The argument is that government doesn’t regulate the existence of tools because of potential abuse. Circular saws aren’t banned but they have mandated blade guards. Chain saws have kickback brakes and hand guards. Hand guns have safety switches on them.
You’re comparing regulation with an outright ban.
Why don’t we then compare a ban with a ban. How about a ban of guns with the ban of other guns? Like I brought up before, we highly regulate fully automatic rifles, but don’t have similar regs for otherwise identical semi-automatic rifles.
The only difference between the two is the relative dangerousness, which is clearly not an issue if they aren’t misused.
No, we ban fully automatic rifles, there just happen to be a few which were grandfathered in, and since the government can’t make post de facto laws, those are regulated.
Your statement of relative dangerousness, however, I’m going to request a cite for.
Every army in the world that uses automatic weapons is my cite. If they weren’t more dangerous than the semi-auto versions of the weapons, they’d go semi-auto and save the ammunition.
That doesn’t really count as a cite.
Only certain members of a group use fully automatic weapons, typically suppression fire. The others typically use Single Shot or Three Shot Burst, and the army actively discourages ( and in fact, new M16’s, – post 80’s? – I believe, make it impossible to do) fully automatic fire from anyone not specifically designated to do so. And then it’s typically from a belt fed M240/M249, as suppression fire, to prevent return fire, rather than to hit specific targets.
Snipers / Designated marksmen, who are arguably some of the most lethal members of any infantry, typically use Bolt Action or Semi-Automatic weapons.
I’ve heard various stories as to the reason behind 3-shot burst from (both current and ex)military personnel. Suffice it to say that while it has upsides, many of them have issues with the fact that it depletes ammunition at an absolutely ridiculous rate, and is relatively difficult to aim/control. Good marksman can fire one shot, or a few shots which are better placed in an almost equal amount of time (factor recoil recovery for 3 shots is going to be more than one), saving ammunition and leading to the semi-automatic firearm being quite a bit more deadly.
ETA – If there are any current/former military browsing the thread, your input on Selective Fire would be helpful… Thanks.
The military has a different job than average Joe which is to lay down massive amounts of lead at a target. A squad full of soldiers equipped with 3-round burst capable rifles can lay down a lot of fire in short order.
One guy, by himself, can shoot three rounds at a time marginally faster that semi auto at a target when equipped similarly. 30 aimed, semi auto shots are far more accurate and therefore, dangerous, deadly, whatever, than 10 3-round bursts.
Your average US soldier does not tote around a full auto gun anymore.
I see, so if we were going to ban only the most lethal weapons, we should ban bolt action rifles instead of fully automatic rifles? That’s an interesting concept.
Give it a try. It might finally get the fudds off of their asses and realize that their guns really are at risk. While you are at it, try to ban pump shotguns too. They can throw out more 30 cal pellets faster than any full auto gun.
It would nice to see the anti gun crowd be genuine for once.
Frankly, yes.
Fully automatic weapons go through ammunition at a ridiculous rate, and are terribly inaccurate.
The record number of kills with a bolt action rifle is 700, possibly more. His confirmed kills were only 500 (I use the term loosely…).
Hello, sorry about the delay. Audit issues :eek:
Before I start, I’d like to compliment you on restating my general position in such a non-confrontational way. 
Your broader issue comes from a libertarian perspective, and while I do not subscribe to it, I can understand it. I’ve gone over several reasons on how to make my point clear, and I hope it will be sufficient with the following analogy:
Most libertarians would consider the military as something proper and necessary, even if they may not like it, to be run by the government. If that is your position as well, then we can totally work with that.
If an armed force dedicated solely to blowing up threats exist, then isn’t ever other regulation, restriction, and law simply an extension of that?
If I were libertarian, I would say “We need a military because otherwise, we would be vulnerable, and it exists due to the fact that I cannot personally, nor can my local populace, round up the necessary manpower and resources needed to offer such protection with the same effectiveness as the government.”
Taking that type of collective defense spirit of the argument, then I see all other regulations as merely an extension. In effect, if you want to say that the government shouldn’t restrict guns and that it’s too big or too powerful, then the same argument can be applied to national defense or anything you want. Its anarchy
Once you agree to the fairly reasonable logic that the government has the right and duty to defend it’s people, then I think you lose your case to say: “the government can’t”. Because it can, and you’ve allowed it. The only argument from then on is how far it can go
And quite simply, you draw the line at different points than I do, and that’s why I’m for gun control and you’re not
Most libertarians is a disingenuous statement, but no. I do not think the Military in its current form needs to stay.
No. Not even remotely. Armies are used against foreign powers.
Bill Adama said it best on BSG: “There’s a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”
No. That is not what most of us say, most of us say, “We need a small military, and an armed population to deter invasion.”
The problem with your argument is that the premise itself is flawed.
No, no it’s not. You just think it is because you want to prove your point.
No, the difference is libertarians want effective, minimalistic laws that serve a purpose, you want feel good legislation that makes you happy in the pants and feel warm and fuzzy.
I’ll weigh in with my philosophical stance. There are three groups that have guns in America:
The Government - they have the biggest, baddest and the mostest as they should to protect the people of this nation from internal and external threat.
Criminals - while having less armament than the people or the govt. they have access to more powerful weapons, but more importantly, they have bad intentions for using them.
The Citizens - We have a lot, but they are used mostly for sport and hunting and are designed by intent for recreational purposes.
I believe that if you outlaw guns it means that only Citizens will be disarmed, not the criminals. All outlawing guns will do is make the price of an illegal weapon cost more for the criminal and could increase the crime rate due to the fact that they will need to committ more crime to pay for the ‘cost of doing business’.
Your #2’s have no greater access to firearms than your #3’s except where they break the law to get them. Please define “more powerful” as in the case of #2.
Huh? They (libertarians) really say that? And they really think that an armed populace would deter an invasion? That a small military + armed citizens would be sufficient to protect the United States?
I find it hard to believe libertarians, by-and-large, are so short-sighted. If you think an armed populace could remotely deter an invasion you have not been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the world.
Hell, a likely invader need not even actually “invade” and face all those armed Americans. They’d just sweep aside the token military the US has, issue an ultimatum, nuke a city if it was not agreed to, issue ultimatum again, nuke another city, issue ultimatum again. I bet after a few rounds of that we’d give up.
So much for your guns.
Yes.
Yes. An armed, fractured and disorganized, population in Iraq seems to be doing a rather good job of throwing wrenches in the most advanced military in the world.
Yes.
No, what you find hard to believe is that people might disagree with you, and be right.
I beg to differ, I think that it is you who has not been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the world.
I missed the part where our small standing military wouldn’t have nuclear weapons, advanced warplanes, tanks, etc. And keep people trained in using them.
Unless you’re suggesting that those things are useless in modern society, in which case your argument is rather confusing.
So much for your logic.
The point that’s being made is that there is no need for a large standing army. If you take a moment to think about cost-benefit analysis, rather than blithely implying that anyone who disagrees with you is short sited, you might change your mind.
A famous WW2 Quote:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
To my knowledge our military is still there and in no way in danger of being routed out of the country by insurgents.
Are the insurgents a thorn in the side of the military? Sure. As a practical matter do they achieve much of significance? No.
“Quantity has a quality all its own.” - Josef Stalin
Time and again it has been shown that numbers can trump a better armed force if the attacker is willing to expend the lives. The Chinese have shown it. The Soviets showed it in the face of a vastly better armed and trained army. Sure there are the Alamo-type examples in history but for the overall war…numbers can mean a helluva lot.
[/quote]
Germany was armed to the teeth. Every person who could possibly fight was thrown in to the final defense of Germany and then Berlin. While not an easy fight the Soviets rolled over them.
And again, things change in the nuclear age. Japan was prepared to do a last-man defense, nukes changed that. And a handful of nukes in our “small” army will not dissuade the likes of a China or Soviet Union. There is a reason we both built such big stockpiles.
And of course all this totally ignores that a small military capable of barely protecting US borders alone leaves the rest of the world up for grabs. Like it or not the US as a world police force in the form of its military has protected our interests and likely kept aggressive regimes from becoming too aggressive.
If there were no US to balk the Soviets I think there is more than a fair chance they (the Soviet Union) would have gone after Western Europe at some point.
My point is that an armed population makes invasion and occupation significantly more difficult.
And 200,000,000 armed civilians (many of which with training) is a quantity indeed.
I’m not sure what point you’re arguing, at this point it seems like you’re arguing for my side. I doubt any military in the world could muster even 10,000,000 troops.
You’ve mischaracterized both the Japanese people, and my argument. No where did I say the number of nukes would be small. Nor, I doubt, do you have an extensive understanding of what would or would not dissuade China or the (former) USSR.
Let the rest of the world reach their own balance. It’s not our place to protect or defend those who cannot do it themselves.
And, unless I’m mistaken, that’s the past. Unless you’re suggesting that the Russian Federation is planning on invading Europe, now?
You’re mischaractarizing my argument, and I suspect you know it, you’re intentionally using scenarios which no longer exist (different times call for different measures) and your argument is falling apart.
200 million spread across the country and not in one place. 200 million not working together in a coherent and planned fashion. Divide and conquer and all that jazz.
Maybe or maybe not. Depends on how committed the country is to the war. The Soviets tossed 2.5 million soldiers at Berlin in WWII. That was not their whole army in one place.
Ahh…so small military but big nuke force yes? Then add in big bomber force and big naval force to deliver those nukes? Add in bases around the world so all the nukes are not in one place? Looks like your “small” military just grew by leaps so you can keep your deterrent nuke force.
And while we can only guess at what would or would not dissuade China or Russia they have shown time and again in previous wars to use human wave tactics and have relatively little regard for absorbing massive casualties in pursuit of their goals. Perhaps they have a newfound passion to protect the lives of their troops but there is no evidence of that and evidence of the opposite.
Sure…if you ignore that we live in a global economy and the US has interests that extend beyond its borders. What if, due to a small US military that cannot engage beyond its borders, Russia decides to take over the Middle East? Hey…not our problem right? Now Russia decides to cut-off oil shipments from the Middle East to the US. Still not our problem right? Not in our borders…no issue for us to be concerned with. :rolleyes:
The past is a guide for the future. If an opportunity exists to grab an easy prize because it is undefended do you want to suppose all will be well because people are just nicer these days? That countries would not engage in military adventurism, if they thought they could succeed, because that is soooo last century and not nice? Naive barely covers it if you think that.
Of course we can only speculate. History has shown us that time and again countries come into conflict. That when given a chance many regimes WILL go to war for some perceived gain and no amount of “that’s not nice” stops them. Why would you suppose things have changed so much since then? Because a large and powerful US military has made World Wars a thing of the past?
I’m sorry, clarify for me what part of that is an argument for restricting the personal freedoms of individuals?
Forgive me if I attributed something about the general population of libertarians. I should instead say that most libertarians I’ve encountered make it known to me that they grudgingly accept the existence of the military.
You say that you are for a small military and an armed populace, but like you accuse me of, “small” is a disingenuous statement. What’s small to you is big to others, and vice versa. The fact that you still accept any kind of military validates my point, that being everyone has a line to be drawn, and you, and Lumpy, and others, simply draw it a little bit different than I do. That goes for gun control as well, since I’m assuming from what I remember from that other thread you are against letting private citizens own suitcase nukes or bombs.
Maybe you think that’s a “proper” limit to set, but I see it as merely an extension of firearms. You want to say I’m objectively wrong about gun control? Well you’re just the same as me, except you feel how I do about larger armaments
You’re attempting to equate my pro-gun control stance to usage of the military? You don’t see that the military is simply the same as you and your armed population, except wearing fancy uniforms and told to fight another country? If we can have that, we can certainly say everyone without fancy uniforms should have restrictions on guns
You do not represent libertarians any more than Lumpy. I was merely responding to his reply to me. To claim that my premise is flawed is to take what I am saying to him, and apply it to you, without acknowledging that his view point differs from yours. Or at least until such time as he makes his views clear on the military
Who doesn’t want to be happy in the pants??? 
No, the real difference is that you disagree with the purpose I want the laws to reach. Don’t pretend that gun control is an inherent evil. There’s nothing wrong with my beliefs, they are simply different