While I don’t own a gun, I’m not against law abiding people to own one.
That being said, does the average person need to have military type of weapons?
When the constitution was drafted, the need for weapons for militia, protection against wild animal and Native Americans.
It would seem Farook and Malik were able to easily arm themselves military style with little trouble. That’s the troubling part of this and every type of mass shooting
It’s easy to get mired in defining “military style”.
The AR-15 is an autoloading .223 caliber rifle. what difference does it make what it looks like? banning stuff based on appearance is practically worthless.
I mean, what functional difference is there between this and this?
One looks scarier than the other? Is “ability to scare people” a function?
If I could try to play peacemaker for a second… As an outsider to this conversation, it seems to me as though they have satisfactorily answered the question that you asked in this thread; your mileage obviously varies.
While not presuming to speak for others, I feel as though the “dancing” and “gotcha” inferences may stem from a belief that you are not being sincere about your motives. And I further feel that said belief may come from the fact that you do not appear to be accepting their answers at face value. Your responses to their responses appear to suggest that you are looking for the answers to your question to follow a specific verbiage pattern, and are not accepting any responses as “actual answers” to your question, unless they satisfy that exact syntax.
It strikes me as reasonable to suspect that you are looking for specifically-worded responses so that you can then use those responses to illustrate some sort of logical inconsistency that you believe to exist, ergo the “gotcha” accusation. Because I’m not particularly well-educated or informed, and their answers don’t appear to be that hard to parse out to me. I can’t think of any way of reading “In very general terms, I have the right to do anything I like that doesn’t deliberately harm others” that is not a satisfactory answer to the question, “Do you believe that your inherent rights of self-defense and freedom of expression should be constrained in any way?”. I have difficulty believing that there’s a way of reading that, and not recognizing that he answered the question, and I feel like other people do, too. When OP’s insist on those sort of semantic requirements from all their respondents, I think that it tends to lead the respondents to think that the OP is playing games with them, or “dancing,” if you will. When someone gives you a detailed answer, and your response amounts to, “So is that a yes or a no?”, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for that person to feel like they’re wasting their time.
Based on the posts in this thread, I kind of feel like you’re holding it against the Dope that you know a bunch of inarticulate (and possibly ignorant) people. If you are acting in good faith, as you claim, it may help to better articulate why you don’t think their answers are good answers.
Yes I agree that is a reasonable suspicion. However, I have no other way to allay that fear without explicitly saying there is no “gotcha” which I have done twice.
I do not believe this answers my question. Deliberate harm against others can be interpreted many ways. Some on this board may even think that simply OWNING a gun is a deliberate harm against others. Some may think hunting is deliberately harming others. Some may think some speech is harmful to others and so on. So the answer given to the question can be interpreted many ways.
The question I posed doesn’t depend on anyone else’s morals, thoughts, opinions, whatever, except the opinion of the person to whom I posed the question.
Maybe it is easier if I separate them:
“I believe that my right to self-defense should not be constrained in any way” Yes/No
“I believe that my right to freedom of expression should not be constrained in any way” Yes/No
For one thing, the barrel appears to be less than 16", making it subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended in 1960. 
You’d have been first in line to lynch Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman? Assuming the concept of natural rights is axiomatic as the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence do, then blind worship of a tyrannical government that violates natural rights is the actual crime.
The Constitution, again, does not “give” rights. It gives power to the government and additionally, and redundantly (and now I see why such redundancy is necessary), explicitly restricts the government.
Then, again, why do most people, when asked why they own guns say “Because of the 2nd Amendment” or some variant of that?
Exactly.
Have you seen Reluctant A. post and other posts which show the poll is bogus? If the Second Ad was repealed the answer could be :
“No, I would not give up my guns as just repealing the 2nd Ad doesnt mean guns are illegal, there would have to other laws”
Or
“No, since the Constitution also guarantees my Right to self defense without the 2nd Ad”.
So it’s a bogus biased poll, written to get exactly your reaction- that gun owners are so die hard they would never give up their guns.
**But that’s not the question in the Poll. **
You seriously feel that “In very general terms, I have the right to do anything I like that doesn’t deliberately harm others” is a detailed answer?
That’s a reasonable Libertarian policy.
But I was mostly agreeing with " I feel as though the “dancing” and “gotcha” inferences may stem from a belief that you are not being sincere about your motives. And I further feel that said belief may come from the fact that you do not appear to be accepting their answers at face value. Your responses to their responses appear to suggest that you are looking for the answers to your question to follow a specific verbiage pattern, and are not accepting any responses as “actual answers” to your question, unless they satisfy that exact syntax.
It strikes me as reasonable to suspect that you are looking for specifically-worded responses so that you can then use those responses to illustrate some sort of logical inconsistency that you believe to exist, ergo the “gotcha” accusation. "
IMHO the poll is written so that the OP can point to " SEE! 61.54% of gun owners would not give up their guns, even if guns were made illegal!!!". It’s a loaded question, and a answer of “NO” does not necessarily mean the slant the OP is trying to give it.
I’m fairly certain you can, and have, determined what I meant in the poll questions. Others have been able too, and I’ve made it clearer through subsequent posts. Continuing to proclaim BOGUS POLL after I’ve explained it at least 2 more times is not really conducive to anything. Just don’t vote in it if you feel so strongly about it.
I answered this, twice. Your ignoring of this is another indicator that your protestations of “no gotchas!” is less than reliable.
That may be a reasonable Libertarian Policy, but a “detailed answer” it is not. And again, there are no gotchas to it, I have no slant, nor would I attempt to use an unscientific poll on an anonymous message board as any sort of cite or evidence of anything. Perhaps YOUR dealings with ignorant people is biasing you.
Well, unless you are socking as the poster called octopus, I wasn’t asking you again.
I also feel like the answer to this question has been provided, by multiple posters. The answer is that people say that because either
[LIST=a]
[li]They are using it as shorthand for a much more detailed answer, or[/li][li]They don’t know any better.[/li][/LIST]
EDIT - Furthermore, I do not stipulate that that is the response provided by “most gun owners,” although I will stipulate to the probability that is the response that you hear from “most gun owners that you know.”
I must have misinterpreted your use of the term “most people”. I am SHOCKED that people think you are being disingenuous!
