Forget all that, Argent Towers.
You need no other justification to own a gun than that you want one.
Until such time as you, personally, do something to harm another person with that gun, what you do with it or why you have it is nobody else’s business.
Uh…can you not read?
Diogenes is doing the exact same thing with his constant talk of people “fetishizing” their guns, “stroking” them, and “getting off” on them. (Jesus Christ, can people really not see this, or are they just willfully ignoring it?)
I’m calling you guys on this bullshit. Enough! This is not a legitimate form of debate.
You seem not to have been able to maintain the point of this subtopic. It makes a difference because these are armed, trained individuals (the third of whom was apparently going into a situation he knew to involve someone shooting at the previous officers). So, it takes something more than a typical handgun to pull that off. Hence my point about whether it matters if this is an AK47 or something that looks like an AK47. I don’t see a need for an individual to have a weapon that allows them to go to war with the police.
Agreed.
See, the idea of black masked government troops rounding up and seizing all firearms was created out of whole cloth to whip the right into a foaming frenzy.
Same with the idea that anyone who owns a gun of any kind is using it as a penile enhancement tool or is a good-old boy redneck milita man. These stereotypes destroy any chance at a rational debate.
I know what Argent was trying to do, and I don’t fault him for it. Stand up for what you believe in. But when someone counters your argument with another, as I and others did point by point, don’t just ignore their rebuttals and push forward. We’re looking for rational answers on this.
I said:
**"Again. The blame lies with the shooter, first, and then the NRA and anyone who gave the fucks a dime. That money went to lobbyists who then fought tooth and nail to relax or erase gun-control and ease of access laws. What in that last sentence did I say that is factually incorrect?
I am pro-choice. I vote pro-choice. I give money to pro-choice causes. This means that I have the blood of every aborted child on my hands. I can rationalize that because I do not believe life begins at conception.
How do you rationalize what you’re doing?"**
There has not been one legitimate response to this. Argent responded by comparing guns to religion, fire extinguishers, and Marilyn Manson. This is not rational discourse. If you believe something so fervently, shouldn’t you be able to articulate why?
I also asked:
"If one could prove that (hypothetically, relax!) guns were used ten times more often to commit violent crimes than for protection, it wouldn’t sway your views? Even a little? Really?"
This has ALSO yet to be answered in any way, except for aerodave trying to change the subject.
I have no desire to tell anyone that they are murdering fuckheads for supporting the NRA. I do not care to get into pissing contests with anyone here. I just want to hear some rational support for the relaxing of gun-control laws that do not boil down to the typical “but but the Founding Fathers!”.
I can’t think that this is too much to ask.
On preview: Do you really, honestly believe that it should be perfectly ok to own a tool that is specifically designed to cause harm to human beings (I’m talking handguns and assault rifles here) just because you “want to”? Again, this is not at all rational. I want very very badly to own a 1920’s style death ray. I should not be allowed to have one. And I am adult enough to be able to see that.
Perhaps “fetishizing” their guns is not the correct angle on it but you have to admit there is a distinctly different tone to people protecting their right to own a gun than to pretty much any other right they may talk about.
It has been noted in other threads that the gun advocacy crowd are oddly silent when other rights that are being threatened are under discussion. Or if not silent they certainly display nothing like the passion and energy in defense of those other rights as they do their right to own a gun. Doubtless gun owners value their other rights very much…but gun ownership seems to be particularly special to them.
The right to a gun is an odd thing in our Constitution. It is the only right to a “thing” that is in there. There is no enunciated right to a house or food but there is to a gun. Hell, there is no enunciated right to a knife which is a far more useful tool than a gun in there and can double as a weapon. Personally I would think a house or food as a need or right would trump a gun yet the gun, oddly, is given a special place.
Then gun owners tend to use rhetoric such as, “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!” Of all the things worth dying for your gun is at or near the top of your list?
If I magicked away all guns tomorrow you’d probably be pissed but you’d get on with life just fine (barring hordes of criminals storming your house since you are defenseless now). If I magicked away your house or your car or your clothes or your food you’d be a lot worse off. If I magicked away your right to free speech or due process you’d be far worse off.
Yet the gun remains oddly primary for gun owners.
Frankly I do not see it as fetishizing, I see it as an addiction.
Right. Nothing like this ever happened at Waco. The government won’t try to take your guns if you have committed minor drug violations, evaded taxes or accidentally bruised your ex-girlfriend when you grabbed her by the arm. They won’t come after your rifle if its barrel is a 1/2" below legal length or if your pistol has a vertical foregrip. Right.
Okay, so if the “good-old boy redneck militia man” is a counterproductive stereotype, then why do you think that the NRA and all its members should accept violent behavior in order to own their firearms? I bet very few are stone conservatives without compassion. The NRA, specifically, make relatively little “assault weapons ban” noise due to some of its members interested in “traditional” firearms; those people would be just fine with the banning of so-called assault weapons.
Furthermore, do you really want to take the blame for every aborted baby? Then you’re taking the blame for every botched abortion or abortion surgeon that sexually molests his anesthetized patients too, okay? After all, those things wouldn’t happen if abortion weren’t legal.
Ease of access laws are bullshit, by the way, if you use a gun for protection. Whatever happened to personal responsibility with regards to child-rearing and firearm safety? Do you think that the father who murdered his five children (mentioned earlier in the thread) was a great parent up until he got ahold of that eeebil gun?
One more thing: the NRA has never attempted to erase gun laws. Their message is that we have enough control measures already, which I think we do. I don’t support the NRA with my dollar, but I am glad that they exist.
No. If your hypothetical were the case, clearly I couldn’t trust my government to protect me. Hint: you never really could to begin with.
Firearms in general were designed in the late middle ages to kill human beings. I’ll bet you that knives, axes, clubs and crossbows were originally designed to kill human beings. Thankfully, those aren’t the only uses for those tools. By the way, I support your right ot own a 1920’s style death ray, but I am disappointed that you don’t think that you are trustworthy enough to have one.
You clearly know nothing whatsoever about guns, and everything you said just made me completely disregard your opinion in this discussion.
“It takes something more than a typical handgun to pull that off?” How are you so sure about this? You say it like it’s some kind of indisputable fact. Well, it isn’t. Someone with a handgun who’s a good shot could easily take out three armed police, if he had the element of surprise. And when you say “armed, trained individuals,” for all you know those police officers fired their weapons at the target range twice a year. I’ve heard plenty of stories from actual cops about how totally unqualified and un-trained some police departments are with their sidearms.
Furthermore do you actually have any proof that this shooter in PA used an “AK47?”
Even if he only had a pistol - anyone who’s reasonably competent with a handgun can empty a 10-round magazine and then quickly insert a new one. Boom, he’s lost a few seconds, but if he has 3 magazines on him, that’s still 30 rounds - the same number as in a standard AK mag?
And do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of “assault weapons” being used to “go to war against the police?” Or are you just basing this opinion on the movie Heat?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
So what happened at Waco, wherein a well armed, deranged individual brainwashing men women and children, and the police/ATF botched the raid, would have gone down just the same if Koresh wasn’t so well armed? Or did you just make my point? And you don’t agree that those with felony convictions should not be allowed to own firearms?
Of course I do not WANT to take responsibility for any of it, but it is a price I am willing to pay for my beliefs. You have to understand that with when you take a stand like this, and say that I will fight against any infringement on what I believe in, there will be ramifications that are not necessarily favorable. In my case, it’s the fact that abortions happen at all. In your case, it’s the fact that with the relaxation of gun control laws, guns become more prevalent, and are therefore easier to access by the criminal element. This is beyond dispute, and no one here has yet to say, one way or another, how they rationalize this, beyond completely selfish “cause I wanna” reasonings.
Of course not. In fact, I said that the primary responsibility lies with the shooter, as you must have read. But there is plenty of blame to go around here. These people SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD FIREARMS. Can you disagree with that?
Then it doesn’t matter in what way guns are used, as long as you can have them when you want? Ridiculous, and dangerously selfish. When will people learn that their own personal good does not and should not outweigh the good of the community? I bet you’re a great guy, who really has no intention of using his weapons to hurt another living being. That does not mean you are representative of the whole, and to think so is delusional. Delusion in and of itself is not dangerous. But we aren’t talking about religion, we’re talking about tangible objects created specifically to maim, wound, and kill. At that point, it becomes a problem.
This is beyond logic. If I had said “nuclear weapons” your response would HAVE to be the same, because stating that “SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS” is, to you, blasphemous.
What I am saying is that I understand perfectly why someone would want a hunting rifle. Or a shotgun. Or a target pistol. What I do not understand is how those same people cannot see a difference between those types of guns, and guns designed, manufactured, and marketed to kill human beings. You would fight for them the same?
You’re right, and you make the perfect case for the strict regulation of hand guns.
In 2006, there were 42,642 killed in motor vehicle accidents in the USA.
Perhaps the DoT should call the families of the people killed and thank them for paying the ultimate price so that others can keep 2000 pound weapons?
Or perhaps you might stop with the hysterics about big, scary guns.
This makes perfect sense if, and only if, cars are specifically designed to maim, wound, and kill.
Fuck your strawmen; this bullshit has been summarily dismantled up-thread.
A fair question. Why should guns be legal; why should the populace have access to guns? Why do defenders of gun ownership constantly invoke the Second Amendment, insisting the subject of guns is as fundamental as freedom of speech or belief? Why contest what gun control advocates say ought to be an obvious and straightforward matter of regulating the public safety? Because many believe, for the reasons I’ll try to outline, that it IS a fundamental matter, going to heart of what it means to be a democracy, and our beliefs about what the relationship of government to society ought to be. I have struggled the past few days to put my thoughts on this subject into words without descending into a long, rambling essay on political philosophy. The following summary is the best I can do, but I concede ahead of time it’s imperfect.
The government has to have force, if for no other reason than to defend against external aggression. That’s why the Constitution empowered the federal government to create a national Army and Navy. The question then becomes, should only the government have force? Should the State, or it’s officers and agents, be privileged- legally “above” the citizenry? Should the populace be the dependents, the subjects, of the government? Certainly many have thought so, most famously in modern times the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes. But the Enlightenment philosophers who inspired the leaders of the American Revolution differed. They said that government should be the servant of the people, not their master.
It’s not necessary to postulate that an evil tyranny will impose itself on any people who don’t possess the ability to forcibly resist (although that’s certainly a possibility). It’s a question of the entire mindset of government being somehow special, “above” the mere hoi polli. If the population at large is forbidden to own guns, but a special exception is carved out for police officers, than what does that mean? That you don’t have a right to own a weapon, but government enforcers do? What does that say to the idea that government is supposed to be subordinate to the people? Frankly, the police in many American cities already act like they’re members of the biggest and best armed gang in town. Do we really want to officially elevate them to the status of an elite warror caste?
I could debate the fine points for hours, but the essence is this: a government that enforces a ban on weapons (except for themselves of course) is a government that will ultimately end up saying “shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasant”.
Yes, because that worked out so well in Washington DC and South Central LA and in New York City and everywhere else with draconian handgun laws. :rolleyes:
Round and round and round we go.
All that you anti-gun people know how to do is change the subject. Every time I bring up a valid point, you change the subject.
Semi-automatic military-style rifles (“assault weapons”) are HOBBY RIFLES. They are used by target shooters and collectors, and the occasional hunter (the AR-15 is a pretty good “varmint” rifle.) Restricting them on the basis that they are used to “go to war with the police” is utterly insane and has no grounding in statistics or facts. (Other than Hollywood movies like “Heat.” Which I am guessing is the only source of information about guns that Hentor the Barbarian has. [Have you ever changed a magazine, Hentor, or aimed a rifle or a pistol downrange? Do you know what a bolt and a receiver are, or what recoil feels like?])
This insane point about the “assault weapons” is what I was refuting, and then you change the subject to handguns.
Change the subject, change the subject. It’s all you people are good for.
You said this:
“It takes something more than a typical handgun to pull that off?” How are you so sure about this? You say it like it’s some kind of indisputable fact. Well, it isn’t. Someone with a handgun who’s a good shot could easily take out three armed police, if he had the element of surprise. And when you say “armed, trained individuals,” for all you know those police officers fired their weapons at the target range twice a year. I’ve heard plenty of stories from actual cops about how totally unqualified and un-trained some police departments are with their sidearms.
Furthermore do you actually have any proof that this shooter in PA used an “AK47?”
Even if he only had a pistol - anyone who’s reasonably competent with a handgun can empty a 10-round magazine and then quickly insert a new one. Boom, he’s lost a few seconds, but if he has 3 magazines on him, that’s still 30 rounds - the same number as in a standard AK mag?
And do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of “assault weapons” being used to “go to war against the police?” Or are you just basing this opinion on the movie Heat?"
That is all very true, and I stand by my assertion that it makes a good point for outlawing handguns. They are just as deadly in the wrong hands.
No one is changing the subject, we have tried desperately to keep your ADD addled brain with us here.
And with the number of times you bring up the movie Heat, I’m getting concerned. Great flick, but we’re not masturbating to it…
There’s no need to state that people have the right to have food, houses etc., because governments generally don’t tell their people that they aren’t allowed to have those things.
A government that didn’t allow its people to have food wouldn’t last long since it wouldn’t have anyone to govern.
The subject I was addressing was “assault weapons.” When I was done addressing it, you changed the subject to handguns.
Call me all the names you want…fine. I don’t care. But let me ask you - what is your own first-hand experience with guns, Tiger Tamer? You ever fired one? Ever been hunting or to a shooting range? Do you know the difference between a magazine and a clip, or the difference between how a revolver works and how a 9mm pistol works? Do you know what a bolt or a receiver is, or what iron sights are?
What do YOU know about guns that makes you so qualified to talk about them?
And as I already said - the strict regulation of handguns in places like DC, NY and LA hasn’t done jack-shit to prevent crime (but I guess you’ll just change the subject again instead of addressing that.)
Why do you assume the government can control illegal firearms when it can’t control illegal drugs or illegal immigration?
The ATF raided the compound illegimately. They had no evidence and were conducting an investigation on a witness account of hearing automatic weapons fire in (or maybe around) the compound. Yes, it would have gone much differently if they didn’t raid the compound; there was a long standoff without shooting after the fact. Negotiation would have been possible but it has been in vogue for the past two decades to conduct no-knock raids, which is exactly what the ATF did.
I am not justifying the actions of Koresh, but unfortunately, many of those brainwashed people made their own choice. It is the children who I feel most sorry for. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, all of the weapons (even the fully automatics) were legally owned by individuals in the compound.
As long as a person has not been convicted of a violent crime (ie, bank robberies, homicides, assaults and many - not all - domestic violence crimes), they should be able to own a gun. Federally, it is a felony to be a marijuana user in possession of firearms, some tax cases end in felony raps as well; those “felons” should have Second Amendment rights.
America, in my humble opinion, is about the freedom to make one’s own choice. I support that for others: you want to have an abortion, go do it; you want to own a gun, buy one. When you infringe on another person’s human rights, you’ve made a choice that should have legal consequences. *ETA: I don’t take responsibility for what others do with their freedom, on the flipside.
I know an elderly woman that SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A DRIVER’S LICENSE but she did, nevertheless I still believe that she had a right to that license until she proved that she was unskilled enough to her have it revoked.
Firearms, even the eeebil ones, are used far more often for legal purposes than illegal ones. That’s how I justify the right to own a gun and its impact on the community. Were it not the case that guns are used more often lawfully than otherwise, society would be in a complete state of disorder but it still wouldn’t be because of the guns or access to them; it would likely be chaos brought on by natural disaster, nuclear attack or economic crisis. In that sort of scenario, you’re damn right that I would want a gun.
I believe every eligible adult should be allowed to own any type of small arm, including rocket launchers. Warheads would have to be restricted, but that is easily done by legislating that manufacturers of powerful warheads may not sell those items to individuals.
Sorry, my AK47, FAL, AR15, FS2000 and PTR91 all were (or are) used only as target rifles. I like these sorts of rifles because I was trained on an M16 and they are all robust, easy to shoot and maintain, easy to accessorize, plus you don’t have to reload them as often when you’re shooting. The tradeoff is that they’re slightly less accurate, but few gun ranges have targets far enough away for one to notice that too much. I would be mighty sad if I were stuck with rifles marketed to the sub-MOA (minute of angle ~ groups measuring 1" apart at 100 yards) target shooting community alone.
Furthermore, legislation of assault rifles is difficult to pursue due to their similarities to “sporting rifles.” This is actually the same in function to this. And so and so.
I have already stated that my father taught me to hunt, and yes, I do have handgun experience. I decided it was not for me. But, really, if all I knew about guns was that their primary reason for existence was to deliver chunks of metal into flesh as efficiently as possible, then my point, and stance, would be the same. What more qualification do you, in all your wisdom, feel i need?
And as far as your point about selected handgun laws in select counties/cities, I would say that it only proves that this legislation should be universal, and not applied selectively.
Btw, you do know that the shootout scene in HEAT was based on a true event that happened in Los Angeles, right?
Which event was that?