Where does he say ex-military and ex-law enforcement?Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Jan 11 2013, 03:43 AM) Oh so ex-military and ex-law enforcement civilians can have semi-automatic rifles but the rest of us civilians can't? What kind of screwed up law is that?
A little more about guns
Revolvers would not count towards semi-automatic, although they would still be a restricted class of firearm due to it being concealed carry/portable. Typically this non-semi-auto status would be due to the slowness of reload speeds. I understand that with high skill levels / advanced equipment you can do speed loading but neither the less typically a semi-auto would have a distinct advantage in a firefight versus them assuming a reload is required.
If what I said were law Ex-military/ex-law enforcement would/should lose their privileges
uh kinda drunk now and getting pulled away by hot bitchessss, probably idea isn't compelte. WOOOO I'll carry more on this late.r
If what I said were law Ex-military/ex-law enforcement would/should lose their privileges
uh kinda drunk now and getting pulled away by hot bitchessss, probably idea isn't compelte. WOOOO I'll carry more on this late.r
Owning a thermonuclear device is just as much of a right as freedom of speech. That right can be abused, but it is a right and thus should not even be open to debate.
Or is that a weapon too far Cammy, in which case you're electing to restrict people's rights no matter what and just arguing over where to draw the line.
Or is that a weapon too far Cammy, in which case you're electing to restrict people's rights no matter what and just arguing over where to draw the line.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
-
takingarms1
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
That's a very poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum. There's a long history of gun ownership as a right, particularly in US history where often people needed a gun to put food on the table.
On the other hand, every right, even freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions (i.e. no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). That's like the first thing they teach in grade school when we start learning about the Constitution.
On the other hand, every right, even freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions (i.e. no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). That's like the first thing they teach in grade school when we start learning about the Constitution.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
- - - -
As TA states, there is no history of nuclear device ownership. Firearm ownership was something carried down from our British lineage. That you Brits gave up your right doesn't mean we have to.Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jan 10 2013, 09:36 PM) Owning a thermonuclear device is just as much of a right as freedom of speech. That right can be abused, but it is a right and thus should not even be open to debate.
Or is that a weapon too far Cammy, in which case you're electing to restrict people's rights no matter what and just arguing over where to draw the line.
Besides, it is my understanding that Brits can still own an AKM or an AR-15 so long as it has had its gas system disabled and thus rendered a bolt action. The amount of work needed to restore its semi-automatic, or even full automatic functionality is well within what a metalworker can do... but of course a law abiding citizen won't do that.
Likewise a law abiding citizen of the US won't attempt to restore full automatic functionality to their AR-15s nor would they use it in a shooting.
Which is pretty much the point, these people who commit these shooting are NOT law abiding. And there is no reason to expect that more restrictive laws will have any appreciable impact... historically they haven't shown to have positive impacts... it has been changes in culture that has been the difference.
If you go back far enough there's no history of freedom of speech either, at some point somebody decided it was a good idea and changed the status quo. America seems disturbingly conservative towards it's history to me, there's always room for change and progress.
Whilst a nuke is clearly silly there's a progression. I can own a knife so why not a pistol, so why not a rifle, so why not an automatic, so why not a grenade, so why not a land mine, so why not a bomb, so why not a nuke? (Apologies if there's steps there that don't make sense, I'm not a firearms expert by any stretch of the imagination). We draw the line at knife, the USA draws it somewhere else. Either way there's a list of stuff you can own and a list of stuff you can't. If you have a right to own stuff then that right is being restricted no matter what.
Whilst a nuke is clearly silly there's a progression. I can own a knife so why not a pistol, so why not a rifle, so why not an automatic, so why not a grenade, so why not a land mine, so why not a bomb, so why not a nuke? (Apologies if there's steps there that don't make sense, I'm not a firearms expert by any stretch of the imagination). We draw the line at knife, the USA draws it somewhere else. Either way there's a list of stuff you can own and a list of stuff you can't. If you have a right to own stuff then that right is being restricted no matter what.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
The "because we started doing it hundreds of years ago" approach to law making/critical thinking is woefully inadequate and archaic for a logical argument.
ie. Australians used to extremely effectively apply genocide on their indigenous population. Should that still be the status quo to deal with native rebellion? Mass extermination if they don't vanish out of sight? I think not.
ie. Australians used to extremely effectively apply genocide on their indigenous population. Should that still be the status quo to deal with native rebellion? Mass extermination if they don't vanish out of sight? I think not.
-
takingarms1
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
Stay focused. No one is arguing that. Raveen tried to claim that owning a nuke was a right when no such right has ever existed. In the US many still believe owning firearms is a right. The "why" of it isn't "because that's the way it's always been," but rather reasons like, keeping government in check, recreation, self-defense, hunting, etc.djrbk wrote:QUOTE (djrbk @ Jan 11 2013, 11:21 AM) The "because we started doing it hundreds of years ago" approach to law making/critical thinking is woefully inadequate and archaic for a logical argument.
Certainly you're correct. We draw lines, too - no automatic weapons in the US, for instance. As I stated earlier, no right is absolute, and even the right of freedom of speech is subject to restrictions in the US. The basic legal concept that we operate under is that for the right to be restricted, there has to be a Really Good Reason. There's all kinds of Supreme Court cases that talk about what constitutes a Really Good Reason and what doesn't, and of course it all depends on what right we're talking about. In the case of guns, the US Supreme Court allowed the assault weapons ban to stand, as well as other types of limitations (like not owning nukes, rocket launchers, or fully armed Apache helicopters).Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jan 11 2013, 10:39 AM) We draw the line at knife, the USA draws it somewhere else. Either way there's a list of stuff you can own and a list of stuff you can't. If you have a right to own stuff then that right is being restricted no matter what.
It looks like as a result of these recent shootings, we're going to have some new law placing additional restrictions on gun ownership. I doubt you'll ever see a full ban on gun ownership in our lifetime, if ever.
I'd like to address the idea that gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens by pointing out that the kids doing these school shootings tend to fall into the "law abiding citizen" gun owner category until they start shooting up schools. I'm not sure that gun laws will prevent these shootings, but maybe we should make it a bit harder for crazy people to have access to big guns that hold a lot of bullets.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
- - - -
Hunting = bolt action or shotguns
Keeping the government in check = impossible without vastly superior weaponry than what is available now (see: nuclear over exaggeration)
Self-defence = see statistics about gun murder/injury rates. It is something like .5% deaths are related to self defence. WRT tho a revolver would be an acceptable self defence weaponfor civilian s as it (typically) has a much slower reload time. Bolt action pistols do exist and can be enforced though. (Though I imagine revolvers to be much more preferable)
Recreation = Sure, thats fine - but it should be restricted to weapons that are not semi/full automatic unless you are military or law enforcement.
There is no reason that I can be convinced of that civilian s require semi automatic weapons over bolt /lever / etc weapons.
Keeping the government in check = impossible without vastly superior weaponry than what is available now (see: nuclear over exaggeration)
Self-defence = see statistics about gun murder/injury rates. It is something like .5% deaths are related to self defence. WRT tho a revolver would be an acceptable self defence weaponfor civilian s as it (typically) has a much slower reload time. Bolt action pistols do exist and can be enforced though. (Though I imagine revolvers to be much more preferable)
Recreation = Sure, thats fine - but it should be restricted to weapons that are not semi/full automatic unless you are military or law enforcement.
There is no reason that I can be convinced of that civilian s require semi automatic weapons over bolt /lever / etc weapons.