My views on gun ownership
- Thread starter mpd239
- Start date
- Status
ReadyontheRight
Member
Have you ever been in a situation even REMOTELY SIMILAR to such a situation?
If you have, please post under "Strategies and Tactics"
If you haven't, who the he** are you to tell anyone, anywhere about anything to do with our rights?
I really do appreciate that you are meeting our arguments, but is nothing getting through? I haven't yet found an "I'll grant you that" in your arguments.
Mulliga
Member
Bob Locke
Member
mpd239,
Several points to be made.
1.) The examples you offered several posts ago (child pornography, slander, libel, etc.) as restrictions on our rights all involve the actual infringement on the rights of another person. Not the potential to infringe upon their rights, but an actual violation. My ownership of any weapon or form of ammunition for that weapon represents no direct or indirect violation on the rights of another person. You are, therefore, advocating for prior restraint based on a mere possibility. I hope you see the fallacy in that.
2.) Attempting to control the actions of the animate (humans) by limiting access to the inanimate (firearms) is foolhardy, at best. Prohibition, the "war on drugs", a legal drinking age of 21, are all examples of this, and none of them prevented anyone who was of a mind to acquire those things from doing so.
4.) There is no way a reasonable, learned person can review the documents and quotes from the time of the writing of the Constitution and come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is anything other than an individual right.
6.) True "assault weapons" (those capable of selective, full-auto firing) are not and were never part of the discussion. This point has been totally ignored by the press, and intentionally so as it suits their agenda and purpose. The Uzi's, TEC-9's, and AK's banned in 1994 required one pull of the trigger to fire one round from the barrel. Granted, their magazine capacities are greater, but that is nothing resembling a deterrent for a criminal as 10-round magazines are plentiful and he or she could simply carry more magazines if more rounds are desired. The argument made by them, and accepted by you, is false on its face.
The reason this debate gets so spirited at times is that many of us believe that maintaining our rights is ultimately dependent upon our ability to tell the government "no". A cursory review of history across the globe will back this up. The great atrocities of the last several decades were perpetrated by governments against unarmed populaces. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. could never have succeeded had the people had the means to forcibly resist them. The Founding Fathers understood that power's great aim is to gather more power, and that the people, from whom just power is derived, need to maintain the capability to control that power.
Hope that helps.
Several points to be made.
1.) The examples you offered several posts ago (child pornography, slander, libel, etc.) as restrictions on our rights all involve the actual infringement on the rights of another person. Not the potential to infringe upon their rights, but an actual violation. My ownership of any weapon or form of ammunition for that weapon represents no direct or indirect violation on the rights of another person. You are, therefore, advocating for prior restraint based on a mere possibility. I hope you see the fallacy in that.
2.) Attempting to control the actions of the animate (humans) by limiting access to the inanimate (firearms) is foolhardy, at best. Prohibition, the "war on drugs", a legal drinking age of 21, are all examples of this, and none of them prevented anyone who was of a mind to acquire those things from doing so.
3.) The majority is often wrong, and the fact that a majority is of a certain opinion has no bearing on the rights of the minority. If you're a poly-sci student I think that needs no real explanation.
4.) There is no way a reasonable, learned person can review the documents and quotes from the time of the writing of the Constitution and come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is anything other than an individual right.
5.) The 2nd Amendment exists as a check on the government's power to dominate the people. It may shock your sensibilities, but the fact is that Madison, Jefferson, and company greatly feared that the day may come when the government would infringe on the rights of the people so severely that the people would need to rise up and put that government down by force of arms. To allow the government to dictate to the people what the terms of that potential engagement might be (see: "assault weapons ban") tilts the balance of power away from the people.
6.) True "assault weapons" (those capable of selective, full-auto firing) are not and were never part of the discussion. This point has been totally ignored by the press, and intentionally so as it suits their agenda and purpose. The Uzi's, TEC-9's, and AK's banned in 1994 required one pull of the trigger to fire one round from the barrel. Granted, their magazine capacities are greater, but that is nothing resembling a deterrent for a criminal as 10-round magazines are plentiful and he or she could simply carry more magazines if more rounds are desired. The argument made by them, and accepted by you, is false on its face.
The reason this debate gets so spirited at times is that many of us believe that maintaining our rights is ultimately dependent upon our ability to tell the government "no". A cursory review of history across the globe will back this up. The great atrocities of the last several decades were perpetrated by governments against unarmed populaces. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. could never have succeeded had the people had the means to forcibly resist them. The Founding Fathers understood that power's great aim is to gather more power, and that the people, from whom just power is derived, need to maintain the capability to control that power.
Hope that helps.
ReadyontheRight
Member
Mr. Locke -- Way to go! Excellent points!
mpd239
Member
ReadyontheRight:
"What if your optimal societal balance is such that your purchase of a gun is the next to set the gun ownership off balance? "Statistics" show that if you buy a gun, gun ownership gets pushed beyond the XX% that "experts" have deemed as "safe" in our civilized society."
Of course I'm not arguing that we should enforce a balance, just that theoretically one does exist. It's self-enforcing, really. Those that shouldn't own a gun probably won't; those that are interested in guns and learning to shoot properly probably will.
And I think it's pretty out there to think that the average American is going to face attack by 3 or more men. Have any of you faced that situation?
Bob Locke: You make a good point about libel and child pornography, but I think that the general intuiton to be gleaned from those examples stands as a useful parallel.
Also, your #2-- that's untrue. Yes, if you try hard enough, you can get alcohol while you're under 21. But it's a lot harder; and a lot riskier than if you are over 21. I'm not arguing for or against the drinking age; I'm just telling you that as a 19 year old college student, ability to drink alcoholic beverages is severely limited by the law and those of us who do drink incur risks far greater than someone 21 or over. The illegalization acts as a deterrent in order to REDUCE use, not eliminate it.
"What if your optimal societal balance is such that your purchase of a gun is the next to set the gun ownership off balance? "Statistics" show that if you buy a gun, gun ownership gets pushed beyond the XX% that "experts" have deemed as "safe" in our civilized society."
Of course I'm not arguing that we should enforce a balance, just that theoretically one does exist. It's self-enforcing, really. Those that shouldn't own a gun probably won't; those that are interested in guns and learning to shoot properly probably will.
And I think it's pretty out there to think that the average American is going to face attack by 3 or more men. Have any of you faced that situation?
Bob Locke: You make a good point about libel and child pornography, but I think that the general intuiton to be gleaned from those examples stands as a useful parallel.
Also, your #2-- that's untrue. Yes, if you try hard enough, you can get alcohol while you're under 21. But it's a lot harder; and a lot riskier than if you are over 21. I'm not arguing for or against the drinking age; I'm just telling you that as a 19 year old college student, ability to drink alcoholic beverages is severely limited by the law and those of us who do drink incur risks far greater than someone 21 or over. The illegalization acts as a deterrent in order to REDUCE use, not eliminate it.
mpd239
Member
One more thing, again, people are reading my posts in an ahistorical context.
I didn't argue that because the American public is for more gun control, Congress should enact it. Obviously tyranny of the majority is something to be avoided; but I was accused of belonging to an "alternate universe" and so used those poll numbers to show that my views belong to the mainstream.
I didn't argue that because the American public is for more gun control, Congress should enact it. Obviously tyranny of the majority is something to be avoided; but I was accused of belonging to an "alternate universe" and so used those poll numbers to show that my views belong to the mainstream.
Graystar
Member
And I didn't suggest that you did. You made it seem like a gang of 3 will never invade a home and I was just pointing out that it happens often in Australia.
ReadyontheRight
Member
mpd239 -- There have been posts where more than three attackers have been held off by a single person. The ability to fire more than 10 rounds at a time seems to be effective, even if it's just anecdotal and not statistical.
Why is a limit of 10 rounds the magic number?
Are there other aspects of the Assault Weapons Ban you support?
Why is a limit of 10 rounds the magic number?
Are there other aspects of the Assault Weapons Ban you support?
ReadyontheRight
Member
Ah -- But others would use your good intentions to do so:
"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
-Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton California
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991-
Bob Locke
Member
I have to disagree. No parallel exists. There is a distinct and substantial difference between a direct infringement on the rights of another person and the mere existence of the possibility of an infringement.
Thank you for making my argument for me. Now let me enlighten you as to how you just conceded the entire discussion.
It is illegal for people under 21 to buy alcohol, yet it happens. The alcohol itself is not illegal, but the act of buying it, for those under 21, is.
Your argument in this debate is that certain firearms should be illegal, in and of themselves, based on numerous arbitrary features.
Do you see the inconsistency in your position?
ReadyontheRight
Member
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95--
THIS is what we're fighting.
THIS is what we're fighting.
2nd Amendment
member
Hmm, personally I found getting alchohol at 18 as easy as at 21. Walk in to a bar or liquor store and buy it. Buy it from a friend. Buy it from a friend's half-drunk old man... Everyone I have known seemed to find it similarly easy. All the law did was provide a punishment if caught and not getting caught was amazingly simple.
jefnvk
Member
I'm sorry to tell you , but the 12ga is going to put a lot bigger unrepairable hole in you at the close range that a shooting in a hallway would take place.
Anyone that believes that the more 'violent' (please define this) a crime is, the greater the chance that the TEC-9 is used, should really be questioning their source. The simple fact is that criminals are going to use whats available. They don't exactly make up a shopping list and go off to Wal-Mart. Anyone determined enough to sit down and determine the exact gun they need/want is probably going to be comitting the crime one way or another.
I agree with this completely. Slander, incitement and porn are all misuses of their rights. When someone misuses a firearm, they lose that right. But, as we do not go around prohibiting students from forming anarchy clubs, out of the fear that they may incite uprisings, we do no go around banning guns because someone may misuse them.
As for cop-killer bullets, I am sure you know that Ted Kennedy was demonizing the .30-30 as a 'cop-killer'. He just happened to pick a very popular deer hunting cartridge.
Cosmoline
Member
I can. My roommate, a woman, was threatened with rape by three teenaged hoods. She prevented the assault by simply pointing a .357 at the fellows.
Fact is, criminals are usually cowards. They prefer to hunt in packs. Whether that's the pack who tried to rape my friend, a pack that rapes a woman in a park, or a pack that robs a liquor store. In all these situations, firepower is a valuable option.
mpd239
Member
"Thank you for making my argument for me. Now let me enlighten you as to how you just conceded the entire discussion.
It is illegal for people under 21 to buy alcohol, yet it happens. The alcohol itself is not illegal, but the act of buying it, for those under 21, is.
Your argument in this debate is that certain firearms should be illegal, in and of themselves, based on numerous arbitrary features.
Do you see the inconsistency in your position?"
No, Bob Locke, my argument is that the sale of said weapons should be illegal.
It is illegal for people under 21 to buy alcohol, yet it happens. The alcohol itself is not illegal, but the act of buying it, for those under 21, is.
Your argument in this debate is that certain firearms should be illegal, in and of themselves, based on numerous arbitrary features.
Do you see the inconsistency in your position?"
No, Bob Locke, my argument is that the sale of said weapons should be illegal.
now how did the ban that had been in place for several years do anything to prevent this?
look at all the evil acts with firearms over the past 10 years and ask your self how did the ban prevent them?
if a shooter can count to 10 and reload with a round in the chamber, the sustained fire can last until all loaded mags are empty and at no time is the shooter left with a empty firearm. leaving no open area for someone to attack and disarm while reloading.
as for using a revolver, ever heard of a new york reload? revolver shooters would carry more than one revolver sometimes 4 or even 6 on their persons. when one went dry simply draw the next. in case your wondering on how to carry 6 guns shoulder, hip and small of back on left and right sides.
RealGun
Member
I can think of "pragmatic" ways to dismiss other rights. I have a number of points I could argue but have decided not to bother. Knock yourselves out. The objective was to have you lost in the trees, while the premise was to set aside the 2nd Amendment.
Mulliga
Member
They tried this with alcohol, too. Didn't work very well then.
nico
Member
yet, you haven't offered a single fact as to what distinguishes "said weapons" from those that you consider OK to prove your argument. And, you've completely ignored every request to do so. I'll say it again:
WHAT FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GUNS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND GUNS THAT SHOLD BE LEGAL????
and again
WHAT FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GUNS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND GUNS THAT SHOLD BE LEGAL????
and again
WHAT FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GUNS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND GUNS THAT SHOLD BE LEGAL????
are we going to get a response this time?
btw, as a college student who recently turned 21, I have never heard of anyone who has ever had any trouble getting alcohol when they wanted it regardless of age so your example is worthless.
The Real Hawkeye
member
mpd239, from the start, your facts have been grossly in error. You are, it would appear, an uncritical sponge in the milieu of leftist academia. You simply absorb propaganda with intellectual passivity, and then arrogantly come here to "enlighten" those of us who have long been in the habit of thinking critically and actually bothering to study facts and history.
I really feel sad for you. You have been duped, and you lack the basic thinking skills needed to even begin to understand the fundamentals of the argument, let alone undupe yourself. And yet you are so convicted. That's the really sad part. If this weren't so, it would be so simple to open your eyes. The proofs are so abundant, and yet we cannot persuade you merely to open your eyes and take them in. This is likely because you are, by long training and/or disposition, a statist. Your view of the world is literally turned up-side-down in relation to the Founders of this once great nation. You are probably a hopeless case, I'm sorry to say.
I really feel sad for you. You have been duped, and you lack the basic thinking skills needed to even begin to understand the fundamentals of the argument, let alone undupe yourself. And yet you are so convicted. That's the really sad part. If this weren't so, it would be so simple to open your eyes. The proofs are so abundant, and yet we cannot persuade you merely to open your eyes and take them in. This is likely because you are, by long training and/or disposition, a statist. Your view of the world is literally turned up-side-down in relation to the Founders of this once great nation. You are probably a hopeless case, I'm sorry to say.
Intune
Member
Of inmates who carried a firearm during their offense, 8 in 10 had a handgun
Inmates reported that a handgun was their preferred firearm; of those carrying a firearm, 83% of State inmates and 87% of Federal inmates said that they carried a handgun during the offense for which they were serving their longest sentence.
Offenders sentenced for homicide or for robbery reported the most extensive
use of firearms.
Homicides by Weapon Type
Year 1991 Handgun-13101 Other gun-3277 Knife-3909 Blunt object-1252 Other weapon-3161
Source-DOJ
Why in the world would you be calling for a ban on “assault weapons†when these are the facts? If one REALLY cared about reducing homicide, handguns and knives would be the obvious targets. Yet, they’re not. Hmm…
Inmates reported that a handgun was their preferred firearm; of those carrying a firearm, 83% of State inmates and 87% of Federal inmates said that they carried a handgun during the offense for which they were serving their longest sentence.
Offenders sentenced for homicide or for robbery reported the most extensive
use of firearms.
Homicides by Weapon Type
Year 1991 Handgun-13101 Other gun-3277 Knife-3909 Blunt object-1252 Other weapon-3161
Source-DOJ
Why in the world would you be calling for a ban on “assault weapons†when these are the facts? If one REALLY cared about reducing homicide, handguns and knives would be the obvious targets. Yet, they’re not. Hmm…
Last edited:
Intune
Member
double
Last edited:
hey mpd239
Trust me young un, you aren't unique on anything. History repeats itself.
You aren't going to change anyones mind with subtle twists of meanings. I was an antigunner until I was in my late 20's. A friend of mine convinced me by saying - The government doesn't want you to have one, therefore, shouldn't you ?
I've seen nothing in the last 40 years to convince me otherwise.
My advise to you, get a gun, read history, mature...
Trust me young un, you aren't unique on anything. History repeats itself.
You aren't going to change anyones mind with subtle twists of meanings. I was an antigunner until I was in my late 20's. A friend of mine convinced me by saying - The government doesn't want you to have one, therefore, shouldn't you ?
I've seen nothing in the last 40 years to convince me otherwise.
My advise to you, get a gun, read history, mature...
- Status
