Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 464591 times)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #600 on: April 04, 2016, 02:07:09 PM »
Maybe this will help display the absurdity of this "conversation."

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree you don't REALLY right to own a firearm at all!

Now this is a straw man argument.  The reason to bring other weapons into the conversation is that some weapons are controlled.  Firearms are weapons.

A: I have the right to own a firearm.
Z: Oh yeah? Do you also have the right to own a NUCLEAR SMALLPOX BAZOOKA?!?!?!
A: No...
Z: Ah, so you must agree that limits on weapons are necessary!  We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited.

^ Is more what I've been saying.

Yes, it is a straw man. No doubt about it. And it had the intended effect. It got you to state a position that actually makes some sense in the context of our society. Specifically the last statement of Z: "We can discuss where drawing the lines makes sense.  Maybe it makes sense where it is right now, maybe it would make sense if ownership of certain types of firearms were more limited."

Ok, lets do that. In the U.S. the first half or 3/4 of the 20th Century, the "line" so to speak was drawn in the wrong place. Many obviously incorrect laws existed that made it illegal for most people to practice their natural right to keep and bear arms. However, at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, we have made a lot of progress in fixing that.

-We got rid of the Assault Weapons Ban
-We liberalized concealed carry. Today, most Americans can obtain a concealed handgun license. Many don't even need a permit.
-We are expanding open carry. Many Americans can Open carry, and some don't need a permit.
-We are working on breaking down obviously wrong NFA restrictions.
-We are expanding the number of places carry is allowed.
-New guns are designed and marketed all the time and are purchased at record speeds.
-Many CHL holders don't need a background check when buying a gun.
-We passed a law preventing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
-We repealed many of the worst parts of the 1968 GCA
-We won some important court cases regarding the 2A
-We are fighting against the totally wrong "May issue" CHL license policies in some states and locales.

There are many more things I could mention. We have won a lot of battles, and we will win the battles we are currently fighting. Then, we will begin new battles to get rid of other obviously incorrect gun laws and policies and attitudes that still exist.

You might wonder why we are winning. It seems that the rest of the "civilized" world is going in the OTHER direction. The reason we are winning and will continue to win is because we are on the right side. I am correct about all the natural rights stuff. And everyone knows it. Even people who HATE guns and pretend ignorance know deep down that the United States us founded on the existence of natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. So the anti gun folks lack a legal or moral leg to stand on. That is why we have been able to knock over these laws one at a time and will continue to do so.

Your entire justification seems to boil down to "It was wrong earlier in the 20th century but it is getting better now." That isn't much of a justification. For instance, why exactly do you believe that limiting ownership of assault rifles is an unreasonable limit? One might wonder why assault rifles are needed for self defense.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't need to justify anything. I have the right to own so-called "assault weapons." If you can demonstrate the overwhelming need to ban "assault weapons", I might at least consider entertaining the idea that such a policy might make some sense. The people with the rights don't need to justify their rights, the people who want to RESTRICT rights need to demonstrate why it is so critical that a right needs to be restricted.  Feel free to do so.

So why, in your mind, is it so important to ban "assault weapons" (and please define this term so I can stop putting it in quotes) that you need to restrict my rights?

Seems to me that YOU were the one that brought up the assault weapons ban and when you did, you didn't use quotes. Remarkable how you are seem unwilling (or perhaps unable) to take your position beyond the inane "right to self-defense" point. I would think reasonable people ought to be able to defend their positions.

I was referring to a particular law that used to exist commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban.

Again, describe in general terms the type of gun law you would like to see and explain the benefits of such a law and why it would be worth giving up some rights to enjoy those benefits.

If you would you like to use the former law commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban as the basis for this discussion, I would be fine with that. Please explain why the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban should be re-enacted, and what benefits it would provide in exchange for limiting my rights.


Here is an example.

Free Speech Advocate: There should be no limits on speech.
Fire in Theater Guy: We should make it illegal to yell FIRE in a theater unless you actually think there is a fire.
FSA: Why?
FTG: Because it will prevent unnecessary panics and stampedes. It will save lives. More importantly, people will know that if someone DOES yell FIRE, there is probably a fire and they should leave. It will prevent the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect and save lives that way as well.
FSA: Well, you make a good point. And there is NO benefit to someone who says FIRE in a theater unnecessarily. The only reason to do so is malicious. Your proposed law will restrict free speech, but the pros out weigh the cons (of which there are actually none). So yes. Even though I am a free speech advocate, I will go along with your plan to limit speech in this way.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 02:25:01 PM by winkeyman »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #601 on: April 04, 2016, 02:14:49 PM »
And you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.


Quote
Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

He was not arguing that there is no line.  He was arguing that you don't have the right to determine his line, and no one else does either.

Notice how you just earlier drew a line to determine the acceptability of defending yourself?  Obviously someone does get the right to determine the line.

No, you are conflating natural rights from political statutes.  The criminal loses his natural rights only if he violates a natural right of another.  Otherwise it's not actually criminal, but simply a code infraction.  I don't lose my right to travel, simply for speeding, because speeding is a code infraction.  What you described was an actual violation of another human being's own natural human rights.  If you don't agree, feel free to argue in favor of child-boy-love, because I'd love to see how you do that one.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #602 on: April 04, 2016, 02:30:33 PM »
Quote from: winkeyman
First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor[sic], everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments).

This is demonstrably false.  Moonshadow can demonstrate:

Quote from: Moonshadow
you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights.

You can easily lose your natural rights " to defend life, liberty, and property from attack" based on rules society decides.  (In the above example that Moonshadow gave, committing a crime negates your natural right.)  Therefore, natural rights do not trump what society determines is acceptable.


Quote from: Winkeyman
You are really having trouble with this. I did not make a "claim." The United States (and to some extent Canada I assume) are predicated on the idea that natural rights exist. That is not a claim. That is a fact.

As demonstrated above, natural rights exist only until society takes them away.  The existence of natural rights therefore does not therefore guarantee the legality of ownership of firearms.

You are doing it again.

A: "People have the right to own firearms"
B: "So 3 year olds and convicted serial killers have the right to own guns?"
A "No"
B "Then you are wrong, people don't have the right to own firearms"

I didn't know I was writing a legal document, otherwise I would have been more careful with my language.

But yes, you are correct to an extent. I have the right to travel freely. But I don't have the right to travel freely in your house. I have the right to own a gun, but not to walk into a school and shoot people with it. I have the right to walk in a park, but not if I have a history of sexually assaulting children.

These things are obvious. I don't feel the need to clarify every statement I make as if I were speaking to an alien life form with no context with which to process my words. Maybe I should start?

Winkeyman, I think the point GuitarStv is making and that you seem to be missing is that your original comments seemed to imply that because something is a natural right, the exercise of that right is therefore unlimited. GuitarStv provided a number of examples where even you would agree there is a limit on what you call the natural right to self defense. Thus the real question is not whether or not a natural right exists, but what are reasonable limits of those rights. This is the point some of us disagree on and you simply pointing out that a natural right exists provides absolutely no justification for why your idea of reasonable limits is more reasonable than my idea of reasonable limits. Basically, when you or anyone resorts to the natural right argument, GuitarStv's response is 'so what'.

Except that is not how rights work.  Winkyman is correct, that he is starting with the root given assumptions that the framers of the Constitution did, that mankind has natural rights.  By that logic, natural rights cannot be 'infringed' by human governments, as a general rule, unless and until the particular individual in discussion has acted in such a way as demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to respect those natural rights in others.  Once you have demonstrated that you don't respect my own rights, I am no longer obliged to respect yours (no matter my own postion on natural rights) and neither is government/society/courts/police acting in my behalf or in defense of society in general.  That doesn't negate the root concept, that all human beings have certain, definable & undefinable, natural rights by reason of being human beings; at least until their own actions show that is not reciprocal.

Under natural rights/common law/natural law as a root given assumption in a society; no one has the right to violate the rights of others unless 'encroached' upon first, and that includes government acting as the representative of society collectively.  So you don't get a vote on my rights, or how they might be limited; they are only limited by my own actions or consent.  While I might agree to not own a TOW missile without oversight by a federal agency, you don't actually have a right of your own to compel me to negotiate, in the same manner that I don't have a right to compel you to take up arms of your own.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #603 on: April 04, 2016, 02:35:18 PM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

Dramaman, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #604 on: April 04, 2016, 02:37:12 PM »
Please see my above post. There is no AWB. I have the right to own "assault weapons". Please, define "assault weapons," and then explain why such a law is so important that I should give up some of my rights to enjoy the benefit of such a law.

I am not being facetious. This is how this type of discussion should go.

Exactly right. Rights should only be limited when they interfere with the rights of another. This is why the "AWB" ban lapsed - it was shown to be too onerous on the rights of individuals without measurably protecting the rights of anyone else.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #605 on: April 04, 2016, 02:49:42 PM »

Here is an example.

Free Speech Advocate: There should be no limits on speech.
Fire in Theater Guy: We should make it illegal to yell FIRE in a theater unless you actually think there is a fire.
FSA: Why?
FTG: Because it will prevent unnecessary panics and stampedes. It will save lives. More importantly, people will know that if someone DOES yell FIRE, there is probably a fire and they should leave. It will prevent the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect and save lives that way as well.
FSA: Well, you make a good point. And there is NO benefit to someone who says FIRE in a theater unnecessarily. The only reason to do so is malicious. Your proposed law will restrict free speech, but the pros out weigh the cons (of which there are actually none). So yes. Even though I am a free speech advocate, I will go along with your plan to limit speech in this way.

Actually, Winkeyman, a prohibition upon yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater falsely (i.e. deliberate incitement of a panic) does not limit free speech, because no one actually has to wear duct tape (or leave their voice box at home.   "Do you have a permit for that?" "Yes, the 1st Amendment") before entering a theater.  The practical ability to violate this law still exists, just as the practical ability to violate the laws against murder still exist.  Those statutes exist only to define how, exactly, we (as a society) will respond to rights violations amongst ourselves; not as a pre-emptive action or presumption of malice.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #606 on: April 04, 2016, 03:05:09 PM »

Here is an example.

Free Speech Advocate: There should be no limits on speech.
Fire in Theater Guy: We should make it illegal to yell FIRE in a theater unless you actually think there is a fire.
FSA: Why?
FTG: Because it will prevent unnecessary panics and stampedes. It will save lives. More importantly, people will know that if someone DOES yell FIRE, there is probably a fire and they should leave. It will prevent the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect and save lives that way as well.
FSA: Well, you make a good point. And there is NO benefit to someone who says FIRE in a theater unnecessarily. The only reason to do so is malicious. Your proposed law will restrict free speech, but the pros out weigh the cons (of which there are actually none). So yes. Even though I am a free speech advocate, I will go along with your plan to limit speech in this way.

Actually, Winkeyman, a prohibition upon yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater falsely (i.e. deliberate incitement of a panic) does not limit free speech, because no one actually has to wear duct tape (or leave their voice box at home.   "Do you have a permit for that?" "Yes, the 1st Amendment") before entering a theater.  The practical ability to violate this law still exists, just as the practical ability to violate the laws against murder still exist.  Those statutes exist only to define how, exactly, we (as a society) will respond to rights violations amongst ourselves; not as a pre-emptive action or presumption of malice.

True enough, and a good distinction to make.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9455
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #607 on: April 04, 2016, 05:52:32 PM »
Please see my above post. There is no AWB. I have the right to own "assault weapons". Please, define "assault weapons," and then explain why such a law is so important that I should give up some of my rights to enjoy the benefit of such a law.

I am not being facetious. This is how this type of discussion should go.

Exactly right. Rights should only be limited when they interfere with the rights of another. This is why the "AWB" ban lapsed - it was shown to be too onerous on the rights of individuals without measurably protecting the rights of anyone else.

In light of this argument, I'm going to go back to the same ridiculous arguments because they apply yet again.  Please stick with me to the end before you start pounding heads on keyboards.

Does surrounding your home with landmines infringe upon someone else's rights?  Unless that person is infringing upon your right (by entering your property), I don't really see how.  A landmine is a far more defensive weapon than a handgun.  Putting 'caution - landmine' signs all over your property would surely be better deterrent than owning a shotgun.  Why is it not OK to own a landmine . . . severity of potential accidents?  An awful lot of people die in gun related accidents every year.

Does owning a nuke infringe on someone else's rights?  If so, how . . . potential collateral damage?  If we're suddenly concerned about collateral damage from a nuke, maybe some similar arguments could be transferred across to handguns.  Nukes don't kill people, they're just a tool.  People who detonate nukes kill people.  You don't always have to use nukes, just having them is a great deterrence (it was the whole basis of the cold war, right?).  Yeah, some innocent people might die if you use a nuke improperly.  The same can happen if you use a gun improperly.

Obviously this is a hyperbolic overstatement - but it's for a purpose.  Sometimes we ban things just because they're dangerous.  Just owning a landmine doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Just owning a nuke doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Owning fully automatic weapons is considered dangerous as fuck, which is why they've been made more difficult to get a hold of.  An argument can be made that generally having a huge number of guns floating around in society is very dangerous (Albeit less so than a society where nukes and landmines can be purchased at every convenience store).

This is why talking about gun control is still reasonable.  Infringing on rights is sometimes OK when there's a net benefit.  Sadly, it's difficult to conclusively show data to support gun ownership or control.  Funding for gun research has been radically curtailed in the US (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx).  Research from other countries is typically dismissed out of hand.  A scenario has been created where it's not really possible to prove things one way or another with regards to the effects of gun control.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #608 on: April 04, 2016, 06:27:12 PM »
Please see my above post. There is no AWB. I have the right to own "assault weapons". Please, define "assault weapons," and then explain why such a law is so important that I should give up some of my rights to enjoy the benefit of such a law.

I am not being facetious. This is how this type of discussion should go.

Exactly right. Rights should only be limited when they interfere with the rights of another. This is why the "AWB" ban lapsed - it was shown to be too onerous on the rights of individuals without measurably protecting the rights of anyone else.

In light of this argument, I'm going to go back to the same ridiculous arguments because they apply yet again.  Please stick with me to the end before you start pounding heads on keyboards.

Does surrounding your home with landmines infringe upon someone else's rights?  Unless that person is infringing upon your right (by entering your property), I don't really see how.  A landmine is a far more defensive weapon than a handgun.  Putting 'caution - landmine' signs all over your property would surely be better deterrent than owning a shotgun.  Why is it not OK to own a landmine . . . severity of potential accidents?  An awful lot of people die in gun related accidents every year.

Does owning a nuke infringe on someone else's rights?  If so, how . . . potential collateral damage?  If we're suddenly concerned about collateral damage from a nuke, maybe some similar arguments could be transferred across to handguns.  Nukes don't kill people, they're just a tool.  People who detonate nukes kill people.  You don't always have to use nukes, just having them is a great deterrence (it was the whole basis of the cold war, right?).  Yeah, some innocent people might die if you use a nuke improperly.  The same can happen if you use a gun improperly.

Obviously this is a hyperbolic overstatement - but it's for a purpose.  Sometimes we ban things just because they're dangerous.  Just owning a landmine doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Just owning a nuke doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Owning fully automatic weapons is considered dangerous as fuck, which is why they've been made more difficult to get a hold of.  An argument can be made that generally having a huge number of guns floating around in society is very dangerous (Albeit less so than a society where nukes and landmines can be purchased at every convenience store).

This is why talking about gun control is still reasonable.  Infringing on rights is sometimes OK when there's a net benefit.  Sadly, it's difficult to conclusively show data to support gun ownership or control.  Funding for gun research has been radically curtailed in the US (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx).  Research from other countries is typically dismissed out of hand.  A scenario has been created where it's not really possible to prove things one way or another with regards to the effects of gun control.

Side note...fully automatic firearms aren't difficult at all to get. They're just fucking expensive.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #609 on: April 04, 2016, 06:31:35 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9455
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #610 on: April 04, 2016, 06:38:27 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #611 on: April 04, 2016, 06:50:31 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?
Pools kill even more children than guns.  Why do we accept pool related deaths?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #612 on: April 04, 2016, 06:53:31 PM »
Because it is a near certainty that land mines planted in my front yard will cause an accident. It is a near impossibility that my gun will. Mostly because guns do not and cannot fire on their own. Once planted and armed, a land mine will blow up when pressure is placed on it. Once loaded, a gun won't do anything until someone pulls the trigger.

It is not the mere ownership of a land mine that I have a problem with. It is the criminally negligent act of placing them in your front yard that I have a problem with.

I would have a similar problem with someone placing a loaded gun on their front lawn right up next to the sidewalk where children walk to school. I almost can't believe I have having this conversation.

It's not the possession of alcohol I have a problem with, it is the consumption of large amounts of it while driving an 18 wheeler I have a problem with. Can you really not see the difference? Are you trolling at this point?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #613 on: April 04, 2016, 06:59:32 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

You are many times more likely to kill yourself, or kill your toddler, by placing them into a child car seat and driving them to day care on a regular basis than anyone is likely to kill anyone with a firearm properly stored in a home, or even openly carried by a trained & licensed concealed carry permit holder.  Your 'practical' arguments will not hold up to real scrutiny, even if they mattered in a world where I have rights.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #614 on: April 04, 2016, 07:03:38 PM »
Just to pick one of your "points".

Planting land mines on your front lawn would be indefensible because it is almost certain, eventually  that a child, dog, delivery person, meter reader or other unwary person will trigger one inadvertently.  The land mine silliness is more akin to releasing a weaponized pathogen than owning a handgun. Most governments won't even use land mines in a war zone because of the risk to innocents.

It's not even sort of comparable. It is as you said, silly.

Toddlers (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/) and dogs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/) inadvertently kill people in the US by gun every year.  There are so many shootings because of mistaken identity that it would be impossible to list them all.  If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

You are many times more likely to kill yourself, or kill your toddler, by placing them into a child car seat and driving them to day care on a regular basis than anyone is likely to kill anyone with a firearm properly stored in a home, or even openly carried by a trained & licensed concealed carry permit holder.  Your 'practical' arguments will not hold up to real scrutiny, even if they mattered in a world where I have rights.

In this hypothetical world where guns are banned because too many toddlers and dogs shoot people, can I be exempt from such laws because I neither have children nor dogs?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9455
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #615 on: April 04, 2016, 07:08:51 PM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #616 on: April 04, 2016, 07:11:17 PM »
There were 83 accidental fatal shootings in 2015 out of 73.6 million children that's a 0.000001 chance of being killed at home.

Sucks to be those 83, but you can't beat those odds. Seems like fear-mongering to me.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #617 on: April 04, 2016, 07:13:58 PM »
I'll take on the other one...


Does owning a nuke infringe on someone else's rights?  If so, how . . . potential collateral damage?  If we're suddenly concerned about collateral damage from a nuke, maybe some similar arguments could be transferred across to handguns.  Nukes don't kill people, they're just a tool.  People who detonate nukes kill people.  You don't always have to use nukes, just having them is a great deterrence (it was the whole basis of the cold war, right?).  Yeah, some innocent people might die if you use a nuke improperly. The same can happen if you use a gun improperly.


If you use a gun improperly, then you are held liable for that.  One well established principle is that of 'brandishing' a firearm; which is the act of displaying a firearm in public, as a visible threat.  I'm not talking about actually pointing it at someone, which is obviously a threat, but merely pulling it out of the holster and holding it in your hand, thus proving to everyone around you that you could use deadly force in very short order.  In some cases, this is already a crime, if the situation that you are in would imply that the brandishing gun owner is the one escalating a conflict.  A similar argument can be made for simply owning a nuke; while it's not pointed at anyone, you are effectively brandishing a weapon to everyone your weapon could reach.  This is exactly what "mutually assured destruction" nuclear deterrence theory depends upon.  Here is the thing, owning & carrying a handgun isn't about deterrence, it's about self-defense.  You will never know I'm armed in public, or if you do, it's already a very bad day.  That is the whole point of concealed carry, the ability to use force in self-defense, without using deterrence.  North Korea does have a right to self-defense, but they are the 'touched' teenager among soverign nations, who has already proven himself to be too unstable, and too willing to threaten his neighbors, to be entrusted with a handgun.  As a society, we assume that the gun owner is generally a rational, mentally stable person; until proven otherwise.  We don't let the known mentally disturbed buy firearms, either.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #618 on: April 04, 2016, 07:16:02 PM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

Quote
If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?
There's a clear implication there, unless you're just being ridiculous on purpose.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #619 on: April 04, 2016, 07:22:10 PM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

That's because, as I have pointed out before, the gun control side of this debate is dishonest.  I have demonstrated that actual gun control advocates would ban all guns if they thought that was possible, but propose "common sense gun control" regulations because they wish to move the Overton Window towards that end, until such time that they can ban all remaining weapons.  The primary tactic is to depend upon the ignorance of those without real firearms experience, or law degrees, to convince them that whatever activity they propose to prevent with their new law isn't already illegal, and whatever new government power they propose to establish isn't actually a new encroachment of gunowners' rights, or that whatever great policy they propose to establish (if not a new encroachment of gunowners' rights) already exists in some practical form.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #620 on: April 04, 2016, 07:28:13 PM »
If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

Usually it's a question of proportional force and discrimination of intent. With a normal gun, a person has to load it, aim it, take the safety off, and pull the trigger. A landmine doesn't have the capacity to discriminate against legitimate threats and incidental damage. It's an indiscriminate force.

Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #621 on: April 04, 2016, 07:38:51 PM »

Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

Which is one reason that a cop will get into a whole heap of trouble if he doesn't try to use his tazer against an agitated, but apparently unarmed, suspect; before pulling out his sidearm.  Even government agents are not exempt from established use of force rules, but notice that no one has proposed that cops can't carry firearms, or even that they shouldn't have access to their 'assault weapons' of choice.  We typically assume that the cops know which type of weapon is best.  Why, then, do you assume that a random gun owner does not?  Does he not, rationally, know better than a non-gun-owner, as to which type of weapon is best for his purpose?  Why, also, should I have to abide by the opinions of the uninitiated?  Shouldn't you, instead, consider what the professionals use?

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #622 on: April 04, 2016, 07:46:22 PM »
These are not straw man arguments, they are reductio ad absurdum arguments.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #623 on: April 04, 2016, 08:09:33 PM »
If we accept inadvertent deaths by gun to be par for the course, why not land mines?  If we don't accept deaths by landmine as par for the course, why do we accept gun related death?

Usually it's a question of proportional force and discrimination of intent. With a normal gun, a person has to load it, aim it, take the safety off, and pull the trigger. A landmine doesn't have the capacity to discriminate against legitimate threats and incidental damage. It's an indiscriminate force.

Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

A more accurate situation may be to insert a 100-ft distance between the person with a knife and the person with the gun.  A knife is considered a deadly weapon and, depending on circumstances (ability/opportunity/jeopardy - the deadly force triangle) the use of deadly force is justifiable. Shooting someone in the foot with a .22 and shooting someone in the head with a shotgun is not really different in the eyes of the law - it's all classed as lethal/deadly force.

The force used does need to be reasonably proportionate (or one level above), but this introduces a fair amount of situational complexity.  A 9yo with a baseball bat against a 6'4 240lb guy is one thing, but a 6'4" 240lb person with a baseball bat vs a 5'1" 105lb person is another story entirely.


Along the line of self defense, using a Gatling gun to shred someone that runs at you with a knife is also frowned upon and can be illegal. The force used needs to be reasonably proportionate to the threat level presented.

Which is one reason that a cop will get into a whole heap of trouble if he doesn't try to use his tazer against an agitated, but apparently unarmed, suspect; before pulling out his sidearm.  Even government agents are not exempt from established use of force rules, but notice that no one has proposed that cops can't carry firearms, or even that they shouldn't have access to their 'assault weapons' of choice.  We typically assume that the cops know which type of weapon is best.  Why, then, do you assume that a random gun owner does not?  Does he not, rationally, know better than a non-gun-owner, as to which type of weapon is best for his purpose?  Why, also, should I have to abide by the opinions of the uninitiated?  Shouldn't you, instead, consider what the professionals use?
This introduces another complication when discussing use of force outside of law enforcement. Your average CCW holder has no intermediate escalation available.  A police officer has many -- starting off with uniformed presence and voice commands, then going through soft hand control, hard hand control, OC/pepper spray, Taser, baton, and finally firearm.  A private citizen generally has no intermediate force options available - whether or not they know which weapon is appropriate is largely irrelevant when they do not generally have access to anything in the intermediate range.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #624 on: April 04, 2016, 11:38:41 PM »
The reason that I was harping on about your argument is that 'natural rights' are limited by society already.  They cannot be used as an argument for gun ownership, as society is allowed to (and often does) take them away.  'Natural rights' lose to what society decides every time.

Technically, in the US, without a constitutional amendment, they're not allowed to take them away or even restrict them. They do. But... Cowards will be cowards and tyrants love to play the victim.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #625 on: April 05, 2016, 12:16:43 AM »

Obviously this is a hyperbolic overstatement - but it's for a purpose.  Sometimes we ban things just because they're dangerous.  Just owning a landmine doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Just owning a nuke doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but it's dangerous as fuck.  Owning fully automatic weapons is considered dangerous as fuck, which is why they've been made more difficult to get a hold of.  An argument can be made that generally having a huge number of guns floating around in society is very dangerous (Albeit less so than a society where nukes and landmines can be purchased at every convenience store).

This is why talking about gun control is still reasonable.  Infringing on rights is sometimes OK when there's a net benefit.  Sadly, it's difficult to conclusively show data to support gun ownership or control.  Funding for gun research has been radically curtailed in the US (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx).  Research from other countries is typically dismissed out of hand.  A scenario has been created where it's not really possible to prove things one way or another with regards to the effects of gun control.

How many nukes have been set off by private parties? None... The materials are out there and legally obtainable to build one. Easy? No. Possible? Very. Who has used this extremely dangerous thing you speak of? Governments.

Landmines? Again, easily created, yet only really used by governments. Much larger explosions can be achieved (and have) using other perfectly legally obtained materials.

Automatic Weapons? Easy to make. Completely impractical in most domestic combat situations. Governments readily use them. I think there have been a few deaths that were accidents attributed to fully automatic weapons.

To the point I go! The 2nd amendment was reaffirmed by our forefathers because they just got done fighting a very bloody war against..... A GOVERNMENT! An oppressive 'society' that refused to recognize their Natural Rights. We have the 2nd amendment there to defend ourselves from anyone and everything. How we do so is our choice, not the government's and definitely not the sheep's.

Only a coward stands behind a piece of paper issued by tyrants and demands free men to obey.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 12:21:14 AM by Cyaphas »
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #626 on: April 05, 2016, 12:26:03 AM »
There were 83 accidental fatal shootings in 2015 out of 73.6 million children that's a 0.000001 chance of being killed at home.

Sucks to be those 83, but you can't beat those odds. Seems like fear-mongering to me.

These numbers seem even more minuscule when you look at the democide occurring in countries that do not allow their subjects to bear arms.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #627 on: April 05, 2016, 03:45:07 AM »
Only people on the gun advocacy side in this thread have suggested banning all guns.

After reading the whole thread, the most common suggestion was for some additional regulation, training, a usable list for law enforcement investigations, and background checks on all sales.

I'm pretty sure we covered this - with background checks free and able to be performed by the public for private weapon transfers and NO restrictions upon magazine capacity or weapon style for persons who pass the background check. It still wouldn't have any effect upon crime rates, illegal weapon sales or mass shootings, but might just be worth it to stop gun grabbers pissing and moaning about 'assault weapons' and 'smart guns' and 'going back to the wild west' and all the other bullshit they whinge about...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1966
  • Age: 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #628 on: April 05, 2016, 04:29:37 AM »
Quote
1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.
To me it's not the idea of living in a safe or unsafe place. It's the idea of feeling safe no matter where you live. We live in a safe area in CT, but the Cheshire home invasion took place a 30 minute from us. And Cheshire is considered a area too! I don't own a firearm, but my parents do and they keep it in their house. My mom especially is home alone quite a bit, and I worry less about her by the facts that she has a gun, knows how to use it, and it's perfectly legal.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)
Yes, my parents practice several times per year.

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?
My parents are the only ones living at home, but yes they know the basic drill if someone enters the house.

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?
My parents will first address the intruder and declare that they have a gun. If they attack, they will be shot. I don't think this outcome would result in arrest. It's self-defense.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #629 on: April 05, 2016, 05:33:55 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

Dramaman, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Moonshadow, I'm not asking you to defend your human right to self-defense. What I am saying is that we all pretty much accept that the right to self-defense is not unlimited, that not all armaments are necessary for personal self-defense and thus it is reasonable to ban certain types of armaments if there is a societal benefit to the ban. If one wishes to use the self-defense argument against such a ban, one should be able to justify why the armaments being banned are reasonable and/or necessary for self-defense. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban that Winky brought up that he thought was an infringement on the right to self-defense. The US is not a war-zone. I highly doubt the weapons included in the ban were really necessary for self-defense. Prior to and after the ban did people start to go around carrying those types of weapons for reasons of self defense. The ban itself was never declared a violation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that the opposition to that ban was NEVER about self-defense, but rather a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned. But then, I openly admit that I am not a gun expert. So I'm asking you gun experts who think that the ban was an infringement on the inherent right to self-defense, WHY?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #630 on: April 05, 2016, 06:42:18 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

Dramaman, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Moonshadow, I'm not asking you to defend your human right to self-defense. What I am saying is that we all pretty much accept that the right to self-defense is not unlimited, that not all armaments are necessary for personal self-defense and thus it is reasonable to ban certain types of armaments if there is a societal benefit to the ban. If one wishes to use the self-defense argument against such a ban, one should be able to justify why the armaments being banned are reasonable and/or necessary for self-defense. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban that Winky brought up that he thought was an infringement on the right to self-defense. The US is not a war-zone. I highly doubt the weapons included in the ban were really necessary for self-defense. Prior to and after the ban did people start to go around carrying those types of weapons for reasons of self defense. The ban itself was never declared a violation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that the opposition to that ban was NEVER about self-defense, but rather a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned. But then, I openly admit that I am not a gun expert. So I'm asking you gun experts who think that the ban was an infringement on the inherent right to self-defense, WHY?

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

To simplify things, lets be specific about what type of firearm we are talking about. Let's use the much-debated AR-15 type rifle as the example of a weapon many gun enthusiasts own, and which is targeted by laws like the AWB and other proposals.

The AR-15 is really, really popular. Industry experts say that there are as many as 30 million + AR-15 type rifles owned by Americans. It is difficult to tell how many because "AR-15" is a brand name owned by Armalite (Armalite Rifle Model 15). However, the gun's design is public domain so the gun is made under a different name by 15+ manufacturers that I can think of off the top of my head.

It is not some mystery why the gun is so popular. It is used in static, long distance target shooting competitions. It is used in carbine competitions, it is used in 3-gun competitions and others. It is used for hunting everything from squirrels to bear in different configurations. It can be chambered in anything from .22 LR to .50 Beowulf.

More importantly to our conversation here, it is an EXCELLENT rifle for home defense. Among many serious gun enthusiasts, it has eclipsed the handgun and the shotgun as the #1 recommendation for home defense. Why?

-It is very reliable when maintained properly. As in, it will not jam when you need it most.
-In the standard .223 chambering, properly selected ammunition is the LEAST LIKELY type of ammunition to over-penetrate. If you use it for self defense in your home, the bullet is VERY unlikely to over-penetrate and pass through an assailant and strike something unintentionally. Also, if the bullet misses and hits the wall, it will stop very quickly. Handgun ammunition and shotgun ammunition is much MORE likely to over penetrate and hence dangerous to innocent people in your home and outside it. The reasons for this are technical in nature and I won't go into them any further. The military and the FBI as well as private organizations have tested for this effect and the science is settled.
-The stock that typically comes with the AR-15 is telescoping. That means you can adjust it to fit your body type. Have you ever tried to golf with clubs too long or short for you? Shooting with a gun too long or short for you is just as hard. The telescoping stock allows it to be adjusted to the user without having to buy a custom stock and swap it out for each user.
-Magazines are cheap and readily available.
-Most AR-15s sold today have a picatiny rail on the top of the upper receiver. A user can easily attach an optical device such as a red dot. In a low-light home defense situation, a red dot sight will allow you to acquire a target and place an accurate shot in a fraction of the time it would take without one. All military and law enforcement agencies use these sights now days.
-A weapon-mounted flashlight can be easily attached to make identifying an intruder in your home very easy.
-The pistol grip and ergonomic layout of the typical AR-15 makes it a firearm that can be manipulated with one hand. This allows you to free up your other hand for short periods of time to open doors or whatever else you may need to do easily. Part of this benefit comes from the "pistol grip" that AWB laws target (for some unknown reason?)
-The AR-15 is very light weight for such a capable firearm, allowing people with less upper body strength to use it effectively (it is mostly plastic and aluminum).

I could go on and on about the AR-15. Do some other firearms have similar features? Yes. But no other firearm on the market has all of these features, and especially not for as little as $600.

It is in my opinion and the opinion of many experts the perfect choice for a home defense weapon. It is used in a very small number of crimes. "Assault Weapons" of all types are used in less than 2 percent of crimes involving firearms. So AR-15's are used in some fraction of that 2 percent. Which is actually surprising considering it one of, if not THE post popular and widely owned type of firearm in America.

So on one hand we have all the self defense benefits the AR-15 gives me and millions of people. You have its applications in hunting and competitive shooting. On the other hand you have, lets say 1 percent of all crimes involving a firearm. Then you take into consideration that banning AR-15s would not eliminate that 1 percent of crimes, they would just be committed with other firearms. So the pros of banning the AR-15 is effectively close to nil. The cons are the loss of all the benefits I listed to millions of law-abiding Americans.

You really expect gun owners to jump on this good deal you are offering? And you wonder why we are so unreasonable....


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #631 on: April 05, 2016, 06:54:25 AM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

Anti-Gun: Ban guns.
Pro-Gun: Um, no.
AG: OK, then we will just ban certain guns.
PG: Still, no.
AG: WHY WONT YOU COMPROMISE!!!!??

Because this is not a compromise. This is just making demands that won't actually help anything at all. All they do is piss off or inconvenience gun owners.

Lets try this on for size:

PG: Lets get rid of some gun laws and prohibit a gun registry.
AG: Ok, but only if we close the machine gun registry.
PG: Deal.
AG: Deal.

That's how the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 went down. A deal was struck. I'm not necessarily saying it was a good deal, or the right thing to do. But both parties brought something to the table and they compromised to get something done. When today's anti-gunners propose something like the AWB, its not a compromise. It sounds to us pro-gun people like "Lets ban this stuff because they look scary and we are ignorant about how guns work and just don't know any better. You pro-gun bible thumping rednecks get nothing in return."

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #632 on: April 05, 2016, 07:09:58 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

Dramaman, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Moonshadow, I'm not asking you to defend your human right to self-defense. What I am saying is that we all pretty much accept that the right to self-defense is not unlimited, that not all armaments are necessary for personal self-defense and thus it is reasonable to ban certain types of armaments if there is a societal benefit to the ban. If one wishes to use the self-defense argument against such a ban, one should be able to justify why the armaments being banned are reasonable and/or necessary for self-defense. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban that Winky brought up that he thought was an infringement on the right to self-defense. The US is not a war-zone. I highly doubt the weapons included in the ban were really necessary for self-defense. Prior to and after the ban did people start to go around carrying those types of weapons for reasons of self defense. The ban itself was never declared a violation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that the opposition to that ban was NEVER about self-defense, but rather a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned. But then, I openly admit that I am not a gun expert. So I'm asking you gun experts who think that the ban was an infringement on the inherent right to self-defense, WHY?

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

To simplify things, lets be specific about what type of firearm we are talking about. Let's use the much-debated AR-15 type rifle as the example of a weapon many gun enthusiasts own, and which is targeted by laws like the AWB and other proposals.

The AR-15 is really, really popular. Industry experts say that there are as many as 30 million + AR-15 type rifles owned by Americans. It is difficult to tell how many because "AR-15" is a brand name owned by Armalite (Armalite Rifle Model 15). However, the gun's design is public domain so the gun is made under a different name by 15+ manufacturers that I can think of off the top of my head.

It is not some mystery why the gun is so popular. It is used in static, long distance target shooting competitions. It is used in carbine competitions, it is used in 3-gun competitions and others. It is used for hunting everything from squirrels to bear in different configurations. It can be chambered in anything from .22 LR to .50 Beowulf.

More importantly to our conversation here, it is an EXCELLENT rifle for home defense. Among many serious gun enthusiasts, it has eclipsed the handgun and the shotgun as the #1 recommendation for home defense. Why?

-It is very reliable when maintained properly. As in, it will not jam when you need it most.
-In the standard .223 chambering, properly selected ammunition is the LEAST LIKELY type of ammunition to over-penetrate. If you use it for self defense in your home, the bullet is VERY unlikely to over-penetrate and pass through an assailant and strike something unintentionally. Also, if the bullet misses and hits the wall, it will stop very quickly. Handgun ammunition and shotgun ammunition is much MORE likely to over penetrate and hence dangerous to innocent people in your home and outside it. The reasons for this are technical in nature and I won't go into them any further. The military and the FBI as well as private organizations have tested for this effect and the science is settled.
-The stock that typically comes with the AR-15 is telescoping. That means you can adjust it to fit your body type. Have you ever tried to golf with clubs too long or short for you? Shooting with a gun too long or short for you is just as hard. The telescoping stock allows it to be adjusted to the user without having to buy a custom stock and swap it out for each user.
-Magazines are cheap and readily available.
-Most AR-15s sold today have a picatiny rail on the top of the upper receiver. A user can easily attach an optical device such as a red dot. In a low-light home defense situation, a red dot sight will allow you to acquire a target and place an accurate shot in a fraction of the time it would take without one. All military and law enforcement agencies use these sights now days.
-A weapon-mounted flashlight can be easily attached to make identifying an intruder in your home very easy.
-The pistol grip and ergonomic layout of the typical AR-15 makes it a firearm that can be manipulated with one hand. This allows you to free up your other hand for short periods of time to open doors or whatever else you may need to do easily. Part of this benefit comes from the "pistol grip" that AWB laws target (for some unknown reason?)
-The AR-15 is very light weight for such a capable firearm, allowing people with less upper body strength to use it effectively (it is mostly plastic and aluminum).

I could go on and on about the AR-15. Do some other firearms have similar features? Yes. But no other firearm on the market has all of these features, and especially not for as little as $600.

It is in my opinion and the opinion of many experts the perfect choice for a home defense weapon. It is used in a very small number of crimes. "Assault Weapons" of all types are used in less than 2 percent of crimes involving firearms. So AR-15's are used in some fraction of that 2 percent. Which is actually surprising considering it one of, if not THE post popular and widely owned type of firearm in America.

So on one hand we have all the self defense benefits the AR-15 gives me and millions of people. You have its applications in hunting and competitive shooting. On the other hand you have, lets say 1 percent of all crimes involving a firearm. Then you take into consideration that banning AR-15s would not eliminate that 1 percent of crimes, they would just be committed with other firearms. So the pros of banning the AR-15 is effectively close to nil. The cons are the loss of all the benefits I listed to millions of law-abiding Americans.

You really expect gun owners to jump on this good deal you are offering? And you wonder why we are so unreasonable....

Winky, thanks for the details regarding the AR-15. Your justification for WHY it is necessary for self-defense seems to mostly boil down to it being popular, cheap, and offers some qualitative benefits over some weapons. Assuming all this is correct, one has to wonder if this is a significant enough justification given the availability of other choices, such as the classic shotgun, that may not offer all the benefits of the AR-15, but certainly has demonstrated to be an effective and reliable tool for home protection over the years. If society deems that banning the AR-15 is beneficial, I still can't see that your self-defense justification is grounds to override such a determination, given the numerous other alternatives. For now society apparently does NOT think such a ban is useful, but it is is not unreasonable to revisit such considerations at some point down the road. The same should be true for other types of arms as well, if it can be demonstrated that such weapons are not vital for self-defense.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #633 on: April 05, 2016, 07:27:13 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

Dramaman, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Moonshadow, I'm not asking you to defend your human right to self-defense. What I am saying is that we all pretty much accept that the right to self-defense is not unlimited, that not all armaments are necessary for personal self-defense and thus it is reasonable to ban certain types of armaments if there is a societal benefit to the ban. If one wishes to use the self-defense argument against such a ban, one should be able to justify why the armaments being banned are reasonable and/or necessary for self-defense. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban that Winky brought up that he thought was an infringement on the right to self-defense. The US is not a war-zone. I highly doubt the weapons included in the ban were really necessary for self-defense. Prior to and after the ban did people start to go around carrying those types of weapons for reasons of self defense. The ban itself was never declared a violation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that the opposition to that ban was NEVER about self-defense, but rather a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned. But then, I openly admit that I am not a gun expert. So I'm asking you gun experts who think that the ban was an infringement on the inherent right to self-defense, WHY?

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

To simplify things, lets be specific about what type of firearm we are talking about. Let's use the much-debated AR-15 type rifle as the example of a weapon many gun enthusiasts own, and which is targeted by laws like the AWB and other proposals.

The AR-15 is really, really popular. Industry experts say that there are as many as 30 million + AR-15 type rifles owned by Americans. It is difficult to tell how many because "AR-15" is a brand name owned by Armalite (Armalite Rifle Model 15). However, the gun's design is public domain so the gun is made under a different name by 15+ manufacturers that I can think of off the top of my head.

It is not some mystery why the gun is so popular. It is used in static, long distance target shooting competitions. It is used in carbine competitions, it is used in 3-gun competitions and others. It is used for hunting everything from squirrels to bear in different configurations. It can be chambered in anything from .22 LR to .50 Beowulf.

More importantly to our conversation here, it is an EXCELLENT rifle for home defense. Among many serious gun enthusiasts, it has eclipsed the handgun and the shotgun as the #1 recommendation for home defense. Why?

-It is very reliable when maintained properly. As in, it will not jam when you need it most.
-In the standard .223 chambering, properly selected ammunition is the LEAST LIKELY type of ammunition to over-penetrate. If you use it for self defense in your home, the bullet is VERY unlikely to over-penetrate and pass through an assailant and strike something unintentionally. Also, if the bullet misses and hits the wall, it will stop very quickly. Handgun ammunition and shotgun ammunition is much MORE likely to over penetrate and hence dangerous to innocent people in your home and outside it. The reasons for this are technical in nature and I won't go into them any further. The military and the FBI as well as private organizations have tested for this effect and the science is settled.
-The stock that typically comes with the AR-15 is telescoping. That means you can adjust it to fit your body type. Have you ever tried to golf with clubs too long or short for you? Shooting with a gun too long or short for you is just as hard. The telescoping stock allows it to be adjusted to the user without having to buy a custom stock and swap it out for each user.
-Magazines are cheap and readily available.
-Most AR-15s sold today have a picatiny rail on the top of the upper receiver. A user can easily attach an optical device such as a red dot. In a low-light home defense situation, a red dot sight will allow you to acquire a target and place an accurate shot in a fraction of the time it would take without one. All military and law enforcement agencies use these sights now days.
-A weapon-mounted flashlight can be easily attached to make identifying an intruder in your home very easy.
-The pistol grip and ergonomic layout of the typical AR-15 makes it a firearm that can be manipulated with one hand. This allows you to free up your other hand for short periods of time to open doors or whatever else you may need to do easily. Part of this benefit comes from the "pistol grip" that AWB laws target (for some unknown reason?)
-The AR-15 is very light weight for such a capable firearm, allowing people with less upper body strength to use it effectively (it is mostly plastic and aluminum).

I could go on and on about the AR-15. Do some other firearms have similar features? Yes. But no other firearm on the market has all of these features, and especially not for as little as $600.

It is in my opinion and the opinion of many experts the perfect choice for a home defense weapon. It is used in a very small number of crimes. "Assault Weapons" of all types are used in less than 2 percent of crimes involving firearms. So AR-15's are used in some fraction of that 2 percent. Which is actually surprising considering it one of, if not THE post popular and widely owned type of firearm in America.

So on one hand we have all the self defense benefits the AR-15 gives me and millions of people. You have its applications in hunting and competitive shooting. On the other hand you have, lets say 1 percent of all crimes involving a firearm. Then you take into consideration that banning AR-15s would not eliminate that 1 percent of crimes, they would just be committed with other firearms. So the pros of banning the AR-15 is effectively close to nil. The cons are the loss of all the benefits I listed to millions of law-abiding Americans.

You really expect gun owners to jump on this good deal you are offering? And you wonder why we are so unreasonable....

Winky, thanks for the details regarding the AR-15. Your justification for WHY it is necessary for self-defense seems to mostly boil down to it being popular, cheap, and offers some qualitative benefits over some weapons. Assuming all this is correct, one has to wonder if this is a significant enough justification given the availability of other choices, such as the classic shotgun, that may not offer all the benefits of the AR-15, but certainly has demonstrated to be an effective and reliable tool for home protection over the years. If society deems that banning the AR-15 is beneficial, I still can't see that your self-defense justification is grounds to override such a determination, given the numerous other alternatives. For now society apparently does NOT think such a ban is useful, but it is is not unreasonable to revisit such considerations at some point down the road. The same should be true for other types of arms as well, if it can be demonstrated that such weapons are not vital for self-defense.

It's amazing to me that you can read my post and say "Well, it still doesn't seem to me like AR-15s are vital for self defense. So we should be able to ban them if we want." You admit you don't know much about guns. I do. The military does. The FBI does. Firearms instructors do. All of these people say I am right. You say I am wrong, because you have some opinion that you have formed based wholly on a LACK of experience and knowledge about the subject at hand. Truly, truly incredible.

Also, when did "vital for self defense" becoming the ruling characteristic? The Supreme Court has indeed said that guns useful for self defense are protected. However, it also said in US v. Miller that guns that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. The court upheld a ban a short-barreled shotgun because it was not suitable for militia use, and since the 2A is there to protect military-type arms, the short-barreled shotgun was not protected. A short barreled shotgun is perfectly well suited to self defense. But not (according to the ignorant-as-hell SCOTUS) for a militia application.

The AR-15 is UNDISPUTABLY well suited for militia use. So even if we take your totally unfounded opinion about it's self defense use as fact (against all reason), it is STILL protected by virtue of being well-suited to militia use.

 
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 07:29:32 AM by winkeyman »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #634 on: April 05, 2016, 07:46:47 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

Of course society CAN limit rights. That is obvious. Societies do so all the time. The question is, SHOULD they?

For example, the United States COULD pass a law banning the practice of Islam, making it a capital offence. But we SHOULD NOT do so. Why? Because it would be an affront to the right of people to practice their religion and their right to life. I don't feel the need to justify that any further. I could talk about statistics, economic factors, demographic consequences and voter backlash. But I won't because that would diminish the basic fact that it would be ethically and morally wrong to pass such a law.

No who is making a strawman argument? I ask you to defend why you think an assault rifle ban is an unreasonable limitation to the inherent right to defend oneself and you bring up banning an entire religion. Kind of conforms my suspicion that beyond the ability to parrot "inherent right to self-defense" you really ain't got squat.

Dramaman, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Moonshadow, I'm not asking you to defend your human right to self-defense. What I am saying is that we all pretty much accept that the right to self-defense is not unlimited, that not all armaments are necessary for personal self-defense and thus it is reasonable to ban certain types of armaments if there is a societal benefit to the ban. If one wishes to use the self-defense argument against such a ban, one should be able to justify why the armaments being banned are reasonable and/or necessary for self-defense. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban that Winky brought up that he thought was an infringement on the right to self-defense. The US is not a war-zone. I highly doubt the weapons included in the ban were really necessary for self-defense. Prior to and after the ban did people start to go around carrying those types of weapons for reasons of self defense. The ban itself was never declared a violation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that the opposition to that ban was NEVER about self-defense, but rather a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned. But then, I openly admit that I am not a gun expert. So I'm asking you gun experts who think that the ban was an infringement on the inherent right to self-defense, WHY?

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

To simplify things, lets be specific about what type of firearm we are talking about. Let's use the much-debated AR-15 type rifle as the example of a weapon many gun enthusiasts own, and which is targeted by laws like the AWB and other proposals.

The AR-15 is really, really popular. Industry experts say that there are as many as 30 million + AR-15 type rifles owned by Americans. It is difficult to tell how many because "AR-15" is a brand name owned by Armalite (Armalite Rifle Model 15). However, the gun's design is public domain so the gun is made under a different name by 15+ manufacturers that I can think of off the top of my head.

It is not some mystery why the gun is so popular. It is used in static, long distance target shooting competitions. It is used in carbine competitions, it is used in 3-gun competitions and others. It is used for hunting everything from squirrels to bear in different configurations. It can be chambered in anything from .22 LR to .50 Beowulf.

More importantly to our conversation here, it is an EXCELLENT rifle for home defense. Among many serious gun enthusiasts, it has eclipsed the handgun and the shotgun as the #1 recommendation for home defense. Why?

-It is very reliable when maintained properly. As in, it will not jam when you need it most.
-In the standard .223 chambering, properly selected ammunition is the LEAST LIKELY type of ammunition to over-penetrate. If you use it for self defense in your home, the bullet is VERY unlikely to over-penetrate and pass through an assailant and strike something unintentionally. Also, if the bullet misses and hits the wall, it will stop very quickly. Handgun ammunition and shotgun ammunition is much MORE likely to over penetrate and hence dangerous to innocent people in your home and outside it. The reasons for this are technical in nature and I won't go into them any further. The military and the FBI as well as private organizations have tested for this effect and the science is settled.
-The stock that typically comes with the AR-15 is telescoping. That means you can adjust it to fit your body type. Have you ever tried to golf with clubs too long or short for you? Shooting with a gun too long or short for you is just as hard. The telescoping stock allows it to be adjusted to the user without having to buy a custom stock and swap it out for each user.
-Magazines are cheap and readily available.
-Most AR-15s sold today have a picatiny rail on the top of the upper receiver. A user can easily attach an optical device such as a red dot. In a low-light home defense situation, a red dot sight will allow you to acquire a target and place an accurate shot in a fraction of the time it would take without one. All military and law enforcement agencies use these sights now days.
-A weapon-mounted flashlight can be easily attached to make identifying an intruder in your home very easy.
-The pistol grip and ergonomic layout of the typical AR-15 makes it a firearm that can be manipulated with one hand. This allows you to free up your other hand for short periods of time to open doors or whatever else you may need to do easily. Part of this benefit comes from the "pistol grip" that AWB laws target (for some unknown reason?)
-The AR-15 is very light weight for such a capable firearm, allowing people with less upper body strength to use it effectively (it is mostly plastic and aluminum).

I could go on and on about the AR-15. Do some other firearms have similar features? Yes. But no other firearm on the market has all of these features, and especially not for as little as $600.

It is in my opinion and the opinion of many experts the perfect choice for a home defense weapon. It is used in a very small number of crimes. "Assault Weapons" of all types are used in less than 2 percent of crimes involving firearms. So AR-15's are used in some fraction of that 2 percent. Which is actually surprising considering it one of, if not THE post popular and widely owned type of firearm in America.

So on one hand we have all the self defense benefits the AR-15 gives me and millions of people. You have its applications in hunting and competitive shooting. On the other hand you have, lets say 1 percent of all crimes involving a firearm. Then you take into consideration that banning AR-15s would not eliminate that 1 percent of crimes, they would just be committed with other firearms. So the pros of banning the AR-15 is effectively close to nil. The cons are the loss of all the benefits I listed to millions of law-abiding Americans.

You really expect gun owners to jump on this good deal you are offering? And you wonder why we are so unreasonable....

Winky, thanks for the details regarding the AR-15. Your justification for WHY it is necessary for self-defense seems to mostly boil down to it being popular, cheap, and offers some qualitative benefits over some weapons. Assuming all this is correct, one has to wonder if this is a significant enough justification given the availability of other choices, such as the classic shotgun, that may not offer all the benefits of the AR-15, but certainly has demonstrated to be an effective and reliable tool for home protection over the years. If society deems that banning the AR-15 is beneficial, I still can't see that your self-defense justification is grounds to override such a determination, given the numerous other alternatives. For now society apparently does NOT think such a ban is useful, but it is is not unreasonable to revisit such considerations at some point down the road. The same should be true for other types of arms as well, if it can be demonstrated that such weapons are not vital for self-defense.

It's amazing to me that you can read my post and say "Well, it still doesn't seem to me like AR-15s are vital for self defense. So we should be able to ban them if we want." You admit you don't know much about guns. I do. The military does. The FBI does. Firearms instructors do. All of these people say I am right. You say I am wrong, because you have some opinion that you have formed based wholly on a LACK of experience and knowledge about the subject at hand. Truly, truly incredible.

Also, when did "vital for self defense" becoming the ruling characteristic? The Supreme Court has indeed said that guns useful for self defense are protected. However, it also said in US v. Miller that guns that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. The court upheld a ban a short-barreled shotgun because it was not suitable for militia use, and since the 2A is there to protect military-type arms, the short-barreled shotgun was not protected. A short barreled shotgun is perfectly well suited to self defense. But not (according to the ignorant-as-hell SCOTUS) for a militia application.

The AR-15 is UNDISPUTABLY well suited for militia use. So even if we take your totally unfounded opinion about it's self defense use as fact (against all reason), it is STILL protected by virtue of being well-suited to militia use.

I am not in fact arguing that the AR-15 should be banned. I am arguing that a theoretical ban would not violate your self-defense argument.

Based upon what you have shared, I consider the assertion that the AR-15 is vital for personal self-defense as to be as valid as a claims the I-Phone is vital for personal communications. Personal preferences notwithstanding, the availability of other effective and reliable alternatives would seem to prove otherwise. And IF it is not vita, then that opens up debate over whether a ban is worthwhile. Why did the previous AR-15 ban end? Because the Supreme Court overthrew it? No. It ended because it was not renewed. It ended not because it was vital to self-defense, but because society felt the ban was not worthwhile to continue. If society should change its mind, a ban would be entirely legitimate in spite of any self-defense arguments to the contrary.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #635 on: April 05, 2016, 07:55:53 AM »
No comment on the militia use angle?

The SCOTUS did not overthrow the AWB because it avoided hearing such a case. It avoided hearing such a case because if it heard such a case it would have to either,

1. Acknowledge the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and confirm existing case law (US v Miller) and strike down the AWB, or
2. Ignore the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and ignore existing case law and uphold the ban

It was unwilling to do #1 for political and ideological reasons. It was unwilling to do #2 because it would be embarrassing and expose them for the treasonous, useless political animals that they are. So it declined to hear a case on the AWB because they are fucking cowards.


dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #636 on: April 05, 2016, 08:07:10 AM »
No comment on the militia use angle?

The SCOTUS did not overthrow the AWB because it avoided hearing such a case. It avoided hearing such a case because if it heard such a case it would have to either,

1. Acknowledge the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and confirm existing case law (US v Miller) and strike down the AWB, or
2. Ignore the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and ignore existing case law and uphold the ban

It was unwilling to do #1 for political and ideological reasons. It was unwilling to do #2 because it would be embarrassing and expose them for the treasonous, useless political animals that they are. So it declined to hear a case on the AWB because they are fucking cowards.

I didn't address the militia angle because this current subthread originated from your self-defense assertions that you claimed were NOT dependent on the Consitution per se, but rather inherent. In fact your initial post was critical of previous posts parsing the words of the 2nd amendment. To quote you:

Quote from: winkeyman
You argue over the wording of the 2A. You argue over what "arms" entails and so on. You are in fact turning the BOR into a "colorable pretext" to RESTRICT the right to keep and bear arms. All the while pretending not to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right regardless of the existence of the Constitution, BOR, or opinion of the Supreme Court and so on.

Thus, your bringing up the militia argument seemed entirely irrelevant to your initial claims that gun rights were based on an inherent right that superseded anything actually written in the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of your feeling of the Supreme Court, we are a country governed by law, not of man, and for over 200 years the Supreme Court has been the the final authority of what those laws mean and how they should be applied. The fact that the Supreme Court refused to overturn the ban on AR-15s means that legally it was not in violation of the Constitution. You may believe the ban violated the even higher inherent right of personal self-defense, but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #637 on: April 05, 2016, 08:27:46 AM »
Winky, thanks for the details regarding the AR-15. Your justification for WHY it is necessary for self-defense seems to mostly boil down to it being popular, cheap, and offers some qualitative benefits over some weapons. Assuming all this is correct, one has to wonder if this is a significant enough justification given the availability of other choices, such as the classic shotgun, that may not offer all the benefits of the AR-15, but certainly has demonstrated to be an effective and reliable tool for home protection over the years. If society deems that banning the AR-15 is beneficial, I still can't see that your self-defense justification is grounds to override such a determination, given the numerous other alternatives. For now society apparently does NOT think such a ban is useful, but it is is not unreasonable to revisit such considerations at some point down the road. The same should be true for other types of arms as well, if it can be demonstrated that such weapons are not vital for self-defense.

Revisiting the issue is not a problem. In fact, it's a great recommendation. This is the exact reason why gun laws are largely loosening across the country.

I think Winkeyman laid out some fine arguments for the AR platform as a defensive tool. The availability of a less effective tool (shotgun) is not substantial reason to restrict access to the more effective tool.  People could defend themselves with a garden rake - not a very effective argument for banning firearms.  What you have not done is explain why the AR platform should be banned. Or, more precisely, you have offered reasons that are less substantial than the benefit of access to the tool; thus, rationally, access to the tool should not be limited.  Pointing this out is reasoned debate. It is not:
a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #638 on: April 05, 2016, 08:28:35 AM »
No comment on the militia use angle?

The SCOTUS did not overthrow the AWB because it avoided hearing such a case. It avoided hearing such a case because if it heard such a case it would have to either,

1. Acknowledge the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and confirm existing case law (US v Miller) and strike down the AWB, or
2. Ignore the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and ignore existing case law and uphold the ban

It was unwilling to do #1 for political and ideological reasons. It was unwilling to do #2 because it would be embarrassing and expose them for the treasonous, useless political animals that they are. So it declined to hear a case on the AWB because they are fucking cowards.

I didn't address the militia angle because this current subthread originated from your self-defense assertions that you claimed were NOT dependent on the Consitution per se, but rather inherent. In fact your initial post was critical of previous posts parsing the words of the 2nd amendment. To quote you:

Quote from: winkeyman
You argue over the wording of the 2A. You argue over what "arms" entails and so on. You are in fact turning the BOR into a "colorable pretext" to RESTRICT the right to keep and bear arms. All the while pretending not to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right regardless of the existence of the Constitution, BOR, or opinion of the Supreme Court and so on.

Thus, your bringing up the militia argument seemed entirely irrelevant to your initial claims that gun rights were based on an inherent right that superseded anything actually written in the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of your feeling of the Supreme Court, we are a country governed by law, not of man, and for over 200 years the Supreme Court has been the the final authority of what those laws mean and how they should be applied. The fact that the Supreme Court refused to overturn the ban on AR-15s means that legally it was not in violation of the Constitution. You may believe the ban violated the even higher inherent right of personal self-defense, but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

This is getting frustrating. The Supreme Court in 2003 issued a ruling negating all laws prohibiting sex between 2 men. That does not mean that gay sex bans were Constitutional the whole time. It means they were ALWAYS unconstitutional but for political reasons refused to hear such a case and issue such a ruling. Gay sex bans were unconstitutional from the moment of their passing until 2003, but the cowardly, bigoted and politically motivated SCOTUSs were not willing to acknowledge that OBVIOUS truth before then.

Similarly, from 1994-2004, the AWB was unconstitutional. Just because the SCOTUS was to scared to hear such a case does NOT mean it was constitutional.

You are essentially saying this: If we passed a law banning Mormonism, it would be constitutional up until the date the SCOTUS struck it down.

That is incorrect. Such a law would be unconstitutional from the moment of conception, based on the plain text of the constitution. Unfortunately, we have a SCOTUS that would UPHOLD such a law if it were popular enough.

That's the problem.

The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution, or the BOR, or the SCOTUS. It exists naturally as part of our nature as tool-using human beings with free agency.

You outright rejected this idea. I still wanted to try to help convince you.

So I am trying to speak your language. Giving you arguments relating to self defense, hunting, competitive shooting, practical statistical arguments (2 percent of all gun crimes use rifles of any type), now I am trying legal and constitutional arguments.

None of which seem to be working. Because you are so set in your opinion. An opinion which is founded specifically on a LACK of knowledge and experience related to the subject.







winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #639 on: April 05, 2016, 08:39:49 AM »
Dramaman,

Let's suppose for a second you are an engineer working on self-driving cars. As an expect in the field, you understand the benefits such a product brings to the table.

However, in the early stages, there are a couple of fatal accidents involving self-driving cars. You know from experience and from a technical standpoint that those incidents had nothing to do with the fact that the cars were self driving. They were unavoidable due to outside conditions and in fact would have been WORSE if they involved human-driven cars. Even so, you and your colleagues wrote new software to make such incidents less likely in the future.

But the public doesn't know any of that. They are wholly ignorant of self driving cars. How they work, what they do, the software and engineering that goes into them, the benefits they bring to the table, their superiority human driven cars. The public understands none of it. Not because they are stupid, but because they are busy being experts in other fields and don't have the time or inclination to be experts regarding self driving cars.

None the less, the public is scared of self driving cars and lobbys the government to ban them.

Would you be able to educate someone over the internet about self-driving cars to an extend that would make them understand why they are wrong? No, you wouldn't.

That's pretty much the position I am with you regarding guns.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #640 on: April 05, 2016, 11:15:28 AM »
What you have not done is explain why the AR platform should be banned.

That's the heart of the matter. 

Arguments against the AR are usually uninformed, that it's an automatic (it's not) high powered (it's not) high capacity (no more so than many many other guns) military style (what does that mean?) assault rifle (a made-up phrase with no real meaning.)

In reality, it's like banning two-door cars in favor of four-doors under the guise that two-doors look faster (okay?) so therefore they must go faster and get in more accidents (not necessarily true).

It's an argument that comes down to A) fear and ignorance and B) cosmetics.  Neither is a good reason to take away a right to ownership.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4416
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #641 on: April 05, 2016, 02:04:11 PM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

Anti-Gun: Ban guns.
Pro-Gun: Um, no.
AG: OK, then we will just ban certain guns.
PG: Still, no.
AG: WHY WONT YOU COMPROMISE!!!!??

Because this is not a compromise. This is just making demands that won't actually help anything at all. All they do is piss off or inconvenience gun owners.

Lets try this on for size:

PG: Lets get rid of some gun laws and prohibit a gun registry.
AG: Ok, but only if we close the machine gun registry.
PG: Deal.
AG: Deal.

That's how the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 went down. A deal was struck. I'm not necessarily saying it was a good deal, or the right thing to do. But both parties brought something to the table and they compromised to get something done. When today's anti-gunners propose something like the AWB, its not a compromise. It sounds to us pro-gun people like "Lets ban this stuff because they look scary and we are ignorant about how guns work and just don't know any better. You pro-gun bible thumping rednecks get nothing in return."
Actually very few people are anti-gun.  Most "anti-gun" people want things like records (searchable), background checks, required training and people securing their guns (and being held responsible for them if they don't).  I have have friends with guns that I would completely trust to purchase and own guns, but they are trained, and keep their weapons secure. I have known too many "responsible gun owners" who leave their guns in easy access for children or thieves to believe people when they say their are responsible.  There have also been too many cases of gun violence when a victim of domestic violence is attempting to get away for me not to think that their needs to be restrictions on who owns one. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #642 on: April 05, 2016, 02:21:06 PM »
Dramaman,

Let's suppose for a second you are an engineer working on self-driving cars. As an expect in the field, you understand the benefits such a product brings to the table.

However, in the early stages, there are a couple of fatal accidents involving self-driving cars. You know from experience and from a technical standpoint that those incidents had nothing to do with the fact that the cars were self driving. They were unavoidable due to outside conditions and in fact would have been WORSE if they involved human-driven cars. Even so, you and your colleagues wrote new software to make such incidents less likely in the future.

But the public doesn't know any of that. They are wholly ignorant of self driving cars. How they work, what they do, the software and engineering that goes into them, the benefits they bring to the table, their superiority human driven cars. The public understands none of it. Not because they are stupid, but because they are busy being experts in other fields and don't have the time or inclination to be experts regarding self driving cars.

None the less, the public is scared of self driving cars and lobbys the government to ban them.

Would you be able to educate someone over the internet about self-driving cars to an extend that would make them understand why they are wrong? No, you wouldn't.

That's pretty much the position I am with you regarding guns.

Your scenario does not accurately reflect our discussion. A more accurate scenario would be one in which I claimed not only that self-driving cars are safe, but that they are an inherent right and that any ban or restriction should be dismissed outright because they are an inherent right. The person opposing me would NOT be arguing for a ban on self-driving cars in general or even one on any particular self-driving car, but rather argues that any inherent right to self-driving cars does not shield any particular car from being banned if the ban benefits the society and if my inherent rights can still be exercised if this particular product is banned.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #643 on: April 05, 2016, 02:23:33 PM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

Anti-Gun: Ban guns.
Pro-Gun: Um, no.
AG: OK, then we will just ban certain guns.
PG: Still, no.
AG: WHY WONT YOU COMPROMISE!!!!??

Because this is not a compromise. This is just making demands that won't actually help anything at all. All they do is piss off or inconvenience gun owners.

Lets try this on for size:

PG: Lets get rid of some gun laws and prohibit a gun registry.
AG: Ok, but only if we close the machine gun registry.
PG: Deal.
AG: Deal.

That's how the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 went down. A deal was struck. I'm not necessarily saying it was a good deal, or the right thing to do. But both parties brought something to the table and they compromised to get something done. When today's anti-gunners propose something like the AWB, its not a compromise. It sounds to us pro-gun people like "Lets ban this stuff because they look scary and we are ignorant about how guns work and just don't know any better. You pro-gun bible thumping rednecks get nothing in return."
Actually very few people are anti-gun.  Most "anti-gun" people want things like records (searchable), background checks, required training and people securing their guns (and being held responsible for them if they don't).  I have have friends with guns that I would completely trust to purchase and own guns, but they are trained, and keep their weapons secure. I have known too many "responsible gun owners" who leave their guns in easy access for children or thieves to believe people when they say their are responsible.  There have also been too many cases of gun violence when a victim of domestic violence is attempting to get away for me not to think that their needs to be restrictions on who owns one.

Ok. So make a proposal. Here is an example (I don't necessarily endorse it, but just for the sake of discussion).

Lets say we make background checks necessary for every permanent gun transfer. However, there is a grace period for inheritances and such. Also, the Federal Government has to reimburse the parties involved for the cost of performing the background check.

In return, we eliminate the $200 tax stamp and other NFA requirements for Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns.

This is a deal I believe would be agreeable to most pro-gun people and importantly the NRA.

But anti-gun people (or whatever you want to call them) would never agree to such a proposal, because they ( at least the major players, donors, and organizers) are only interested in incrementally increasing gun controls over time until guns in general are generally inaccessible to normal people. This has been the playbook used in most Western countries, and being used in America today.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #644 on: April 05, 2016, 02:24:51 PM »
What you have not done is explain why the AR platform should be banned.

That's the heart of the matter. 

Arguments against the AR are usually uninformed, that it's an automatic (it's not) high powered (it's not) high capacity (no more so than many many other guns) military style (what does that mean?) assault rifle (a made-up phrase with no real meaning.)

In reality, it's like banning two-door cars in favor of four-doors under the guise that two-doors look faster (okay?) so therefore they must go faster and get in more accidents (not necessarily true).

It's an argument that comes down to A) fear and ignorance and B) cosmetics.  Neither is a good reason to take away a right to ownership.

I haven't presented an argument for why an AR-15 should be banned because that was never my point. My point remains that the theoretical banning of the AR-15 would not unreasonably limit the right to self-defense that Winkey championed and thus COULD be banned if society deemed that such a ban would be to its benefit.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #645 on: April 05, 2016, 02:25:31 PM »
Dramaman,

Let's suppose for a second you are an engineer working on self-driving cars. As an expect in the field, you understand the benefits such a product brings to the table.

However, in the early stages, there are a couple of fatal accidents involving self-driving cars. You know from experience and from a technical standpoint that those incidents had nothing to do with the fact that the cars were self driving. They were unavoidable due to outside conditions and in fact would have been WORSE if they involved human-driven cars. Even so, you and your colleagues wrote new software to make such incidents less likely in the future.

But the public doesn't know any of that. They are wholly ignorant of self driving cars. How they work, what they do, the software and engineering that goes into them, the benefits they bring to the table, their superiority human driven cars. The public understands none of it. Not because they are stupid, but because they are busy being experts in other fields and don't have the time or inclination to be experts regarding self driving cars.

None the less, the public is scared of self driving cars and lobbys the government to ban them.

Would you be able to educate someone over the internet about self-driving cars to an extend that would make them understand why they are wrong? No, you wouldn't.

That's pretty much the position I am with you regarding guns.

Your scenario does not accurately reflect our discussion. A more accurate scenario would be one in which I claimed not only that self-driving cars are safe, but that they are an inherent right and that any ban or restriction should be dismissed outright because they are an inherent right. The person opposing me would NOT be arguing for a ban on self-driving cars in general or even one on any particular self-driving car, but rather argues that any inherent right to self-driving cars does not shield any particular car from being banned if the ban benefits the society and if my inherent rights can still be exercised if this particular product is banned.

Sign. Any response to this?

No comment on the militia use angle?

The SCOTUS did not overthrow the AWB because it avoided hearing such a case. It avoided hearing such a case because if it heard such a case it would have to either,

1. Acknowledge the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and confirm existing case law (US v Miller) and strike down the AWB, or
2. Ignore the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and ignore existing case law and uphold the ban

It was unwilling to do #1 for political and ideological reasons. It was unwilling to do #2 because it would be embarrassing and expose them for the treasonous, useless political animals that they are. So it declined to hear a case on the AWB because they are fucking cowards.

I didn't address the militia angle because this current subthread originated from your self-defense assertions that you claimed were NOT dependent on the Consitution per se, but rather inherent. In fact your initial post was critical of previous posts parsing the words of the 2nd amendment. To quote you:

Quote from: winkeyman
You argue over the wording of the 2A. You argue over what "arms" entails and so on. You are in fact turning the BOR into a "colorable pretext" to RESTRICT the right to keep and bear arms. All the while pretending not to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right regardless of the existence of the Constitution, BOR, or opinion of the Supreme Court and so on.

Thus, your bringing up the militia argument seemed entirely irrelevant to your initial claims that gun rights were based on an inherent right that superseded anything actually written in the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of your feeling of the Supreme Court, we are a country governed by law, not of man, and for over 200 years the Supreme Court has been the the final authority of what those laws mean and how they should be applied. The fact that the Supreme Court refused to overturn the ban on AR-15s means that legally it was not in violation of the Constitution. You may believe the ban violated the even higher inherent right of personal self-defense, but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

This is getting frustrating. The Supreme Court in 2003 issued a ruling negating all laws prohibiting sex between 2 men. That does not mean that gay sex bans were Constitutional the whole time. It means they were ALWAYS unconstitutional but for political reasons refused to hear such a case and issue such a ruling. Gay sex bans were unconstitutional from the moment of their passing until 2003, but the cowardly, bigoted and politically motivated SCOTUSs were not willing to acknowledge that OBVIOUS truth before then.

Similarly, from 1994-2004, the AWB was unconstitutional. Just because the SCOTUS was to scared to hear such a case does NOT mean it was constitutional.

You are essentially saying this: If we passed a law banning Mormonism, it would be constitutional up until the date the SCOTUS struck it down.

That is incorrect. Such a law would be unconstitutional from the moment of conception, based on the plain text of the constitution. Unfortunately, we have a SCOTUS that would UPHOLD such a law if it were popular enough.

That's the problem.

The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution, or the BOR, or the SCOTUS. It exists naturally as part of our nature as tool-using human beings with free agency.

You outright rejected this idea. I still wanted to try to help convince you.

So I am trying to speak your language. Giving you arguments relating to self defense, hunting, competitive shooting, practical statistical arguments (2 percent of all gun crimes use rifles of any type), now I am trying legal and constitutional arguments.

None of which seem to be working. Because you are so set in your opinion. An opinion which is founded specifically on a LACK of knowledge and experience related to the subject.








dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #646 on: April 05, 2016, 02:38:21 PM »
Dramaman,

Let's suppose for a second you are an engineer working on self-driving cars. As an expect in the field, you understand the benefits such a product brings to the table.

However, in the early stages, there are a couple of fatal accidents involving self-driving cars. You know from experience and from a technical standpoint that those incidents had nothing to do with the fact that the cars were self driving. They were unavoidable due to outside conditions and in fact would have been WORSE if they involved human-driven cars. Even so, you and your colleagues wrote new software to make such incidents less likely in the future.

But the public doesn't know any of that. They are wholly ignorant of self driving cars. How they work, what they do, the software and engineering that goes into them, the benefits they bring to the table, their superiority human driven cars. The public understands none of it. Not because they are stupid, but because they are busy being experts in other fields and don't have the time or inclination to be experts regarding self driving cars.

None the less, the public is scared of self driving cars and lobbys the government to ban them.

Would you be able to educate someone over the internet about self-driving cars to an extend that would make them understand why they are wrong? No, you wouldn't.

That's pretty much the position I am with you regarding guns.

Your scenario does not accurately reflect our discussion. A more accurate scenario would be one in which I claimed not only that self-driving cars are safe, but that they are an inherent right and that any ban or restriction should be dismissed outright because they are an inherent right. The person opposing me would NOT be arguing for a ban on self-driving cars in general or even one on any particular self-driving car, but rather argues that any inherent right to self-driving cars does not shield any particular car from being banned if the ban benefits the society and if my inherent rights can still be exercised if this particular product is banned.

Sign. Any response to this?

No comment on the militia use angle?

The SCOTUS did not overthrow the AWB because it avoided hearing such a case. It avoided hearing such a case because if it heard such a case it would have to either,

1. Acknowledge the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and confirm existing case law (US v Miller) and strike down the AWB, or
2. Ignore the OBVIOUS intent of the 2A and ignore existing case law and uphold the ban

It was unwilling to do #1 for political and ideological reasons. It was unwilling to do #2 because it would be embarrassing and expose them for the treasonous, useless political animals that they are. So it declined to hear a case on the AWB because they are fucking cowards.

I didn't address the militia angle because this current subthread originated from your self-defense assertions that you claimed were NOT dependent on the Consitution per se, but rather inherent. In fact your initial post was critical of previous posts parsing the words of the 2nd amendment. To quote you:

Quote from: winkeyman
You argue over the wording of the 2A. You argue over what "arms" entails and so on. You are in fact turning the BOR into a "colorable pretext" to RESTRICT the right to keep and bear arms. All the while pretending not to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right regardless of the existence of the Constitution, BOR, or opinion of the Supreme Court and so on.

Thus, your bringing up the militia argument seemed entirely irrelevant to your initial claims that gun rights were based on an inherent right that superseded anything actually written in the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of your feeling of the Supreme Court, we are a country governed by law, not of man, and for over 200 years the Supreme Court has been the the final authority of what those laws mean and how they should be applied. The fact that the Supreme Court refused to overturn the ban on AR-15s means that legally it was not in violation of the Constitution. You may believe the ban violated the even higher inherent right of personal self-defense, but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

This is getting frustrating. The Supreme Court in 2003 issued a ruling negating all laws prohibiting sex between 2 men. That does not mean that gay sex bans were Constitutional the whole time. It means they were ALWAYS unconstitutional but for political reasons refused to hear such a case and issue such a ruling. Gay sex bans were unconstitutional from the moment of their passing until 2003, but the cowardly, bigoted and politically motivated SCOTUSs were not willing to acknowledge that OBVIOUS truth before then.

Similarly, from 1994-2004, the AWB was unconstitutional. Just because the SCOTUS was to scared to hear such a case does NOT mean it was constitutional.

You are essentially saying this: If we passed a law banning Mormonism, it would be constitutional up until the date the SCOTUS struck it down.

That is incorrect. Such a law would be unconstitutional from the moment of conception, based on the plain text of the constitution. Unfortunately, we have a SCOTUS that would UPHOLD such a law if it were popular enough.

That's the problem.

The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution, or the BOR, or the SCOTUS. It exists naturally as part of our nature as tool-using human beings with free agency.

You outright rejected this idea. I still wanted to try to help convince you.

So I am trying to speak your language. Giving you arguments relating to self defense, hunting, competitive shooting, practical statistical arguments (2 percent of all gun crimes use rifles of any type), now I am trying legal and constitutional arguments.

None of which seem to be working. Because you are so set in your opinion. An opinion which is founded specifically on a LACK of knowledge and experience related to the subject.

Only that while different persons will have different opinions about what laws are constitutional or not, as the Supreme Court is the final authority on such matters, a law is effectively constitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise. While in 2004 you can say that in 1973 a Texas law against sodomy was unconstitutional, such a claim could NOT accurately be made in 1973. Until a law is struck down by the Supreme Court it is constitutional.

In regards to your claim about the inherent right to use tools, it is meaningless if nobody pays it any heed. It only has real power to it when enough people accept it as such and are willing to enshrine the idea in law with institutions that will protect them. In the case of the US that comes down to US laws (including the Constitution/Bill of Rights) and the courts. Any other theory or proposition you or someone else might advance that isn't recognized in law or the courts is no more than hot air.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 02:40:35 PM by dramaman »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4416
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #647 on: April 05, 2016, 02:57:08 PM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

Anti-Gun: Ban guns.
Pro-Gun: Um, no.
AG: OK, then we will just ban certain guns.
PG: Still, no.
AG: WHY WONT YOU COMPROMISE!!!!??

Because this is not a compromise. This is just making demands that won't actually help anything at all. All they do is piss off or inconvenience gun owners.

Lets try this on for size:

PG: Lets get rid of some gun laws and prohibit a gun registry.
AG: Ok, but only if we close the machine gun registry.
PG: Deal.
AG: Deal.

That's how the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 went down. A deal was struck. I'm not necessarily saying it was a good deal, or the right thing to do. But both parties brought something to the table and they compromised to get something done. When today's anti-gunners propose something like the AWB, its not a compromise. It sounds to us pro-gun people like "Lets ban this stuff because they look scary and we are ignorant about how guns work and just don't know any better. You pro-gun bible thumping rednecks get nothing in return."
Actually very few people are anti-gun.  Most "anti-gun" people want things like records (searchable), background checks, required training and people securing their guns (and being held responsible for them if they don't).  I have have friends with guns that I would completely trust to purchase and own guns, but they are trained, and keep their weapons secure. I have known too many "responsible gun owners" who leave their guns in easy access for children or thieves to believe people when they say their are responsible.  There have also been too many cases of gun violence when a victim of domestic violence is attempting to get away for me not to think that their needs to be restrictions on who owns one.

Ok. So make a proposal. Here is an example (I don't necessarily endorse it, but just for the sake of discussion).

Lets say we make background checks necessary for every permanent gun transfer. However, there is a grace period for inheritances and such. Also, the Federal Government has to reimburse the parties involved for the cost of performing the background check.

In return, we eliminate the $200 tax stamp and other NFA requirements for Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns.

This is a deal I believe would be agreeable to most pro-gun people and importantly the NRA.

But anti-gun people (or whatever you want to call them) would never agree to such a proposal, because they ( at least the major players, donors, and organizers) are only interested in incrementally increasing gun controls over time until guns in general are generally inaccessible to normal people. This has been the playbook used in most Western countries, and being used in America today.
I don't see why we should remove those requirements/tax.  And I would think that as person in the "anti-gun" (we like to be called pro-gun control) I would be more aware of what that group wants.  And if we could get those listed items even with your amendments (grace period and reimbursements) though not your trade, most would go for it.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #648 on: April 05, 2016, 04:00:06 PM »

Dramaman, I have a basic human right to self-defense.  I don't have to defend that right.  You would have to make the argument that you have some overriding right of your own in order to limit my choices in how I do so.  I already made the nuke/mine/explosive argument for you, this one is on you.  Why do you believe that you have a right to tell me what tools I may not use to exercise my basic human right to self-defense?

Moonshadow, I'm not asking you to defend your human right to self-defense. What I am saying is that we all pretty much accept that the right to self-defense is not unlimited, that not all armaments are necessary for personal self-defense and thus it is reasonable to ban certain types of armaments if there is a societal benefit to the ban. If one wishes to use the self-defense argument against such a ban, one should be able to justify why the armaments being banned are reasonable and/or necessary for self-defense.

No, Dramaman; you have this exactly backwards.  Since self-defense is a basic human right, as you have acknowledged, those who wish to restrict the choices in weapons must make the argument as to why such a restriction of personal choices would benefit society.  And you also have to make that argument with those who actually own, understand & use the very types of weapons that you wish to restrict.  If you can make such an argument, and it is reasonable to those semi-professional & professional gun owners & users; such a 'ban' is likely to be accepted and left unchallenged, even though it would still be technically against the Constitution.  That is exactly how the National Firearms Act of 1934 came into existence, and (for the most part) remains unchallenged in court.  That is the act that established the BATF (which the Constitution does not permit) as a police & regulatory authority over Class 2 & Class 3 weapons.  The act remains largely unchallenged, because the very same gun owners of those kinds of weapons largely agree that some degree of oversight is reasonable, if not technically constitutional.  It is widely acknowledged that the one time that short barreled weapons (shotguns & centerfire class rifles with barrels between 12 & 18.5 inches; shorter than 12 is a handgun anyway) being included as a class 2 weapon was challenged in court, all the way to SCOTUS, was poorly argued and would likely be struck down if challenged again today; but short barreled weapons are of such niche use (outside of handguns) that those that want them that badly are willing to pay the 'tax' and submit to the additional regulatory oversight.

Quote

 For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban that Winky brought up that he thought was an infringement on the right to self-defense. The US is not a war-zone.



That is an irrelevent point.  An AR-15, as well as most semi-automatic versions of military carbine rifles, have many appropriate uses for self-defense, sport shooting & hunting.  Which is a fact that the initiated would know, and the uninitiated generally would not.  A perfect example of why you get the order of things exactly backwards above.  The starting point of a true right is that I can choose how to exercise it as I see fit, at least until you can convince myself it's in my own interests to compromise for other personal and/or social benefits.  I don't have to defend my right to choose a particular method of exercising a real right.  I don't have to defend my right to choose the Internet as my medium of free expression, even though it's vastly more effective and technologically more advanced than a movable type printing press or a soapbox sermon, as were the most effective methods in 1787.  Nor do I need a license to start up a blog.  If I should need to do either, you would have to make the argument as to why that would be, not the other way around.

Quote


 I highly doubt the weapons included in the ban were really necessary for self-defense. Prior to and after the ban did people start to go around carrying those types of weapons for reasons of self defense.


Yes, both before and after.  Even during, since that ban was an import & manufacturing ban, not an ownership or carry ban.  Even locked up in my gun safe at home is a valid exercise of my right to self-defense; for if I choose to keep it only for home defense, that is my perogative.  Which is the root of the point.  I get to choose for MoonShadow, and Winkyman gets to choose for Winkyman; but Dramaman doesn't get to choose for MoonShadow or Winkyman, and can only properly limit our choices with due reason.  With us, not our 'representatives' in government.  If you can make a well designed system to achieve the social ends you desire to achieve, without infringing on our rights (at least without discernible benefits to the losses of free choice that we can accept) then such a plan would be accepted voluntarily by the gun owning public, and made into law without difficulty.  The issue you have is that this has already been taken as far as it is likely to go.

Quote
The ban itself was never declared a violation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that the opposition to that ban was NEVER about self-defense, but rather a knee-jerk reaction by the pro-gun lobby who didn't want to stop making and selling the weapons and gun enthusiasts who were upset that these cool toys that they loved to shoot had been banned.

Your historical facts are wrong.  The NRA supported that 'assault weapons ban' in the beginning, and switched their position well before it expired because of the heat they took from their own membership.  The NRA brass were looking at it as a compromise position, but didn't realize how poorly it would be received by their membership.  The NRA lost an enorumous amount of supporter funding during that time, and the Gun Owners of America gained in prominance for their, much stronger, pro-2nd positions.  The original 'assualt weapons ban' would have had zero chance of passage without the (at least tepid) support of the NRA, since so many Democrats in congress at the time were from pro-gun states.

Quote

 But then, I openly admit that I am not a gun expert. So I'm asking you gun experts who think that the ban was an infringement on the inherent right to self-defense, WHY?

Mostly because it limited our choices without offering any gain in return.  The definition of an assault weapon was arbitrary from the perspective of the initiated; being based on color, the presence of safety equipment (barrel shrouds exist to keep me from burning my hands), magazine capacity & the mechanical method of magazine removal, construction materials (wood versus plastic buttstocks), the presence of flash or recoil suppressors (not sound suppressors), and attachment rails for removable accessories.  If you can recall, the supporters of that ban had an immediate conniption fit when 3 months after the ban went into effect, manufactures started selling nearly exactly the same firearms with modifications so that they were no longer 'assault weapons' under the letter of the law, as if that was some kind of dodge.  AR-15's were suddenly available without the flash suppressor (previously standard equipment) or attachment rails, and with laquared wooden stocks & forward barrel shrouds instead of black plastic stocks & barrel shrouds. (standard equipment). 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #649 on: April 05, 2016, 04:00:37 PM »
So you would not be willing to give a little in return, only take.

Do you see now why pro gun people and groups seem unwilling to even consider working with gun control organizations?

We have nothing to gain and everything to lose. So why should we bother?