Since the tragedy last Friday in Newton, I've had something percolating in the back of my head. David Frums's recent post on what they president should not do was the catalyst. The president can't fight an ideology so intransigent that even the Lord our God couldn't move them. But I'll tell you who can.
People like our own Nikto.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that Nikto has been saying on gun control but I also haven't heard any adequate defense of why ordinary citizens need to be able to protect themselves with military grade weaponry. Thus far, it's the usual meme of "You're stupid" with a dash of genetic fallacy. They can say why they are against it but not why they are for it. To do so would mean being honest. What is that truth?
They think that these types of weapons are cool and they like to blow shit up. And they have a pathological hatred of the US government and believe think that the NBC television program, Revolution, is likely to happen. The problem with trying to engage these people is that our culture is generally fair minded and the fallout from this puts sanity at a disadvantage. I liken it to what I call The Crazy Uncle.
The Crazy Uncle is the guy in your family that you see at the holidays who doesn't get out much. He spends his days in the bubble of the Drudge Report and other right wing hotspots believing that this is what the world is really like. He is most definitely armed with an array of these types of weapons and, at the holiday meal, will inevitably say something so far off in moonbat land that you question his sanity.
But then a funny thing happens. The rest of the people at the table are polite and start to accept the "logic" of some of his arguments. It's not too long before the moderate conversation gets pulled to the right and now the "middle" is somewhere around the 10 yard line on the right side of the field. This is what happens when we embrace the Cult of Both Sides. This is what is happening on a macro level on our culture. The Crazy Uncles of the world know this and that's why they do it, saying crazier and crazier shit to see how much they can get away with (Hitler's big lie scenario). Never was this more true than with the gun debate.
So, to unfuck this kind of thinking, the government has to stay out of it. I know they are going to try do something anyway but given the power of the gun lobby (and despite the NRA saying that this Friday they are going to unveil plans to make sure this never happens again), it's going to be nearly impossible for them to accomplish this paradigm shift.
But that's shouldn't stop ordinary citizens from forming a private organization that rivals or even surpasses the gun lobby. Frum's example of MADD is a good one. There are plenty of people right now that have lost loved ones in school shootings and they could form the nucleus of such an organization. And the time has sadly never been better. All they need to do is start talking about the 20 children who had as many as 11 bullets in the bodies.
The Right is quite fond of talking about how the free market should do its thing without interference from the government. They point to letting people's behavior and tastes dictate supply and demand. Well, stocks in gun manufacturers are plummeting after Friday's shooting. Cerberus is selling Bushmaster. Dick's will no longer carry certain types of guns. A general distaste for guns is starting to grow in our culture. This one was different, folks and things are going to change. This change and increasing distaste will be hastened if a new, private organization like MADD gets to work now.
It may end being that many of these military style guns go the way of the cassette tape. A few people still have that moldy old soundtrack to 9 1/2 weeks laying in their old Geo Prizm (likely that same crazy uncle) but no one really plays them anymore. Why?
Because they just aren't cool anymore.
62 comments:
What is the most basic right?
The Right to Life.
Because that is a Right given by Nature and Nature's God, then there is a Right to defend that Life.
Because there is a Right to Self Defense, that means there is a Right to own and use the best possible Tools of Self Defense.
That preexisting Right is codified in the Constitution of the United States as the Second Amendment. It says that the Right to own and carry those Tools of Self Defense can not be infringed. (Literally, to cross the outer boundaries of.)
To contemplate infringing on our right to the Tools of Self Defense is to contemplate infringing on our Right to Self-Defense, and by extension, our Right to Life.
Clear enough for you?
I think the question, that has of yet, gone unanswered, is an explanation (with logic, facts, and evidence) that details a threat that requires military style weapons to be used by civilians. Enough with the sermons and chest thumping.
For example, you could say that you feel your community is threatened by the federal government. You would then offer examples of this threat and intelligence that proves this to be so and why you require a semi-automatic weapon for protection.
…the question, that has of yet, gone unanswered…
Gee, look what I found on the front page of TSM:
The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles - that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth - born of experience - is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.
--
All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
And yet, "somehow", you think that an argument has not been made. Your insistence on shutting your eyes and jamming your fingers in your ears does NOT mean the argument has not been made, only that you don't want to hear it.
But that's shouldn't stop ordinary citizens from forming a private organization that rivals or even surpasses the gun lobby.
What do you think groups like the NRA, GOA, and JPFO are? They're private organizations formed by ordinary citizens.
And once again, you're just fine with trampling all over basic rights if 50%+1 votes for it.
Why would anyone feel the need to be armed? After all, thinking that there are people just like you looking to take their stuff and trample their basic rights is just an example of "in the bubble thinking". [/sarc]
"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.
— Marvin Simkin
The reason we have a Constitutional Republic instead of a "democracy" is to put trampling of rights off limits. However, as the Founding Fathers argued in the Declaration of Independence, if the government abandons its appropriate role protecting rights to become the destroyer of rights—which would necessarily mean violating the Constitution—even if there's a majority vote to do so, then we not only have a Right, but a Duty to act to protect our Rights.
Your first comment (in addition to not really being your own evaluation) is what I mean by empty sermons. You and the other set the bar for what a reasoned argument is, noni. Logic...facts...evidence...real world solutions. Here are a couple of examples of what I mean.
I have a friend named Liz who lives in a big city. She got mugged twice so I told her to buy a handgun. She did. Since that time, two attempts have been made to mug her and both times they were thwarted by the fact that she had a gun.
I have several friends that belong to a sharpshooter club here in town. A couple of them compete and earn extra money in contests with their rifles. They help out my son's boy scout troop earn merit badges and such. They also are a part of hunting club that keeps food stores well stocked in the winter. None of them use semi-autos for any of these activities although some of them just for fun.
So, here are two examples of why these types of guns are legal and should always be that way. Now, when you get up to the military grade stuff, there should be an equal example of how they are important to defense. And, yes, YOU are going to have to justify it...just as you would have to justify having a rocket launcher or a nuclear weapon. If you think the latter two go too far, then explain why and juxtapose that with the Bushmaster. Detail the threat that faces you without the empty sermons.
if the government abandons its appropriate role protecting rights
They're not doing that. That's your fantasy and I'm sick and tired of having to manage it. You're always going to have plenty of guns with which to protect yourself...just not some of the ones you like because they are cool. Admit it, noni, they have nothing to do with rights or defense. It's all about emotion which is odd considering your pointed assurances otherwise.
Define 'military grade stuff'
Well, let's start with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. You might laugh that I say this but there are people over at TSM who think that ordinary citizens should have access to whatever the government has access to. Then we can move into tanks, planes, anti-aircraft batteries, and rocket launchers. These too should not owned by ordinary citizens. Land mines and other explosive devices should also be illegal to own.
With me so far? If not, there's not much point in continuing.
Four posts ago you went from hunting rifles to military grade. Are you referring to small arms? if so, define it.
Well, we need to figure out if you think my list so far contains weaponry that should all be banned from ordinary citizens. So that's...
Nuclear Weapons
Chemical Weapons
Biological Weapons
Tanks
Planes
Anti aircraft batteries
rocket launchers
mortars
grenades
land mines
torpedoes
(I know I'm leaving some out but I think you get the idea?
Yes or no to banning them?
You would ban private ownership of "Planes"?
Really?
Just because that guy flew one into the Austin TX IRS office?
I think you get the idea
No I don't, because you are moving the goalposts.
Let's refresh. You said in the body of this post
"gun control...military grade weaponry", "gun lobby", "guns", "guns" and "military style guns"
You didn't say rocket launchers etc etc etc.
In the replies you said
"military style weapons" and then referred to "semi-automatic weapon"
And you talked about
"a handgun" and "their rifles" while saying "None of them use semi-autos"
Then in conclusion you say
"here are two examples of why these types of guns are legal and should always be that way. Now, when you get up to the military grade stuff,"
And
"YOU are going to have to justify it...just as you would have to justify having a rocket launcher"
And
"If you think the latter two go too far, then explain why and juxtapose that with the Bushmaster."
You are talking about guns. Your use of rocket launcher etc etc, is as the "LATTER" is a comparison to the FORMER which you are using the BUSHMASTER to illustrate. FORMER is also what you are calling "Military grade stuff".
You have referred to the Bushmaster as military grade. When I asked you to define 'military grade' you start spouting rocket launcher crap. I want you to DEFINE what you consider military grade. That DEFINITION, that you placed the Bushmaster within should be a DEFINITION so that someone can pick a gun and determine if it falls within your DEFINITION of military grade.
I'm trying to see where you draw the line on what should be military only and what should open to civilian use. I don't think that ordinary citizens should be able to own an F-35, for example (and that's what I meant by planes). I can't get into a discussion about which guns should be military only until you agree that my list above should be filed as such. If you don't agree, then you obviously have a line much further out than I do and there's no point in having a discussion.
If you do agree, then we can start talking about automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Bear in mind, that if we do have this discussion, we're not going to do the "You're stupid" defense. If you have a case that shows that all guns will end up being illegal because they can be made to be semi auto or auto after market, then make it with facts and evidence. Leave the vitriol out of it.
I don't think that ordinary citizens should be able to own an F-35
They can own the plane (if they can afford it). The missiles, etc. are another matter. Those are classified as ordnance - not arms, much like cannons were ordnance in the late 18th century and not within the scope of the 2nd. We've been through this before - have you forgotten? [I would suppose so since you don't seem to remember your own statements 5 minutes after you make them.]
I can't get into a discussion...
Still with the childish and dishonest excuses. You are the one ignorant of the subject and expect everyone else to lower themself to your level in order to converse. Why don't you try being a little better informed?
Why don't you try being a little better informed?
Seriously. M reads TSM and over there are literally years worth of facts, figures, research, links, anecdotes, definitions, etc. that would help.
Now, M and N may disagree or not like the information but it is there.
Those are classified as ordnance - not arms, much like cannons were ordnance in the late 18th century and not within the scope of the 2nd.
That's a start. The reason why ordinance should not be owned by ordinary citizens is that it has the ability to inflict mass casualties. Now, the same is true for sub machine gun, right? Should non military personnel be able to own a sub machine gun complete with the whole nine yards?
Sigh. But ordinance can be owned by citizens. And unless you know of some recent mass casualty event caused by a 3 inch howitzer then we are not talking about banning ordinance.
I can't get into a discussion about which guns should be military only until you agree that my list above should be filed as such. If you don't agree, then you obviously have a line much further out than I do and there's no point in having a discussion.
That makes no sense. If my line is 'further' out does that automatically invalidate any argument I may make for such a case? Does the same apply with regard to your line? Can I unilaterally state that your baseline is "way out there" and thus your argument is automatically invalid?
we're not going to do the "You're stupid" defense.
Let me remind you that you and I have both agreed that you are ignorant. I only referred to you as stupid when you continued to wallow in that ignorance.
If you have a case
As I have said, you need to actually present your argument. I am not trying to argue (currently) to legalize something that is illegal. You are the one proposing to make unlawful that which is currently legal. My position would be considered the status quo. I cannot argue anything but a vague case for the maintaining of the status quo unless and until you present an argument for that changing of that status quo. Once you present such an argument that has some measure of detail and specific - then I can present an argument that also has detail and specifics. But until you actually do present such an argument you are expecting me to present a case, with 'facts and evidence' without knowing EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK I AM ARGUING AGAINST.
it has the ability to inflict mass casualties.
If that is the criterion you wish to use???.... Then do you think a citizen should be able to own industrial and household chemicals, gasoline, fertilizer or automobiles - to name a few items that have the ability to inflict mass casualties?
If my line is 'further' out does that automatically invalidate any argument I may make for such a case?
No, it simply means that any discussion will be a waste of time.
My position would be considered the status quo.
Finally. So, we have a number of weapons that are illegal for citizens to own. The reason for this is because they can inflict mass casualties. Guns like the Bushmaster can also inflict mass casualties. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons can do this as well. But they are your "right" to own and a dirty bomb is not. If you are arguing that you need such weapons to defend yourself against the government, why not the dirty bomb? After all, the government has nukes too.
If that is the criterion you wish to use???....
Yes. What is your criteria as to why some weapons are legal and some or not? Why?
No, it simply means that any discussion will be a waste of time.
So your argument relies on me starting at a position less than full disagreement? Perhaps you should rethink the basic principles of your argument if it is that weak.
Yes. What is your criteria as to why some weapons are legal and some or not
Certainly not that. Why? Reading comprehension Mark. Gasoline, chlorine, fertilizer, books of matches etc etc etc etc. All have the ability to inflict mass casualties. If I were to use that as a criterion I would have to also wish those common items be banned. Are you calling for them to be banned? No? Hypocrite.
we have a number of weapons that are illegal for citizens to own
Do we? Which ones?
The reason for this is because they can inflict mass casualties.
Is it? Did you pass the law? Do you have some insight to why those particular weapons were banned? There couldn't be any other factors or reasons why these certain weapons are banned(you do know exactly which weapons are indeed banned if you are informing me the reason why they were banned right?).
You're avoiding again, GD. Obviously, you think that some weapons should be banned as you said to maintain the status quo. Fine. Why?
By the way, this piece, linked by Kevin
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
didn't tell me anything I already knew. The problem here is the hysteria. Not all hand guns are going to be banned, for pete's sake. Why does every one your guys' arguments revolve around "non gun people are stupid?"
The reason why ordinance should not be owned by ordinary citizens is that it has the ability to inflict mass casualties.
Nope. Ordnance is not arms. This would mean typically a weapon not carried by an individual. It really doesn't have anything to do without what casualties might be inflicted.
Now, the same is true for sub machine gun, right?
Nope. A sub machine gun is by definition an arm, not ordnance.
But here, let me give you a standard that I could live with - anything that is issued or available to police should also be accessible to civilians. That obviously clears out the question of WMDs which are such a concern to all gun control types.
Obviously, you think that some weapons should be banned as you said to maintain the status quo.
Except I didn't say that.
Context is important Mark. That paragraph that you quoted out of context was referring to something other than answering your irrelevant question.
didn't tell me anything I already knew.
Read it again. If you didn't get every single one of your issues answered then you are not comprehending what was said.
The problem here is the hysteria. Not all hand guns are going to be banned, for pete's sake
Well for pete's sake why don't you specify what exactly you want to ban so we don't have to keep guessing? Once you specify what you want to ban we can tell you why it won't work or why it is indeed the wide sweeping ban you keep saying it won't be.
Why does every one your guys' arguments revolve around "non gun people are stupid?
Because you keep saying stupid things?
anything that is issued or available to police should also be accessible to civilians
What do police have now that civilians don't have? I don't honestly know...that's why I'm asking...
you are not comprehending what was said.
I understood fully what he said. He's simply wrong and I don't agree with him. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I don't understand. How on EARTH can that be?
Except I didn't say that.
Then what are you saying? And why do you need my list before you can state your list? Both he and you are dancing around the key issue here...if you think that some types of weapons should be banned and others not banned, why?
You're doing what you always do, GD. You want to be against what I'm for and not actually stand up for what you believe. It's obviously because you are avoiding answer the question. It puts you in a position of not being very logical.
So, it's really easy....
I, Guard Duck, think the following types of weapons and ordinance should be banned...
1.
2.
3.
etc
I think the following items should not be banned
1.
2.
3.
etc...
My explanation for why my second list (which can also inflict mass casualties) shouldn't be banned is....
(I"ll take a stab at it)
then all guns would be classified as semi-auto.
What do police have now that civilians don't have? I don't honestly know...that's why I'm asking...
Excellent, this is exactly how you should ask about something you don't know rather than forming an ignorant opinion. Please do this more often.
The police traditionally had nothing that an average citizen wouldn't possibly have - handguns (with large magazines), rifles, shotguns. SWAT expands that list to full auto weapons (which as a citizen in CA, I can not have due to state law).
The flip side of my standard is it would stop the flow of military surplus into police hands. That is where the real limit would come.
Then what are you saying?
Just to point out the obvious to you M - when you ask this after arguing about how you understood something else that was said, it undercuts that you actually did understand (and instead referred to one of the convenient voices in your head as what/who you are arguing with). Contrast that with how you just asked me to clarify something, and note that I didn't pissily dismiss you.
rather than forming an ignorant opinion.
aka something which you disagree or don't like:)
So, you think that citizens should be able to legally have the same type of armaments as SWAT?
Can you authoritatively guarantee (with a straight face) that we will never, ever have to defend our lives (which we have a Right to) in a situation which requires the "same type of armaments as SWAT" to be effective? That there will never, ever be a natural disaster, riot, civil war, or anything else of that nature?
Once again, Marxaphasia forgets—actually, creates his own—meaning of a word.
ignorant:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training.
Of course I can't but you're doing the weasel questions again, Noni. And now you're saying automatic weapons should be legal to use for ordinary citizens?
I understood fully what he said. He's simply wrong and I don't agree with him
Uh huh. 10% of what he said could be considered opinion. The rest is fact. Facts that if it "didn't tell (you)anything (you) (didn't)sic knew" you would not have been making some of the ignorant statements about guns that you have.
Then what are you saying?
Ain't going to hold your hand dude. It's there, it's clearly stated. If you can't understand that one paragraph then you better stop protesting when we claim you are acting ignorant.
And why do you need my list before you can state your list?
That was the fucking point of the paragraph.
YOU ARE THE ONE PROPOSING A CHANGE. NOT I. YOU CANNOT PROPOSE A CHANGE THEN DEMAND THE OTHER SIDE PROVIDE PARTICULARS FIRST.
You want to ban something - put up or shut up. Detail exactly what you want to ban.
You want to be against what I'm for and not actually stand up for what you believe
And you are doing that by clearly stating your position...................................
When you put limitations on what is acceptable for me to believe or our conversation about what rights of mine you wish to infringe is 'pointless' - I'm not going to tell you what I believe so that I can still be 'allowed' to participate in the conversation about what rights of mine you want to infringe.
(I"ll take a stab at it)
then all guns would be classified as semi-auto.
That's the second time you've said something like that. I still don't know what the hell you are talking about. Is that some kind of HuffPost code phrasing or something? Can you elaborate?
And now you're saying automatic weapons should be legal to use for ordinary citizens?
They already are, at least on the federal level. Of course you read the piece by Larry Correia and you already knew the stuff he said.....so you already knew that right?
And yes I do too. I know two people who own automatic weapons. Why? Has there been a mass shooting by someone with such a weapon lately?
aka something which you disagree or don't like:)
True - I don't like ignorance, and I certainly hope I don't agree with someone who's opinion is based on ignorance.
So, you think that citizens should be able to legally have the same type of armaments as SWAT?
That is what I said.
And now you're saying automatic weapons should be legal to use for ordinary citizens?
They are. We've been over that too.
I still don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Uh...that's in the piece that Kevin linked...did you read it?
Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns.
YOU ARE THE ONE PROPOSING A CHANGE. NOT I.
So, you accept the status quo. Then why? Why are some weapons alright for citizens and some or not?
Let's stop the bullshit, GD. You know very well that if you think that citizens shouldn't own certain types of weapons then you must have a reason for that. It's the same reason why people like Nikto think that people shouldn't own guns that can fire 30 bullets before reloading. You may disagree on the degree of weaponry and you will likely start foaming at the mouth and say people like Nikto are stupid for not understanding guns but that doesn't change the fact that you agree on the reason: people can't be trusted with weaponry that can inflict such devastation.
That's where I come in. So far, Nikto's case is quite compelling and I'm inclined to side with him. Unless, of course, you can convince me otherwise. To do that, however, you are going to have to explain to me why you support making some weapons illegal for civilians and why some (like the Bushmaster) should be legal.
They are. We've been over that too.
From the Correia piece...
We need to ban automatic weapons.
Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.
Do you want to change this so there are new legal machine guns?
did you read it
No. What piece - he links lots of stuff.
So, you accept the status quo
That is not what I said either. The status quo is where we are, simple as that. From that starting point you propose change. Not I. You.
you agree on the reason: people can't be trusted with weaponry that can inflict such devastation.
Hey look! An actual example of a voice in your head. Please refrain from imparting made up thoughts upon other people - that would prevent you from looking like a jack ass.
Yes, let's stop the bullshit. It's been a week and you still can't say what you want banned.
Do you want to change this so there are new legal machine guns?
Yep. The people who own the limited supply of legal machine guns like the rent-seeking limitation - it keeps the value up artificially and they profit nicely from that. The '86 FOPA amendment was by all accounts illegitimately added to the law as well as being beyond Congress' power to regulate commerce.
Just a couple of points. The $200 federal tax was punitive in 1934, but since it was never adjusted for inflation became trivial by the '70s/80s. The 1986 ban was found un-constitutional within the 6th Circuit. The govt refused to appeal the case they lost because the legal logic was so solid it couldn't be refuted, so they cut their losses by limiting the legal reach of the decision.
I can't own one of course in California, and that was true long before the North Hollywood shoot-out. If you had one fucking clue, you would be arguing about how successful the NFA has been as an example of gun control.
…you're doing the weasel questions again…
Nope, not a weasel question. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a weasel question. It's meant to clarify a point. It's a Socratic question.
You remember who Socrates was, don't you? He's the one who really developed the method of getting his students to think and recognize what they already know by asking questions. In fact, you claim to use this very technique! (Something about getting kids to recognize what they know.)
It's point was very simple: to get you to think about the FACT that NO ONE (but God, and you ain't Him) can predict the future. Period. And that future contains the possibility (and near certainty) that some people in this country will NEED SWAT level weapons to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones at some point.
Therefore, by preventing those who will need those weapons to defend their lives, you are depriving them of their Right to Self-Defense, and by extension, their Right To Life.
Now you could say that if we could know exactly who those people would be, then we could let them have heavier weaponry and just keep them away from everyone else. But as your answer again demonstrates, since we cannot know the future, we cannot know precisely who those people are. Therefore, we must allow the Right To Keep And Bear Arms to everyone who has not given up that Right either voluntarily or by their actions, otherwise, we are also infringing the Right to Self-Defense and the Right to Life.
What makes it a "weasel question", Mark? There is no wiggle room. There is only one answer which matches reality. There is only one inescapable conclusion which derives from that answer.
I think there is only one reason why you think it's a "weasel question"; you hate—yes, hate—the conclusion. So you say anything that comes to mind to avoid the inevitable. But no matter how much you denigrate the question, you are always stuck with the reality reflected in that answer.
That reality is simple: Bad things will happen in this world. Some people will find themselves in situations where they need more advanced weapons to be able to defend their lives. By wanting to prevent them from getting those weapons, you are attempting to infringe on their most basic human Right—the Right To Life.
gd,
Here is the article Kevin linked to. Highly recommended reading:
An opinion on gun control
Aah, didn't find the misquote the first time through.
I'm talking about the Correia link that I put above, GD. I thought you did read that piece.
It's been a week and you still can't say what you want banned.
I just did above. Now it's your job to convince me that Nikto is wrong. That means you are going to have to explain why you think some weaponry should be banned and others should not. At least juris admits that he wants automatic weapons legal and why he does. But both of you obviously have a line. Where is it and why?
by preventing those who will need those weapons to defend their lives
What sort of evidence do you have that demonstrates that need? Facts, logic, scientific method, please.
since we cannot know the future, we cannot know precisely who those people are
Then why not nuclear weapons for citizens? Other WMDs? Or a rocket launcher? A Tank? Why do you draw the line there?
Some people will find themselves in situations where they need more advanced weapons to be able to defend their lives.
So you do think ordinary citizens should have WMDs...alright...why?
I'm not the one on the hot seat, guys. It's you. You can try to play make believe all you want but until you start getting serious about qualitatively analyzing various weaponry, it's going to get a lot hotter. How is it that the Bushmaster is not a mass killer and should be legal for defensive purposes yet chemical weapons are mass killers and should not be legal? To your average person, they both can accomplish the same task.
Noni, you should read my post today. Are you sure you want a police state?
How is it that the Bushmaster is not a mass killer
It isn't. Do you really think he couldn't have done the same thing with the pair of handguns he had (and the shotgun he didn't even carry in)?
What sort of evidence do you have that demonstrates that need? Facts, logic, scientific method, please.
I just ran you through the evidence and logic in the comment you responded to. That you are still demanding what I. Have. Already. Given. You. says all that needs to be said. Indeed, nothing more can be said.
No, I saw no evidence of real world situations where this happened...just the usual empty sermons. For example, you could links some studies that show how semi autos repel home invaders every day. It would have to be multiple studies from a variety of unbiased sources to get a more accurate picture.
Or you could just list all the times that you needed and used such a weapon for protection and why. Tell me about the multiple times in your life when you needed a rocket launcher to protect yourself from the hordes of invaders on your property.
Evidence:
Q) Can you authoritatively guarantee (with a straight face) that we will never, ever have to defend our lives (which we have a Right to) in a situation which requires the "same type of armaments as SWAT" to be effective? That there will never, ever be a natural disaster, riot, civil war, or anything else of that nature?
A) Of course I can't
'Nuff said.
I'm talking about the Correia link that I put above, GD. I thought you did read that piece.
I did read it. You misquoted it.
Does this:
then all guns would be classified as semi-auto.
mean the same thing to you as this:
Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns.
And why do you disagree with that statement?
At least juris admits that he wants automatic weapons legal and why he does. But both of you obviously have a line. Where is it and why?
You do realize that both juris and I have told you almost exactly the same thing. We have both said we want looser law on automatic weapons and have not said what we think should be banned?
You will not get such an answer from me. Because you said that debate is pointless if I am "too far out there". Your rules. I want to debate about my rights. You will refuse to if my thoughts are too far from yours. Perhaps if you started with a more inclusive position.
On another note. I have to ask, in line with the 'logic' you use to ban certain items because they have the ability to cause mass casualties - I note that you do not wish to ban fire, household chemicals, gasoline or automobiles. Why? All these items and more have the ability to cause mass casualties. Where is your call to ban them as well?
show how semi autos
When you say "semi auto", do you mean rifle or handgun? Not that it matters since I don't think anyone breaks down defensive gun uses by type of gun (revolver vs. pistol, lever vs semi-auto rifle, pump vs double-barrel shotgun).
Or you could just list all the times that you needed and used such a weapon for protection and why
I've never used a fire extinguisher either - are you suggesting I get rid of the one(s) I own because I've never used them?
Tell me about the multiple times in your life when you needed a rocket launcher to protect yourself from the hordes of invaders on your property.
Really? You have to go to rocket launchers? What exactly is a rocket launcher - a weapon used by a single soldier or something crew serviced? Perhaps you mean an RPG - and as we've been over before, explosives (the "G" in RPG) are ordnance (not arms), even though they are used by individual soldiers.
Do you really have to end this thread with bare stupidity?
I note that you do not wish to ban fire, household chemicals, gasoline or automobiles.
Don't forget pools, bathtubs, and 5 gallon buckets. (Also see here.)
you still can't say what you want banned.
I just did above.
This???
people shouldn't own guns that can fire 30 bullets before reloading
That is your answer? Be sure of it. You don't want to be backpedaling later. Be clear so we don't have any misunderstandings.
That's not evidence, Noni. I want to see the stats on the likelihood of an event like this happening. Being paranoid that it might happen isn't evidence.
GD, I already know where you are going with your line of discussion here so feel free to end the "suspense" and tell me how stupid Nikto and I are for thinking that guns that can fire 30 bullpens without reloading should not be owned by ordinary citizens. Let the spittle fly about after market and how all guns will then be illegal and only from your cold dead hands blah blah blah...
After that, maybe you could then start thinking outside of the box and explain why you think dirty bombs should be illegal but semi autos should not. If we have to defend ourselves against the government, shouldn't we have access to ALL these weapons?
I'm not going to allow you to fall back on the crutch of me. You have to explain why you support rights for some arms but not others.
Using you as a crutch would be the height of stupidity Mark - you can't even support your own argument.
Tell me how you can ban dirty bombs because 'they have the ability to cause mass casualties' but you don't want to ban matches even though they also 'have the ability to cause mass casualties'.
And if you know what my argument is. Then tell me how your ban would actually succeed in accomplishing what it would purport to do.
You can tell me to think outside the box and come up with a plan where unicorns piss pink lemonade - but when I tell you that just ain't gonna happen - spittle or not - it just ain't gonna happen.
you can't even support your own argument.
Well, first of all, it's not mine. It's Nikto's. He swayed me. Now it's up to you to sway me back. Why should some weapons be banned and not others? If you don't think ANY should be banned, then explain why. No sermons, paranoid threats or chest thumping. Explain why what has worked in Australia will not work here.
Well, because I and many others like me will not. Let me repeat that. Will not allow you to take our guns.
That is not chest thumping. That is cold hard reality.
So how many people are you willing to kill to achieve that success?
After that, maybe you could then start thinking outside of the box and explain why you think dirty bombs should be illegal but semi autos should not.
Because you are the one equating the two not me. I won't fucking argue your own stupid position instead of mine. You can't even argue for for your own position - but you expect me to? Fuck that and fuck you.
No one is coming to get your guns, Guard Duck. Good grief...
your own stupid position
That's not my position. It's yours. You classify some weapons as ILLEGAL-OK and others LEGAL-Fuck you and don't try to take 'em.
Why?
Dirty bombs are not fucking arms you retard. Stop telling me it is my position that they are. This is fuckwittery on a galactic scale.
That is your tactic here isn't it - to be so stupid, so obtuse that any reasonable person will stop arguing with you.
Well, let's see how stupid I really am while at the same time testing your ideology. Suppose the Biden panel comes back with a list of guns that are going to be banned. Current owners are grandfathered in but offers to buy back those guns on a voluntary basis. So, let's say this means that 8 of your guns are still legal and you could sell 2 back at...hmmm....10 times what you paid. Would you do it? Why or why not?
Well, let's see how stupid I really am while at the same time testing your ideology.
Now you want to change the subject. I guess you finally figured out just how idiotic you were being but you won't fucking admit to it directly. Awfully childish that is.
First. The U.S. Govt is not empowered under Article I to ban what I already own - this is called an ex post facto law. Grandfathering is irrelevant. They could possibly ban the interstate sales of such, but not my current possession. See how your ideology of the Constitution should only be used to wipe my ass makes you so stupid? Granted, you and Crazy Joe probably think his panel could create such a law - maybe without even bothering to have Congress pass it. Assuming they could pass a law making it a felony, why would they offer me any money?
Just to point out how infantile and ridiculous your proposal is - let us say that Congress passed a law (and the President signed it) allowing you to sell your children into prostitution. How much money would it take for you to sell one of them? How much to sell all of them? If the money was so good, why wouldn't you sell at least one?
Could it possibly be that some things are more important than money?
How much money would it take for you to sell one of them? How much to sell all of them? If the money was so good, why wouldn't you sell at least one?
I have a prediction of how Marxaphasia is going to answer this. It'll be standard response #12.
I'm just curious how far his stupid knob goes - clearly past 11, because he needs that extra stupid.
No one is coming to get your guns, Guard Duck. Good grief.
You just fucking told me you would asshole.
1:
people shouldn't own guns that can fire 30 bullets before reloading
2:Explain why what has worked in Australia will not work here *In case you are an idiot - they did in fact take their guns in Australia
I gave your idiot ass the chance to specify your point. You didn't.
SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID YOU ARE COMING FOR THE GUNS.
Now you want to backtrack? Fuck you.
But, let me ask you this - if guns that can fire 30 rounds before reloading are so god damned dangerous that citizens cannot be trusted with them - why would you grandfather millions of them into those same civilians hands.
Either they are too dangerous for civilians to have any of them - or civilians can have them and you shouldn't be talking about restricting them.
let us say that
...you guys could actually go five minutes without issuing yet another ridiculous false equivalency. Every time you do this, btw, I just put it into my right wing blog translator and get back, "Shit, he's got us on that one. What now?"
How much to sell all of them?
But that would be the best part. It would probably cost a lot (no idea really how much) and the irony would be that they would be using your tax dollars and likely contributing to the debt. But it would probably fall under the homeland security budget which would be defense, right? So, only juris would have a problem with this as at least he is not a complete hypocrite about the debt and defense spending.
You just fucking told me you would asshole.
Me personally? Where?
As to your questions, juris answered them above. Further, some people will sell them and those that remain will either rise in value (if demand is great) and make it tough to get. Or the public's taste for guns will sour making them about as attractive to own as a cassette tape...the point of this post.
"Shit, he's got us on that one. What now?"
I guess that one stung, didn't it. I think you've got your knob on 12 actually.
the irony would be that they would be using your tax dollars
It was me that counterposed the question - there was nothing about tax dollars involved (unless your assumption is that prostitution must be a federally run program).
You're going to push that knob all the way back around, aren't you?
Using the 'I'm a deliberate fuckwit' tactic now Mark?
Mark the Moron sez: "tell me how stupid Nikto and I are for thinking that guns that can fire 30 bullpens without reloading should not be owned by ordinary citizens."
It's amazing, almost like you are saying that ordinary citizens should not own guns that can fire 30 bullets without reloading.
Wait, that is exactly what you said.
Hmmmm, and by saying "SHOULD NOT OWN" without a clarifying statement about "grandfathering" then it's almost like you are saying someone is going to come get the guns.
Wait, that is exactly what you said.
As to your questions, juris answered them above. Further.....
WTF are you talking about? - either you didn't read the question - or you don't comprehend it. TRY AGAIN.
Post a Comment