If you track back you will see I did not make the comparison of car vs weapon. I did however, support the observation that another made that cars kill far more and are used as weapons as well. I stand by that statement as I have seen it multiple times. I wonder how many times you have seen what I have?
Your reference to the Simpsons was not lost on me. I know exactly what you meant to imply.
And I stand by my statement, as well. Namely, that, while many objects not designed as weapons (more specifically for this discussion, firearms) can be misapplied as weapons, that there is no practical use for a firearm beyond injury/killing. A car has a practical purpose of transportation. A hammer has a practical purpose of driving nails. Even a knife has other practical purposes as mundane as unsealing a box. A firearm is a unitasker, not a multitasker.
Quote:
Where would you have drills? ReallY? You do better than that one.
Since the Second Amendment's guarantees are prefaced with the condition of the importance of a well-regulated militia, let me ask the question a different way. If this militia is made up of - potentially - "everyone," many (most?) of whom will never communicate with another gun owner regarding coordination of activities, how does this constitute the well-regulated militia mentioned in the Second Amendment?
Quote:
Lets face it for what it is. You and I both know if you are face to face with the criminal element bearing arms then you are most definitely defenseless if you are unarmed.
Let's face it for what it is. You and I both know that lacking a firearm does not, in and of itself, render a person "defenseless."
Quote:
Yes it is interesting and was intended to be so.
And you don't see anything tragic or sad in the least about a mentality that sees others as "targets" rather than people?
Quote:
You are correct you probably shouldn't be armed.
There's no "probably" about it. I have absolutely no business with a gun in my possession.
Quote:
I seriously hope you never have the opportunity to defend yourself with ideology. In which case you would find yourself wanting.
I see what you did there. You once again drew the false conclusion that lack of a firearm automatically renders one "defenseless." Dramatic, if still a fallacy. Posted via Mobile Device
I may not need or want a firearm but I sure want to have the option
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting a complete ban of private ownership of firearms, simply the implementation of logical, reasonable limitations and regulations. For instance, what use does a private individual have for an assault rifle and/or armor-piercing rounds? Is there a huge deer in body armor out there somewhere?
I get that, for better or for worse, they're never going to completely leave US society. At the same time, many gun owners seem to take the stance that any talk of reasonable limits is tantamount to suggesting all guns be forcibly confiscated and melted down. There also seems to be a bit of a dehumanizing POV on the part of some gun owners (witness in this very thread the view of people as "targets"). The worst aspect of this that I recall was on that same Politically Incorrect I mentioned upthread. It was in the wake of the Columbine shootings, and it came up that the NRA was going to hold their national convention in Denver. Given the then-recent events, citizens requested the NRA cancel or move their convention. The NRA refused. Heston, with a smarmy smirk on his face, referred to those who showed up to protest the convention as being in bad taste as, "...pathetic little people standing in the rain, upset because no one agreed with them." (But then, in the same show, he also likened the Second Amendment to the Ten Commandments and himself to Moses, before being reminded that that was just a role he played in a film.) Posted via Mobile Device
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting a complete ban of private ownership of firearms, simply the implementation of logical, reasonable limitations and regulations. For instance, what use does a private individual have for an assault rifle and/or armor-piercing rounds? Is there a huge deer in body armor out there somewhere?
I get that, for better or for worse, they're never going to completely leave US society. At the same time, many gun owners seem to take the stance that any talk of reasonable limits is tantamount to suggesting all guns be forcibly confiscated and melted down. There also seems to be a bit of a dehumanizing POV on the part of some gun owners (witness in this very thread the view of people as "targets"). The worst aspect of this that I recall was on that same Politically Incorrect I mentioned upthread. It was in the wake of the Columbine shootings, and it came up that the NRA was going to hold their national convention in Denver. Given the then-recent events, citizens requested the NRA cancel or move their convention. The NRA refused. Heston, with a smarmy smirk on his face, referred to those who showed up to protest the convention as being in bad taste as, "...pathetic little people standing in the rain, upset because no one agreed with them." (But then, in the same show, he also likened the Second Amendment to the Ten Commandments and himself to Moses, before being reminded that that was just a role he played in a film.) Posted via Mobile Device
what's "reasonable" and who gets to decide that?
that's part of the problem isn't it?
again, I care not for hunting or defense or what have you, I believe more in the fact that the founders wished for the government to have a healthy fear of its own citizenship and I believe in that principal highly.
'The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.'--George Washington
Cute "quote", but that is simply internet fallacy. There is no documentation to back up that Georgie ever said it, or anything like it. It is, by any serious inquiry.. been deemed bogus.
(sorry my hobby is bad quotes, not guns... and I know BS when I see it.)
I get that, for better or for worse, they're never going to completely leave US society. At the same time, many gun owners seem to take the stance that any talk of reasonable limits is tantamount to suggesting all guns be forcibly confiscated and melted down.
What is a reasonable limit? Who makes this limit? What is the basis? What would you suggest?
Quote:
There also seems to be a bit of a dehumanizing POV on the part of some gun owners (witness in this very thread the view of people as "targets").
If you come in my house and I didn't allow you in... you are a target. A human target.
You seem to be confused. If someone breaks into your home while you are there, they aren't popping in to say hello. They are entering your home expecting a confrontation and they are most likely prepared for it.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting a complete ban of private ownership of firearms, simply the implementation of logical, reasonable limitations and regulations. For instance, what use does a private individual have for an assault rifle and/or armor-piercing rounds? Is there a huge deer in body armor out there somewhere?
I get that, for better or for worse, they're never going to completely leave US society. At the same time, many gun owners seem to take the stance that any talk of reasonable limits is tantamount to suggesting all guns be forcibly confiscated and melted down. There also seems to be a bit of a dehumanizing POV on the part of some gun owners (witness in this very thread the view of people as "targets"). The worst aspect of this that I recall was on that same Politically Incorrect I mentioned upthread. It was in the wake of the Columbine shootings, and it came up that the NRA was going to hold their national convention in Denver. Given the then-recent events, citizens requested the NRA cancel or move their convention. The NRA refused. Heston, with a smarmy smirk on his face, referred to those who showed up to protest the convention as being in bad taste as, "...pathetic little people standing in the rain, upset because no one agreed with them." (But then, in the same show, he also likened the Second Amendment to the Ten Commandments and himself to Moses, before being reminded that that was just a role he played in a film.) Posted via Mobile Device
The tired old hunting argument. The 2nd Amendment isn't, hasn't ever been, nor ever will be, about hunting. That is simply an anti-gun lobby misdirection.
It is about the ability of the people to overthrow an unjust government. By that augment, a law abiding citizen should be able to acquire almost any type of weapon.
A legally armed person with a machine gun is far less dangerous than a criminal with a single shot.
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
What is a reasonable limit? Who makes this limit? What is the basis? What would you suggest?
Start at one extreme - the low end or the high end - and work your way up or down. What would a common individual need for personal defense?
Quote:
If you come in my house and I didn't allow you in... you are a target. A human target.
That doesn't appear to be the context in which It was used earlier in the thread. That context implied viewing not just trespassers but everyone as varying degrees of "targets."
Quote:
You seem to be confused. If someone breaks into your home while you are there, they aren't popping in to say hello. They are entering your home expecting a confrontation and they are most likely prepared for it.
I'm not confused at all. Please point out where I've suggested that trespassers have harmless intent. Posted via Mobile Device
...It is about the ability of the people to overthrow an unjust government. By that augment, a law abiding citizen should be able to acquire almost any type of weapon...
Yes, it is. But be honest here. Do you seriously think armed civillions could overthrow the US Military?
I wonder if this can even be used as an argument in defense of owning guns in the 21st century.
"Guys.. go get your gear.. lets storm Ft Bragg."
I dont think this changes the constitutional rationale for gun ownership one iota, but I tend to find that one particular argument a little bit hollow in the real world?
Do I think that armed civilians could overthrow the military, of course not. But, I also believe that if such an order was ever given, two things that would stop it. Dissension of the individual solider and leaders that would refuse such an order on moral grounds and the population standing against the rest. The entire military force of this country would have an impossible task of occupying every street, every town, every farm, every field in this country. The British were the mightiest military at the time of our revolution.
How different would Tianemen Square had been if there were armed citizens.
North Korea would look completely different if the starving populace could stand for themselves.
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
Last edited by Mistys dad; 03-13-2012 at 03:30 PM.
The tired old hunting argument. The 2nd Amendment isn't, hasn't ever been, nor ever will be, about hunting. That is simply an anti-gun lobby misdirection.
Not intended as a "tired old" anything, simply another illustration. Regardless of the context being in the wild or in the streets...what use does the average person have for an assault rifle and/or armor-piercing rounds?
Quote:
It is about the ability of the people to overthrow an unjust government. By that augment, a law abiding citizen should be able to acquire almost any type of weapon.
Even you have used the qualifier "almost" here. Thus, you agree that there should be some limitations as to what weapons the average person has access to.
Quote:
A legally armed person with a machine gun is far less dangerous than a criminal with a single shot.
Why do you need a machine gun? And, for that matter, why do you assume that someone using a gun for a criminal action didn't obtain that weapon legally and/or is less trained or proficient in its use than you are? Posted via Mobile Device
...How different would Tianemen Square had been if there were armed citizens.
North Korea would look completely different if the starving populace could stand for themselves...
yep. But I think Tiananmen would not have looked any different, nor I expect would North Korea... sadly.
Events in europe and the mideast have shown civil unrest by itself will topple a government.. and not necessarily bands of people waving assault weapons and firing a few grenade launchers or rockets. You are sort of making my argument for me with the example ofthe Brits.
Same for the French revolution. (Gads... lets not bring the french into this...) Also the same as the October revolution in the Soviet union.. sortof. ;-)
The Second Amendment does not require a "Need" be fulfilled.
I make no assumption on the person's obtaining a weapon, training, or ability to use it. Simply that a legally used and possessed firearm is far less dangerous than one that is about to be used in a criminal action.
"Almost", yes. My Apache Helicopter pisses my neighbors dogs off when I roll out in the morning for coffee.
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
Actually, I would say that current events in the Middle East show exactly what a few people with Ak-47s and RPGs can do to the strongest military on the planet.
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
I remember, around age 13-14 a couple of FRELIMO types coming around the ranch complex. They might have been FRELIMO or just brigands or some misguided ANC that didn't get the 'don't shoot people' notice or ZANU or ZAPU, don't know, none of the grownups asked. They were probably more hungry than anything else. They should have put down the assault rifles if all they wanted was food. I suspect they were going to try to steal it. I don't remember getting a good look at them but they weren't kids (since that happened occasionally) Someone yelled at them in Portuguese, and someone tried some others - English, Shona, who knows. Well it sucked to be them that day. They got blasted. The takeaway is don't lug a gun around unless you plan on either using it or dropping it.
31Likes
