randomly fire, or get up and kill people. Guns are predictable and reliable machines. Misues comes from people.
This is a valid concern, and you should honestly evaluate yourself (and anyone who would have access to it) to see if you feel that you’re responsible enough to own a gun before you buy one.
Just trying to fight ignorance. You’d never pay $1500 for an ordinary high quality gun. $1500 starts getting into specialty and custom guns. The average new commercial pistol that I would consider high quality is probably in the $400-$600 range. Shotguns are $150-250. Rifles depend entirely on what exactly you’re looking for, but aren’t really generally a consideration for home defense applications anyway.
You can even get reliable handguns for under $200 if you know what you’re looking for. Not new, though.
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. 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”. Why bother? You’re never going to change their minds; they already think they have all the answers. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: yourself, fuckwit. Some of us can read, is all.
Cite?
FWIW: I have never owned so much as a BB gun in my life. Nobody in my family has ever owned a gun; as far as I know none of my freinds do. I don’t find guns particularly fun, and I’d much rather attend an opera or see a ballet than sit and read (much less listen to) a technical gun discussion. I think that the guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine and the Mack Bolan novels are more than a bit creepy.
Having said all that: I am a devout supporter of gun rights, for essentially all the reasons these guys have elucidated. And while I think SenorBeef’s brush is much too wide, my own disinterested exploration of the issue yielded the same impression: the gun rights people were (mostly) arguing facts, logic, and statistics, the anti-gun folks were (mostly) arguing from emotion, and were more than occasionally dishonest in one way or another.
/data point
Until you come to the word “militia”, that is.