My views on gun ownership
- Thread starter mpd239
- Start date
- Status
americans are funny when you think about it. people don't drive SUV's because they are gas effecient and good off road vehicles. they drive them because they are americans and they can afford to own one. i don't own AK's, pistols, rifles and shotguns because i need them or think they serve a purpose (which i do) i own them because i can, because im a freedom loving gun toting american and it is my right.
The Real Hawkeye
member
mpd239 is a typical leftist. They do not engage in logical inquiry or debate. The only time they win an exchange is by "shotgunning" someone who is not prepared to challenge this strategy. By this I mean that they are in the habit of throwing out, in rapid succession, multiple false assertions as "proofs" of their conclusions. This is not logical argumentation. When you try to take them one at a time and debunk them with facts and logic, they either get annoyed and leave, claiming to have been insulted, or they throw out another shotload of false assertions before you've gotten through the first two or three. The truth is that they do not want to hear facts or engage in logic, regarding which most of them haven't a clue. Most people are so overwhelmed by this shotgun strategy that they just throw up their arms, rather than addressing the unsavoriness of this approach. To the observer, it appears that the leftist has won his point. I can detect the type a mile away. Don't waste your time. He's not here to learn. Given enough exposure, you learn to smell leftist arrogance. He's here to "enlighten" us poor dirt farmers. He is insulted because we do not respond to his charity with gratitude, which he thinks is his due.
Last edited:
jefnvk
Member
I'm still waiting for an answer on how a bayonet lug makes my gun more lethal?
The Real Hawkeye
member
I've a feeling you are in for a long wait. It is not a part of the "shotgun" strategy to provide logical support for an assertion.
RealGun
Member
Why be forced to argue that point? You have a right to own a gun that would scare the bejeesus out of someone who did not understand it or its purpose and who has been lead to believe that only a criminal would own one. It's the old story of "anything I can't relate to should be illegal". Protecting such things is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
jefnvk
Member
It came from the fact that he mentioned that the weapons covered in the AWB were more deadly than a regular weapon. I'm just trying to show how messed up tht point of view is.
For all I care, you can mount a Browning 1919 onto the back of your pickup. The second you pull the trigger on something you shouldn't be aiming at, though, its a whole different story.
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
On rights and powers...
From the declaration of independence;
selected quotes from the U.S. Constitution;
And so on and so forth.
Note, NOWHERE in the articles of the constitution does it say that the government has any "rights" of any kind. The word is not even used in the construction of our government. The constituion is the SUPREME law of the land.
Rights are inalienable. As such they cannot be taken away. Powers are derived from authority, authority which is granted by the "consent of the governed". Authority can be rescinded, consent can be withdrawn.
On the other hand, if we are to believe that governments have rights then those rights could not be taken away and the people would be unable to control those that govern. Assume that the government had the "right" to tax, or worse yet, the "right" to pass laws. Laws against guns, speech, religion. Attitudes like that ARE dangerous to liberty.
Government BY the people, FOR the people. Let us never forget it.
I.C.
From the declaration of independence;
selected quotes from the U.S. Constitution;
And so on and so forth.
Note, NOWHERE in the articles of the constitution does it say that the government has any "rights" of any kind. The word is not even used in the construction of our government. The constituion is the SUPREME law of the land.
Rights are inalienable. As such they cannot be taken away. Powers are derived from authority, authority which is granted by the "consent of the governed". Authority can be rescinded, consent can be withdrawn.
On the other hand, if we are to believe that governments have rights then those rights could not be taken away and the people would be unable to control those that govern. Assume that the government had the "right" to tax, or worse yet, the "right" to pass laws. Laws against guns, speech, religion. Attitudes like that ARE dangerous to liberty.
Government BY the people, FOR the people. Let us never forget it.
I.C.
Excuse me...shove over a seat...hurry...thx
1. You know, that is illogical. How can you wholeheartedly support gun rights, but not support Home Defense Rifles? (Our definition of an assualt rifle)
2. Mr. Scholar, http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html tells what an assualt rifle is.
That, ladies and gentlemen, was the world's first acceptable definition of an assualt rifle. It is the Sturmgweher 1944, or Stg44, made by the Germans in WW2. Study it carefully.
3. If we are too unskilled in the use of firearms, as you stated, what defines "unskilled"?
4. How come SWAT, Secret Service, and so on use firearms/assualt rifles? Because they have stuff to protect. So do we.
5. Somehow, sometime it became more acceptable for a elderly couple to be gang-murdered with garrots than to explain to the police how they spun around, cocked their assualt rifles, and mowed down their assailants.
6. How come you refuse to answer the questions of nearly ALL THR members who have posted here? Whenever you get a question you find baffling, you retreat until you find one you can handle. Wierd...
7. Why don't you need a Home Defense Rifle? "Oh, because I don't need it." Tell me that after you get surrounded, cornered, and killed by a gang of 26 members.
I want to see this everyday to work:
But my favorite is this:
1. You know, that is illogical. How can you wholeheartedly support gun rights, but not support Home Defense Rifles? (Our definition of an assualt rifle)
2. Mr. Scholar, http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html tells what an assualt rifle is.
That, ladies and gentlemen, was the world's first acceptable definition of an assualt rifle. It is the Sturmgweher 1944, or Stg44, made by the Germans in WW2. Study it carefully.
3. If we are too unskilled in the use of firearms, as you stated, what defines "unskilled"?
4. How come SWAT, Secret Service, and so on use firearms/assualt rifles? Because they have stuff to protect. So do we.
5. Somehow, sometime it became more acceptable for a elderly couple to be gang-murdered with garrots than to explain to the police how they spun around, cocked their assualt rifles, and mowed down their assailants.
6. How come you refuse to answer the questions of nearly ALL THR members who have posted here? Whenever you get a question you find baffling, you retreat until you find one you can handle. Wierd...
7. Why don't you need a Home Defense Rifle? "Oh, because I don't need it." Tell me that after you get surrounded, cornered, and killed by a gang of 26 members.
I want to see this everyday to work:
But my favorite is this:
So? You going to claim that all of those Founders talking about the rights of government entities are wrong? Prove it. Just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dogs aren't mentioned in the constitution therefore dogs don't exist? (Silly analogy, but I couldn't resist). Governments have rights and are granted powers to execute those rights.
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
Okay I'll bite...
*I* believe the reason the word "rights" was used in some of the early papers is because I think that the constitution was often thought of as a contract between the people and the government. It was determined apparently that the word right was being wrongly interchanged with powers and consequently it was not included in the either the declaration or constitution. Authorities granted in contracts are often refferred to as rights. I believe that is one explanation.
As I said though, I'll bite. Answer these if you would;
What defines a right?
How does an inanimate thing(the government) possess something that is only endowed by a creator?
What specific rights does the government possess?
Who or what granted the government said rights?
Do you believe the government is an entity independent of the people?
Looking forward to your replies.
I.C.
*I* believe the reason the word "rights" was used in some of the early papers is because I think that the constitution was often thought of as a contract between the people and the government. It was determined apparently that the word right was being wrongly interchanged with powers and consequently it was not included in the either the declaration or constitution. Authorities granted in contracts are often refferred to as rights. I believe that is one explanation.
As I said though, I'll bite. Answer these if you would;
What defines a right?
How does an inanimate thing(the government) possess something that is only endowed by a creator?
What specific rights does the government possess?
Who or what granted the government said rights?
Do you believe the government is an entity independent of the people?
Looking forward to your replies.
I.C.
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
The articles of confederation...
As I said above. I believe the word rights was wrongly interchanged with powers due to the perception of authorities granted in contract law. I believe part of the evidence of this lies in that some of the so called rights defined by the articles of confederation are in fact powers defined in the constitution. Also, several instances in the articles of confederation use both words to describe the same thing, implying they are interchangeable. I contend they are not interchangeable. Furthermore, the constitution is the creating document of our government, and the bill of rights defined rights inalienable to citizens. There is a clear and determined difference IMHO between powers and rights set forth in the constitution.
As further evidence of this distinction, I submit that the constitution was intended to govern relations between the newly created government and the citizens, whereas the articles of confederation is clearly a contract between the several states, and between the individual states and the federal government. This is the contract scenario I was asserting. Their are indeed some "rights" of the citizens discussed in the articles of confederation, such as the right to free ingress and egress. However, it is also my assertion that these instances were made as stipulations to a contract on behalf of the people of the several states, and that this was done with authority or power granted to the representatives and delegates(governments) by the people whom they represented.
*Disclaimer* - I am not a lawyer, nor was my major in anything to do with law. Don't use anything I say as a basis for anything which may have a legal impact on your life.
On that note, sometimes I wish I'd been a lawyer or a constitutional scholar.
Looking forward to tommorow.....
I.C.
As I said above. I believe the word rights was wrongly interchanged with powers due to the perception of authorities granted in contract law. I believe part of the evidence of this lies in that some of the so called rights defined by the articles of confederation are in fact powers defined in the constitution. Also, several instances in the articles of confederation use both words to describe the same thing, implying they are interchangeable. I contend they are not interchangeable. Furthermore, the constitution is the creating document of our government, and the bill of rights defined rights inalienable to citizens. There is a clear and determined difference IMHO between powers and rights set forth in the constitution.
As further evidence of this distinction, I submit that the constitution was intended to govern relations between the newly created government and the citizens, whereas the articles of confederation is clearly a contract between the several states, and between the individual states and the federal government. This is the contract scenario I was asserting. Their are indeed some "rights" of the citizens discussed in the articles of confederation, such as the right to free ingress and egress. However, it is also my assertion that these instances were made as stipulations to a contract on behalf of the people of the several states, and that this was done with authority or power granted to the representatives and delegates(governments) by the people whom they represented.
*Disclaimer* - I am not a lawyer, nor was my major in anything to do with law. Don't use anything I say as a basis for anything which may have a legal impact on your life.
On that note, sometimes I wish I'd been a lawyer or a constitutional scholar.
Looking forward to tommorow.....I.C.
Diggler
Member
I "find?" What research have you done to back up your 'findings?'
I own this handgun:
Is this excessive? No? Because it doesn't LOOK like your evil assault weapon?
What about if I bought this...
Triple K Magazine, Ruger P89 9mm Luger, 30-Round
Gee, that everyday-looking handgun just became as high-capacity, and I must say a LOT easier to aim, shoot and reload, as your dreaded TEC-9.
Any semiautomatic weapon that takes a magazine could accept a magazine of virtually unlimited capacity as long as the firearm/magazine interface is correct.
I've noticed a several posts here (and elsewhere) that go something like this:
Anti-gunner: "Gun XXXX should be banned, because it is more powerful than civilians need. (Powerful / accurate / rapid firing / larger capacity / etc)"
Pro-gunner: "But that doesn't make it any more dangerous. If you get killed with one bullet, it doesn't matter if the BG has 5 or 29 left in his gun".
Isn't that a rather poor argument on the part of the Pro gunner?
Firstly, because it suggests if the "evil" gun was more dangerous (effective), it sounds as if you would accept banning it.
Secondly, because all those features can make a weapon more effective (why do the military use 30-round mags, if the difference between them and a 10-round mag is only "cosmetic"?)
And finaly, because it is this effectivness as a weapon that is the main reason most of you here believe in the RKBA (myself included).
If guns (all, or just "evil" ones) weren't effective weapons, banning them would be like banning blue shirts. Pointless, and an infringement of basic roights, but there would be bigger problems to sort out before worrying about that.
The FF wanted people to have "dangerous" guns, to guard against tyranny.
Anyone being attacked by a violent criminal would be better off with a "dangerous" gun to defend themselves.
I came to believe in the RKBA because of all the persecutions that people (including some of my ancestors) have suffered, that might not have occured if they had all been armed with "dangerous" weapons.
("Dangerous" meaning effective, and hence making it "dangerous" to attack/oppress the owner of said weapon. And yes, if the owner is of evil intent, they will also be more dangerous to the public than they would without such a weapon).
Saying that "Banning gun X is pointless, because Gun X is no more dangerous than Gun Y" seems ultimately to be a bad Pro-RKBA argument.
Anti-gunner: "Gun XXXX should be banned, because it is more powerful than civilians need. (Powerful / accurate / rapid firing / larger capacity / etc)"
Pro-gunner: "But that doesn't make it any more dangerous. If you get killed with one bullet, it doesn't matter if the BG has 5 or 29 left in his gun".
Isn't that a rather poor argument on the part of the Pro gunner?
Firstly, because it suggests if the "evil" gun was more dangerous (effective), it sounds as if you would accept banning it.
Secondly, because all those features can make a weapon more effective (why do the military use 30-round mags, if the difference between them and a 10-round mag is only "cosmetic"?)
And finaly, because it is this effectivness as a weapon that is the main reason most of you here believe in the RKBA (myself included).
If guns (all, or just "evil" ones) weren't effective weapons, banning them would be like banning blue shirts. Pointless, and an infringement of basic roights, but there would be bigger problems to sort out before worrying about that.
The FF wanted people to have "dangerous" guns, to guard against tyranny.
Anyone being attacked by a violent criminal would be better off with a "dangerous" gun to defend themselves.
I came to believe in the RKBA because of all the persecutions that people (including some of my ancestors) have suffered, that might not have occured if they had all been armed with "dangerous" weapons.
("Dangerous" meaning effective, and hence making it "dangerous" to attack/oppress the owner of said weapon. And yes, if the owner is of evil intent, they will also be more dangerous to the public than they would without such a weapon).
Saying that "Banning gun X is pointless, because Gun X is no more dangerous than Gun Y" seems ultimately to be a bad Pro-RKBA argument.
fjolnirsson
Member
Yes.
1989- attacked in a park by 7 teens. I knocked out 2, got beat down.
1994- attacked at homecoming dance by 9 "gangbangers" who didn't like my choice of handkerchief. I broke one nose and one arm, got beat down.
1995- attacked by 3 teens at a coffee shop. I threw one through a plate glass window, broke another's arm, and the third ran.
2003- attacked by 6 men at a suburban shopping mall. Busted one nose, gave one a concussion, broke one arm, got beat down and 24 stitches.
Oh yeah, 2004- 5 home invasions reported within 5 miles of my home.
Does that answer your question?
How dare you presume my need for self defense is dependent on what you have experienced, or feel the need for!
The Real Hawkeye
member
Iapetus, you are correct, but you are taking it out of context. The news media would like us to believe that the features that were banned make a gun super deadly, as opposed to our hunting rifles, which are (presumedly) less deadly. A lug on the barrel that allows putting a knife on it doesn't make it more deadly. This is there largely for historical reasons, i.e., there was a time in history when every soldier needed a spear type weapon, and this evolved into the bayonet, which is an anachronism today. Civilians generally like them only because they make them more authentic military, not because they will allow them to kill more people, which they won't. Similarly, the news media pretends that the rounds themselves are super deadly and penetrative, i.e., too deadly for civilians. Not true. A .30-06 is far more deadly and penetrative than a .223 or 7.62X36 Russian. Same with a folding stock. This feature makes for more convenience when in a tank or military transport, but does not contribute to deadliness. Civilians want them because they make the weapon more authentic and specialized looking. Yes, high cap mags have a place when defending against large numbers, but a lunatic armed with a number of 10 round mags can kill just about as many unarmed civilians as he can with a number of 20 or 30 round mags. It only takes a split second to switch mags. Yes, it is slightly better to have the higher cap mags in certain instances (which is why we want them), and we have every right to them, but we are addressing the misleading claims of the news media. They are addressing those Americans who don't agree with us on our rights, in an attempt to rile them against us. We need to address their lies so as to neutralize their effect on the sheeple.
Diggler
Member
The point to my post is that if you want to ban guns because they can accept a high cap magazine, you will have to ban ALL semi-auto guns that can take a separate magazine because ANY GUN that can accept a magazine could be high capacity, all you have to do is bend the sheet metal and construct the magazine, adapt an existing low-cap magazine, or buy it. Not too difficult.
no_morelipfrom_you
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 46
Sorry if this has already been addressed in similar fashion, I did see there are 12 pages and did not get past the first. I do not have time to read through this entire thread today. A few comments:
"The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument. "
The academic world is also a federally funded institution, (attendance in higher education would be less than half of what it is today if this were not so) and has become a tool for the federal government to teach kids what the government wants them to believe is the truth. You will learn more of the truth about government outside of your public school then you ever did in. It teaches them to be dependent on government to take care of them.
â€-- but the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence.â€
You pulled this particular piece of misinformation out of the air. It is not, in any way or form, even remotely true. Just because youve heard someone else say it, doesnt make it any less absurd.
“To the responder who called the terrorist argument ridiculous-- I don't know about you, but I felt a lot safer when I knew it was illegal for a militant Muslim to walk into a gun store and purchase an AK. “
What makes you think he cant obtain one illegally? Riiight… just like he cant find a gram of cocain or an ounce of weed anywhere in America since they’ve become illegal substances.
“Given a choice, society would almost certainly outlaw those weapons as it did in 1994—"
The problem here is you’re suggesting that you know what society wants as a whole, and secondly, that the 94 ban was the “choice†of society and the sunset of said ban was done without same “choiceâ€. Who said the 94 ban wasn’t passed against what a large or larger part of society wants?
“gun control is largely popular amongst the American public (perhaps too popular, admittedly).“
WERE this true, would it make gun control “right†by virtue of the fact that it's popular?
“Bush is simply trying to energize his base by letting the AWB phase out.â€
Bush would not have let it phase out if he thought it would hurt his campaign, which btw causes one to question just how popular gun control really is.
â€I never claimed to know more about guns than anyone on this board, and I take offense at the implication. I just posted to share my opinion.â€
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately, it’s a rather strong opinion based on conjecture and assumptions, not so much on fact and actual research. Perhaps your opinion would change if you were to investigate the veracity of some of your claims?
"The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument. "
The academic world is also a federally funded institution, (attendance in higher education would be less than half of what it is today if this were not so) and has become a tool for the federal government to teach kids what the government wants them to believe is the truth. You will learn more of the truth about government outside of your public school then you ever did in. It teaches them to be dependent on government to take care of them.
â€-- but the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence.â€
You pulled this particular piece of misinformation out of the air. It is not, in any way or form, even remotely true. Just because youve heard someone else say it, doesnt make it any less absurd.
“To the responder who called the terrorist argument ridiculous-- I don't know about you, but I felt a lot safer when I knew it was illegal for a militant Muslim to walk into a gun store and purchase an AK. “
What makes you think he cant obtain one illegally? Riiight… just like he cant find a gram of cocain or an ounce of weed anywhere in America since they’ve become illegal substances.
“Given a choice, society would almost certainly outlaw those weapons as it did in 1994—"
The problem here is you’re suggesting that you know what society wants as a whole, and secondly, that the 94 ban was the “choice†of society and the sunset of said ban was done without same “choiceâ€. Who said the 94 ban wasn’t passed against what a large or larger part of society wants?
“gun control is largely popular amongst the American public (perhaps too popular, admittedly).“
WERE this true, would it make gun control “right†by virtue of the fact that it's popular?
“Bush is simply trying to energize his base by letting the AWB phase out.â€
Bush would not have let it phase out if he thought it would hurt his campaign, which btw causes one to question just how popular gun control really is.
â€I never claimed to know more about guns than anyone on this board, and I take offense at the implication. I just posted to share my opinion.â€
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately, it’s a rather strong opinion based on conjecture and assumptions, not so much on fact and actual research. Perhaps your opinion would change if you were to investigate the veracity of some of your claims?
IndianaDean
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 541
I don' t know if this has been brought up, but weapons were not banned in the assault ban because of their connections to crime. A group of Congresspeople looked through a catalog and selected weapons they thought looked "scarey".
In fact, what are termed assault weapons in the ban are very seldom ever used by street gangs. More people are stabbed to death and killed by cars every year than guns.
Why don't we ban motor vehicles and bladed weapons? Of course they've also banned bladed weapons along with guns in Australia. Violent crime has more than doubled since.
In fact, what are termed assault weapons in the ban are very seldom ever used by street gangs. More people are stabbed to death and killed by cars every year than guns.
Why don't we ban motor vehicles and bladed weapons? Of course they've also banned bladed weapons along with guns in Australia. Violent crime has more than doubled since.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Begging to differ in opinion, but both the Uzi and the AK-47 were not invented as weapons of war per se. They were both invented as weapons of homeland protection against foreign invasion. Their purpose was defence instead of aggression.
Last edited:
- Status
