Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 358488 times)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #650 on: April 05, 2016, 04:15:14 PM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #651 on: April 05, 2016, 04:23:50 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.

This is an emotional position, not a statistically sound one.  I have pointed out in the past that what "most anti-gun" people want is already law in most states, and to a significant degree; and going further presents us all with a condition of diminishing returns.  Furthermore, the fact that very few truly anti-gun people exist is irrelevant; because they do exist, they are very active politically, and they vote.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #652 on: April 05, 2016, 04:31:02 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.

Sure it would.  Because you don't get to decide what is reasonable.  Gun owners do.  So you have to offer a benefit to gun owners in trade for limiting our choices in the market.  Failing to do so, you lose this debate automatically.  Again, because you are not the initiated in this field, we are; so we are the experts about what is a reasonable or unreasonable limitation or restriction.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #653 on: April 05, 2016, 04:36:38 PM »

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.

It doesn't matter if you see why we should remove those requirements and taxes. Nor does it matter what the "anti-gun" group wants.  This is what the gun owners (in this theoretical exercise) want in return for submitting to additional interference in our privacy (background checks).


Quote
  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.

Well, DUH!  Of course most anti-gun people would be all for getting something from gun owners, without having to give up anything.  That much should be pretty obvious.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3481
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #654 on: April 05, 2016, 04:46:02 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.
Are you under the impression there are no relevant restrictions for the situation you describe?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #655 on: April 05, 2016, 05:03:14 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.
Are you under the impression there are no relevant restrictions for the situation you describe?

Freaking bizarre. "Pro gun control" people really dont know anything. They don't even know what gun control already exists...

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #656 on: April 05, 2016, 05:24:34 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).

As a firearms owner (and subject to everything you are proposing already) I think that's reasonable.  However, I don't know that it's fair to say "very few" people are anti-gun.  In this thread alone you have people, if not advocating, at least being fine with banning the AR-15.  So it's already a slippery slope setup.

If you put aside the reductio ad absurdum arguments (nukes, land mines, etc.) and you focus on the issue -- semi-automatic firearms -- then why should we be talking about a ban?  A rather cogent argument was made as to why it serves well as a home defense option.

I think it's disingenuous to say one is not anti-gun when really they are except for perhaps a very neutered or watered down version of what constitutes a firearm.  If you need to qualify a statement that much (I'm not against guns, but I want background checks, but I want a database, but I'm open to exclude any gun, but.. but... but...) it's not a very strong statement in my view.

I'll flip that statement you made around, very few anti-gun proponents are fine with all semi-automatic firearms if there were background checks and transfer loopholes closed.  That's been shown to be rather clear in this thread.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #657 on: April 06, 2016, 09:23:12 AM »
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).


Interesting. Guitarstv has already advanced similar proposals, and for the most part no one has disagreed with them. The compromises listed were:

Background checks for all transfers - with the background check system open to all citizens without cost, so that individuals may transfer property to one another without having to drive to a licensed firearms dealer. Compromise: since all owners of firearms would thus be checked, there is no reason to ban commonly available weapons and no need to limit magazine size.

Searchable records - It has been considered unreasonable to allow anyone other than law enforcement with a warrant to search these records,  and likely that any new database that was created would grandfather in all current 300 million + weapons in circulation, thus diluting the effectiveness of said database. Canada has tried such a database and largely abandoned it as too expensive and ineffective, but if that is a sticking point, I think 'registering' newly purchased firearms with law enforcement could be found acceptable if other concessions are made. Note: these already exist. All weapons are tracked from manufacturer/importer to dealer, and from dealer to purchaser.

Required training - yes, if free, and available to all citizens. Preferably as a course in public schools, so that all citizens would have access to this vital education on how to safely store and avoid firearms. The NRA has the Eddie Eagle program - no cost for anyone interested. A great compromise.

People securing their guns - Again, these laws already exist. The lady in Florida (not known as an anti-gun state) who was shot by her child has been charged with allowing him access to her firearm. Also, requiring an expensive safe would be regressive in that it disporportionally removes firearm access from low income families. Also...how would this be enforced? Random house checks?  Compromise: Criminalize adults allowing unsupervised access to their weapons by minors or any person outlawed from possessing weapons. This, along with the mandated safety training, may prevent some accidents without punishing any specific group of citizens.

That's kinda where we landed as a middle ground between 'bible thumping rendneck gun nuts' and 'anti gun pussies'.  Any suggestions or additional discussion is welcome.

EDIT:  I hope I was clear - Guitarstv did not advance the specific arguments above in full; the above is my abreviated version of the two sides of the discussion and the points where compromise were found. I did not mean to state that Guitarstv, or any poster other than myself, specifically endorses the above points in part or in full. - Metric Mouse
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 09:27:38 AM by Metric Mouse »
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 #658 on: April 06, 2016, 10:33:02 AM »
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).


Interesting. Guitarstv has already advanced similar proposals, and for the most part no one has disagreed with them. The compromises listed were:

Background checks for all transfers - with the background check system open to all citizens without cost, so that individuals may transfer property to one another without having to drive to a licensed firearms dealer. Compromise: since all owners of firearms would thus be checked, there is no reason to ban commonly available weapons and no need to limit magazine size.

Searchable records - It has been considered unreasonable to allow anyone other than law enforcement with a warrant to search these records,  and likely that any new database that was created would grandfather in all current 300 million + weapons in circulation, thus diluting the effectiveness of said database. Canada has tried such a database and largely abandoned it as too expensive and ineffective, but if that is a sticking point, I think 'registering' newly purchased firearms with law enforcement could be found acceptable if other concessions are made. Note: these already exist. All weapons are tracked from manufacturer/importer to dealer, and from dealer to purchaser.

Required training - yes, if free, and available to all citizens. Preferably as a course in public schools, so that all citizens would have access to this vital education on how to safely store and avoid firearms. The NRA has the Eddie Eagle program - no cost for anyone interested. A great compromise.

People securing their guns - Again, these laws already exist. The lady in Florida (not known as an anti-gun state) who was shot by her child has been charged with allowing him access to her firearm. Also, requiring an expensive safe would be regressive in that it disporportionally removes firearm access from low income families. Also...how would this be enforced? Random house checks?  Compromise: Criminalize adults allowing unsupervised access to their weapons by minors or any person outlawed from possessing weapons. This, along with the mandated safety training, may prevent some accidents without punishing any specific group of citizens.

That's kinda where we landed as a middle ground between 'bible thumping rendneck gun nuts' and 'anti gun pussies'.  Any suggestions or additional discussion is welcome.

EDIT:  I hope I was clear - Guitarstv did not advance the specific arguments above in full; the above is my abreviated version of the two sides of the discussion and the points where compromise were found. I did not mean to state that Guitarstv, or any poster other than myself, specifically endorses the above points in part or in full. - Metric Mouse


I am more or less on board with your compromise proposals. I would hope that most gun control people would be as well. Let me explain why I think these things will never happen.

Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

Why does it never go anywhere? Because of the true nature of the gun control movement.

Most people who support gun control are well-meaning and would support the Eddie Eagle plan we have outlined. However, the people who DRIVE the gun control movement would not. The core of the gun control movement, the organizers, the donors, etc, don't actually care about children killing someone with a gun they find in the home. The only thing they care about is the long-term and complete disarmament of the American people. All they care about it the total government monopolization on the effective use of force, for ideological reasons.

The Eddie Eagle plan WILL reduce the number of child-related gun accidents, however it WILL NOT move towards the goal of total civilian disarmament. In fact, it will actually impede the goal of total civilian disarmament. Why? Because as the numbers of child/gun related accidents decreases, so does the support for gun bans ownership restrictions leading to complete civilian disarmament. For these reasons, effective gun safety programs will never be supported by the gun control movement as a whole.

Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #659 on: April 06, 2016, 10:42:27 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #660 on: April 06, 2016, 10:46:43 AM »
Before I would accept any further restrictions, you would have to show me what benefits they would bring.

Does reducing the availability of guns actually benefit a country?  I provided links to info on gun ownership by country earlier in this thread. There simply isn't any positive correlation between gun control and reduced violence. Why go to all this trouble for something that does not work?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #661 on: April 06, 2016, 10:47:50 AM »
People securing their guns - Again, these laws already exist. The lady in Florida (not known as an anti-gun state) who was shot by her child has been charged with allowing him access to her firearm. Also, requiring an expensive safe would be regressive in that it disporportionally removes firearm access from low income families. Also...how would this be enforced? Random house checks?  Compromise: Criminalize adults allowing unsupervised access to their weapons by minors or any person outlawed from possessing weapons. This, along with the mandated safety training, may prevent some accidents without punishing any specific group of citizens.

This one, as mentioned a while ago in the thread, is a huge pet peeve of mine.  The average anti-gunner thinks a "loaded weapon" is always like a Glock with a round in the chamber.  IE, anyone can pick it up and make it go boom.  Hell, just the fact that the average anti-gun person doesn't understand the distinction between a weapon in Condition 1 versus Condition 3 means that they have zero business determining what should and shouldn't be legal as far as a secured weapon. 

I have a completely unlocked shotgun under my bed at Condition 3 at all times.  The idea that it's the same as a Condition 1 Glock 19 is idiotic and I have no interest in giving anyone who doesn't understand the distinction any authority to make any sort of firearms legislation whatsoever. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #662 on: April 06, 2016, 10:49:48 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #663 on: April 06, 2016, 10:51:35 AM »
Before I would accept any further restrictions, you would have to show me what benefits they would bring.

Does reducing the availability of guns actually benefit a country?  I provided links to info on gun ownership by country earlier in this thread. There simply isn't any positive correlation between gun control and reduced violence. Why go to all this trouble for something that does not work?

You bring up legitimate questions that I agree should be addressed when considering any sort of ban.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #664 on: April 06, 2016, 10:51:43 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

So why bring the argument at all? 

"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #665 on: April 06, 2016, 10:58:28 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #666 on: April 06, 2016, 10:59:49 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

He'll still be able to change his facebook profile picture in protest though.  So he's got that going for him.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #667 on: April 06, 2016, 11:01:44 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

So why bring the argument at all?

To counter people like Winkey who argue that their supposed inherent right to self-defense makes any regulation of guns absolutely off the table.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #668 on: April 06, 2016, 11:02:12 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

What is WRONG with you? Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

The Eddie Eagle program is a cartoon mascot that says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!"

THATS IT!!!

I even said "or some other program" because I know you are too irrationally scared of the NRA to EVER support ANYTHING it does. Provide free trigger locks with every gun purchase? BRAINWASHING!

Have the CDC come up with a cartoon dog that's says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!" and put it in school.



Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #669 on: April 06, 2016, 11:05:40 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.
Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

Can we put this to a vote?  I know how I'm voting.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #670 on: April 06, 2016, 11:09:34 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #671 on: April 06, 2016, 11:11:13 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

Do you know anything about the Eddie Eagle program? Would you care to discuss the compromises laid out, or do you just not have anything constructive to add to the debate?
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 #672 on: April 06, 2016, 11:13:22 AM »
Dramaman,

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

I am putting you on the spot. Go to this link. Read over the page. Watch the video (nothing really happens until 2.5 mins in).

Please, tell me what you find objectionable. Tell me which part is brainwashing kids to be gun nuts. Please. Stop making things up. Stop speaking from a position of ignorance. Please, tell me how evil the NRA is for creating this program and making that cartoon. Please, tell me how that program is harmful to children. Please, stop parroting what your "leaders" tell you. Please stop being a useful idiot. I'm literally begging you.





dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #673 on: April 06, 2016, 11:14:24 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

What is WRONG with you? Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

The Eddie Eagle program is a cartoon mascot that says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!"

THATS IT!!!

I even said "or some other program" because I know you are too irrationally scared of the NRA to EVER support ANYTHING it does. Provide free trigger locks with every gun purchase? BRAINWASHING!

Have the CDC come up with a cartoon dog that's says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!" and put it in school.

I apologize for my casual reply. I don't go spending time reading up on NRA public outreach messages and was not aware that this was the extent of the message that you were promoting for kids.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #674 on: April 06, 2016, 11:15:37 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #675 on: April 06, 2016, 11:16:59 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

So why bring the argument at all?

To counter people like Winkey who argue that their supposed inherent right to self-defense makes any regulation of guns absolutely off the table.

Dramaman - There are tons of gun regulations.  The anti-gun faction will always want more until guns are outlawed.  When that's achieved, they'll move on to some other piece of stupidity.

In the UK, knives are now the object of the anti crowd. 

http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/save-a-life-surrender-your-knife/

Since you've repeatedly brought up the AR-15, there are millions of them in the US.  Despite that, the vast majority of murders are committed with other weapons.  AR-15's are expensive and hard to conceal so not really suited to the common criminal.

Despite those facts, the anti gun crowd continues to argue against them.  Why, because they are either ignorant of the facts or simply don't care.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #676 on: April 06, 2016, 11:19:57 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #677 on: April 06, 2016, 11:20:43 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

What is WRONG with you? Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

The Eddie Eagle program is a cartoon mascot that says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!"

THATS IT!!!

I even said "or some other program" because I know you are too irrationally scared of the NRA to EVER support ANYTHING it does. Provide free trigger locks with every gun purchase? BRAINWASHING!

Have the CDC come up with a cartoon dog that's says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!" and put it in school.

I apologize for my casual reply. I don't go spending time reading up on NRA public outreach messages and was not aware that this was the extent of the message that you were promoting for kids.

Perhaps if you spent some time familiarizing yourself with the facts of gun ownership, and the proposals levied by 'gun rights activists' you may find that you agree more with their positions?

Education can be a powerful tool of social progression.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 11:24:00 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #678 on: April 06, 2016, 11:22:21 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.   
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #679 on: April 06, 2016, 11:23:26 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

So why bring the argument at all?

To counter people like Winkey who argue that their supposed inherent right to self-defense makes any regulation of guns absolutely off the table.

Dramaman - There are tons of gun regulations.  The anti-gun faction will always want more until guns are outlawed.  When that's achieved, they'll move on to some other piece of stupidity.

In the UK, knives are now the object of the anti crowd. 

http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/save-a-life-surrender-your-knife/

Since you've repeatedly brought up the AR-15, there are millions of them in the US.  Despite that, the vast majority of murders are committed with other weapons.  AR-15's are expensive and hard to conceal so not really suited to the common criminal.

Despite those facts, the anti gun crowd continues to argue against them.  Why, because they are either ignorant of the facts or simply don't care.

Yes, and all that is irrelevant regarding my point that some restrictions on some guns/firearms do not necessarily infringe upon your right to self defense and in such cases, you cannot use the right to self-defense argument as a trump card against said restrictions.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #680 on: April 06, 2016, 11:27:16 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #681 on: April 06, 2016, 11:32:22 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

Yes, if you have a lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns you absolutely have no valid basis upon which to opine on gun-related arguments regarding what types should be allowed, where, how they're stored, etc.  Idiocy masquerading as fear and ignorance is no different than tyranny when it comes to trying to remove my rights.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #682 on: April 06, 2016, 11:32:45 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

What is WRONG with you? Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

The Eddie Eagle program is a cartoon mascot that says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!"

THATS IT!!!

I even said "or some other program" because I know you are too irrationally scared of the NRA to EVER support ANYTHING it does. Provide free trigger locks with every gun purchase? BRAINWASHING!

Have the CDC come up with a cartoon dog that's says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!" and put it in school.

I apologize for my casual reply. I don't go spending time reading up on NRA public outreach messages and was not aware that this was the extent of the message that you were promoting for kids.

Fair enough. GO ahead and check out the Eddie Eagle page I linked in my other post if you want to confirm that my description of the program is correct.

But you didn't come up with that attitude out of thin air. You have been fed misinformation about the NRA and it's programs by the anti-gun movement. Why? Because the leadership of the anti-gun movement doesn't care about the safety of children, only the eventual disarmament of the civilian population of the US.

After you do that... would it be fair to admit that maybe you don't understand the pro-gun bloc as well as you thought? Maybe some of the other opinions you hold on the topic are based on ignorance or misinformation? Maybe the pro-gun movement is actually interested in real solutions? We care about preventing the death of children due to gun accidents because we have children and we have guns. It effects us! It doesn't effect people like you with no guns in the home. It effects us! We really care about gun ownership, and self defense, and shooting sports and hunting. Not you. We care about these things so we take training classes and require safety officers at shooting events and protect the environment to maintain habitats for game animals and we have effective policy solutions. Why? Because these things are a cornerstone of our lives and we want them to be done correctly and safety. We are the experts, we have the solutions, not millionaires in NYC who have only seen a gun under the jacket of their expensive body guard.

So maybe, just maybe, you should be taking our word for it, not the word of Michael Bloomberg?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #683 on: April 06, 2016, 11:42:40 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

This is only true to some extent.

The Indian people were able to non-violently resist the injustice of the British because the British people at the time were basically decent people and didn't have much desire or the resources to violently subjugate an entire subcontinent who didn't wish to be ruled.

The American Civil Rights movement was able to non-violently resist the injustice of Jim Crow because the majority of the American people at the time were basically decent people. Only a small minority of Americans had the desire to violently subjugate black Americans to maintain the social structure of the day.

Nonviolent resistance to injustice works just fine when the subjugated group is numerically huge, or when the subjugators are basically ready to be nudged in the morally correct direction.

Nonviolent resistance would not have worked so well against the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or ISIS, or tribal warlords.

In other words, nonviolent resistance is dependent wholly on the kindness or disinterest of others. The 2A is designed so that the American people never have to rely on the kindness or disinterest of others.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 11:44:40 AM by winkeyman »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #684 on: April 06, 2016, 11:46:09 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

Yes, if you have a lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns you absolutely have no valid basis upon which to opine on gun-related arguments regarding what types should be allowed, where, how they're stored, etc.  Idiocy masquerading as fear and ignorance is no different than tyranny when it comes to trying to remove my rights.

Aside from my flippant and admittedly ignorant response about 'Eddie the Eagle' you will find I made no argument whatsoever on the technical details of weapons themselves and indeed have refrained from defending any particular ban or restriction. I have consistently presented an argument based on the concept of inherent rights and their not being able to be used as a trump card against gun restrictions in general.

Frankly, I find it a bit elitist and snobbish the way you seem to think that only pro-gun advocates have the expertise to present any legitimate opinion whatsoever regarding the issue gun restrictions. I may not be able to identify whether a glock is loaded or not and the different tiers of such a determination, but that doesn't mean that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding the entire subject of gun restrictions and inherent rights.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 11:52:35 AM by dramaman »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #685 on: April 06, 2016, 11:51:28 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

This is only true to some extent.

The Indian people were able to non-violently resist the injustice of the British because the British people at the time were basically decent people and didn't have much desire or the resources to violently subjugate an entire subcontinent who didn't wish to be ruled.

The American Civil Rights movement was able to non-violently resist the injustice of Jim Crow because the majority of the American people at the time were basically decent people. Only a small minority of Americans had the desire to violently subjugate black Americans to maintain the social structure of the day.

Nonviolent resistance to injustice works just fine when the subjugated group is numerically huge, or when the subjugators are basically ready to be nudged in the morally correct direction.

Nonviolent resistance would not have worked so well against the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or ISIS, or tribal warlords.

In other words, nonviolent resistance is dependent wholly on the kindness or disinterest of others. The 2A is designed so that the American people never have to rely on the kindness or disinterest of others.

I agree to a point, but I think you discount the long term impact of dissidents even in a hostile state. I cannot help but admire those people who refused to back down and were willing to endure hardships, prison and even risk of death for what they believed. I believe it takes more courage to resist peacefully than with a weapon and the result may not be as immediate, but in the long run may be better. How many revolutions have only resulted in replacing one dictator or strong man with another? I kind of think that the American Revolution is the exception, not the rule.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #686 on: April 06, 2016, 11:55:51 AM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

What is WRONG with you? Do you really not know ANYTHING about the topic at hand?

The Eddie Eagle program is a cartoon mascot that says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!"

THATS IT!!!

I even said "or some other program" because I know you are too irrationally scared of the NRA to EVER support ANYTHING it does. Provide free trigger locks with every gun purchase? BRAINWASHING!

Have the CDC come up with a cartoon dog that's says "If you see a gun... STOP... DONT TOUCH... TELL AN ADULT!" and put it in school.

I apologize for my casual reply. I don't go spending time reading up on NRA public outreach messages and was not aware that this was the extent of the message that you were promoting for kids.

Fair enough. GO ahead and check out the Eddie Eagle page I linked in my other post if you want to confirm that my description of the program is correct.

But you didn't come up with that attitude out of thin air. You have been fed misinformation about the NRA and it's programs by the anti-gun movement. Why? Because the leadership of the anti-gun movement doesn't care about the safety of children, only the eventual disarmament of the civilian population of the US.

After you do that... would it be fair to admit that maybe you don't understand the pro-gun bloc as well as you thought? Maybe some of the other opinions you hold on the topic are based on ignorance or misinformation? Maybe the pro-gun movement is actually interested in real solutions? We care about preventing the death of children due to gun accidents because we have children and we have guns. It effects us! It doesn't effect people like you with no guns in the home. It effects us! We really care about gun ownership, and self defense, and shooting sports and hunting. Not you. We care about these things so we take training classes and require safety officers at shooting events and protect the environment to maintain habitats for game animals and we have effective policy solutions. Why? Because these things are a cornerstone of our lives and we want them to be done correctly and safety. We are the experts, we have the solutions, not millionaires in NYC who have only seen a gun under the jacket of their expensive body guard.

So maybe, just maybe, you should be taking our word for it, not the word of Michael Bloomberg?

Heh, as soon as I saw your initial reply to mine, I did google to confirm what you were saying and was in fact chagrined at my own ignorance on the subject. My main exposure to Eddie had been protests I had read about the NRA using such a patrotic symbol to teach about guns. While I am sympathetic to that mindset, I can wholly embrace the message that Eddie presents if kids find a gun.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #687 on: April 06, 2016, 11:58:46 AM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?
 



winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #688 on: April 06, 2016, 11:58:52 AM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

Yes, if you have a lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns you absolutely have no valid basis upon which to opine on gun-related arguments regarding what types should be allowed, where, how they're stored, etc.  Idiocy masquerading as fear and ignorance is no different than tyranny when it comes to trying to remove my rights.

Aside from my flippant and admittedly ignorant response about 'Eddie the Eagle' you will find I made no argument whatsoever on the technical details of weapons themselves and indeed have refrained from defending any particular ban or restriction. I have consistently presented an argument based on the concept of inherent rights and the limited nature their limited use as a trump card against gun restrictions in general.

Frankly, I find it a bit elitist and snobbish the way you seem to think that only pro-gun advocates have the expertise to present any legitimate opinion whatsoever regarding the issue gun restrictions. I may not be able to identify whether a glock is loaded or not and the different tiers of such a determination, but that doesn't mean that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding the entire subject of gun restrictions and inherent rights.

Dramaman,

I feel for you here. Lacking expertise on the topic doesn't disqualify you from having an opinion. Here are a few things (not exhaustive by any means I personally believe you or someone like you can and should have an opinion on:

- What should disqualify gun purchasers (criminal history, mental illness, whatever)
- How and to what extent background checks should be required
- Punishment for people who store guns unsafely and allow a child to shoot his playmate
- Where concealed carry should be allowed/disallowed

Here are some examples of things I do not feel the uninitiated can form a valid opinion on:

- What types of guns should be allowed
- What constitutes safe storage
- What type of training, if any, should be required to own/carry a gun
- How we should teach children about guns and gun safety
- Magazine sizes
- The use of guns in self defense ("Why don't you just shoot them in the leg?!)

Just my 2 cents.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #689 on: April 06, 2016, 11:59:00 AM »

To counter people like Winkey who argue that their supposed inherent right to self-defense makes any regulation of guns absolutely off the table.

Dramaman - There are tons of gun regulations.  The anti-gun faction will always want more until guns are outlawed.  When that's achieved, they'll move on to some other piece of stupidity.

In the UK, knives are now the object of the anti crowd. 

http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/save-a-life-surrender-your-knife/

Since you've repeatedly brought up the AR-15, there are millions of them in the US.  Despite that, the vast majority of murders are committed with other weapons.  AR-15's are expensive and hard to conceal so not really suited to the common criminal.

Despite those facts, the anti gun crowd continues to argue against them.  Why, because they are either ignorant of the facts or simply don't care.

Yes, and all that is irrelevant regarding my point that some restrictions on some guns/firearms do not necessarily infringe upon your right to self defense and in such cases, you cannot use the right to self-defense argument as a trump card against said restrictions.

Very few people (if any) have argued against "any" gun regulation.  You are inferring that being against new stupid and ineffective regulations is against "any" regulation. 

Being against additional regulations or the new ones proposed, is not the same as being against any gun regulations. 

You've repeatedly brought up the AR-15, because people like President Obama, Hillary, Mike Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein are against them.  If we were arguing on a rationale basis, pistols are used in most murders but AR-15's look scary.


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #690 on: April 06, 2016, 12:01:58 PM »
Frankly, I find it a bit elitist and snobbish the way you seem to think that only pro-gun advocates have the expertise to present any legitimate opinion whatsoever regarding the issue gun restrictions.

That's fine, I find it elitist and snobbish that you think you can opine on gun restrictions that would restrict me without having any fucking clue how they work.  I also find it extremely intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant that you seek to do so without making any attempt at all to educate yourself.  That you do this without any apparent shame is appalling, and frankly, out of character for those on this web site.

Quote
I may not be able to identify whether a glock is loaded or not and the different tiers of such a determination, but that doesn't mean that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding the entire subject of gun restrictions and inherent rights.

Yes it absolutely does.  In my example, if you don't understand what it takes to fire a weapon from various conditions, you have ZERO FUCKING BUSINESS weighing in on how said weapons should be stored.  ZERO.  Start googling and tell me why I'm wrong.  Same with tossing out why various weapons should or should not be banned without any clue as to their capabilities, especially relative to other weapons that you don't think should be banned. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #691 on: April 06, 2016, 12:10:52 PM »
Frankly, I find it a bit elitist and snobbish the way you seem to think that only pro-gun advocates have the expertise to present any legitimate opinion whatsoever regarding the issue gun restrictions.

That's fine, I find it elitist and snobbish that you think you can opine on gun restrictions that would restrict me without having any fucking clue how they work.  I also find it extremely intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant that you seek to do so without making any attempt at all to educate yourself.  That you do this without any apparent shame is appalling, and frankly, out of character for those on this web site.

Quote
I may not be able to identify whether a glock is loaded or not and the different tiers of such a determination, but that doesn't mean that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding the entire subject of gun restrictions and inherent rights.

Yes it absolutely does.  In my example, if you don't understand what it takes to fire a weapon from various conditions, you have ZERO FUCKING BUSINESS weighing in on how said weapons should be stored.  ZERO.  Start googling and tell me why I'm wrong.  Same with tossing out why various weapons should or should not be banned without any clue as to their capabilities, especially relative to other weapons that you don't think should be banned.

And you have ZERO FUCKING BUSINESS weighing in on what I can and cannot post WHEN YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT I HAVE BEEN POSTING.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #692 on: April 06, 2016, 12:14:09 PM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?

Martin King's movement did not depend upon guns. It was peaceful. They would have lost if they had tried to stage an armed resistance to Jim Crow.

As for whether I think Black Americans had the right to fight back when the KKK came to visit... Hell yeah!

LATER EDIT - Just to clarify. The Civil Rights movement did not belong to Martin Luther King. There were many leaders and participants and they were all vital to the success of peacefully resisting and eventually eliminating racial segregation in America.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 12:27:21 PM by dramaman »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #693 on: April 06, 2016, 12:23:31 PM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

Yes, if you have a lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns you absolutely have no valid basis upon which to opine on gun-related arguments regarding what types should be allowed, where, how they're stored, etc.  Idiocy masquerading as fear and ignorance is no different than tyranny when it comes to trying to remove my rights.

Aside from my flippant and admittedly ignorant response about 'Eddie the Eagle' you will find I made no argument whatsoever on the technical details of weapons themselves and indeed have refrained from defending any particular ban or restriction. I have consistently presented an argument based on the concept of inherent rights and the limited nature their limited use as a trump card against gun restrictions in general.

Frankly, I find it a bit elitist and snobbish the way you seem to think that only pro-gun advocates have the expertise to present any legitimate opinion whatsoever regarding the issue gun restrictions. I may not be able to identify whether a glock is loaded or not and the different tiers of such a determination, but that doesn't mean that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding the entire subject of gun restrictions and inherent rights.

Dramaman,

I feel for you here. Lacking expertise on the topic doesn't disqualify you from having an opinion. Here are a few things (not exhaustive by any means I personally believe you or someone like you can and should have an opinion on:

- What should disqualify gun purchasers (criminal history, mental illness, whatever)
- How and to what extent background checks should be required
- Punishment for people who store guns unsafely and allow a child to shoot his playmate
- Where concealed carry should be allowed/disallowed

Here are some examples of things I do not feel the uninitiated can form a valid opinion on:

- What types of guns should be allowed
- What constitutes safe storage
- What type of training, if any, should be required to own/carry a gun
- How we should teach children about guns and gun safety
- Magazine sizes
- The use of guns in self defense ("Why don't you just shoot them in the leg?!)

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks, Winkey. I would generally agree with you on everything with some caveats for items #3 and #4 in your second listing. While I may not have the expertise on specific matters of training, I think it is not unreasonable to express an opinion about the overall need for training to own/carry a gun and general matters of guns and gun safety. I don't have to know how to drive a car to believe that one should have some kind of training or at least be able to demonstrate a level of proficiency before getting a license to drive. As for kids, I may not be able to opine on the best way to train kids to use guns, but that shouldn't preclude me from having a say regarding how guns are taught to my kids in a public school.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #694 on: April 06, 2016, 12:37:32 PM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?

Martin King's movement did not depend upon guns. It was peaceful. They would have lost if they had tried to stage an armed resistance to Jim Crow.
Ah, but it did. It was most definitely 'armed resistance'. What it was NOT was armed rebellion. They worked within the existing system, which allowed citizens to own guns and use them for self defense. And they did just that. There are plenty of articles on line, and whole books written about this topic.

If I name some specific group, historically oppressed, you are fine with them fighting back with guns. But you want to prevent or restrict current groups from doing the same. Cognitive dissonance! ALL gun registration schemes, gun licenses, mandatory training programs, whether intended to or not, have the effect of preventing oppressed peoples from accessing guns.
 
Let me give you a current equivalency: Many states run by the Republican Party are trying to implement voter ID, where you have to show something like a driver's license or a passport or some other approved ID to vote. Democrats say that this is designed to suppress the Black/minority vote. Is it? How are your gun control systems different? If I say gun controllers are timid people who want to keep dangerous brown people from owning guns, why would I be wrong, by your lights?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #695 on: April 06, 2016, 01:33:10 PM »
Martin Luther King had guns. So did many Civil Rights activists of his day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Did Black Americans have any right to fight back with deadly force when the KKK came to visit?

Martin King's movement did not depend upon guns. It was peaceful. They would have lost if they had tried to stage an armed resistance to Jim Crow.
Ah, but it did. It was most definitely 'armed resistance'. What it was NOT was armed rebellion. They worked within the existing system, which allowed citizens to own guns and use them for self defense. And they did just that. There are plenty of articles on line, and whole books written about this topic.

If I name some specific group, historically oppressed, you are fine with them fighting back with guns. But you want to prevent or restrict current groups from doing the same. Cognitive dissonance! ALL gun registration schemes, gun licenses, mandatory training programs, whether intended to or not, have the effect of preventing oppressed peoples from accessing guns.
 
Let me give you a current equivalency: Many states run by the Republican Party are trying to implement voter ID, where you have to show something like a driver's license or a passport or some other approved ID to vote. Democrats say that this is designed to suppress the Black/minority vote. Is it? How are your gun control systems different? If I say gun controllers are timid people who want to keep dangerous brown people from owning guns, why would I be wrong, by your lights?

To piggyback on the point Tom mate at the end there, to "speak the language of liberals" so to say.

Pro life folks often prevent effective sex ed in classrooms.

Gun control folks often prevent effective gun safety in classrooms.

The reasons for these 2 facts are the same. Both groups are driven by ideology, rather than being interested in effective solutions.


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #696 on: April 06, 2016, 01:37:11 PM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument. Mind you, this is not an argument that the AR-15 should be banned. Only that a theoretical ban would not infringe on this supposed right to self-defense and thus an argument against the ban could not rely upon infringement. It would have to be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments based upon the societal benefit (or lack thereof) of a ban. For the purpose of this subthread, I am not advancing any opinion whatsoever on the societal benefits (or lack thereof) of a ban.

Dramaman,

"This supposed right to self defense"? Disgusting, fucking disgusting. You are not discussing this topic in good faith. You can't even bring yourself to say I have a right to self defense. Don't come crying to me when society "decides" you no longer have the right to vote, or own property, or practice your religion or whatever other future evil our misguided and cowardly society comes up with.

Winkey, frankly I have a lot more respect for people like MLK, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel, who had the courage to confront injustice without the need of a firearm to make them feel brave. I have not personally confronted those kinds of injustices, but if I ever do, I hope I can emulate their examples.

That's not even what I meant. I meant I hope society never decides those things because in your mind, if the majority vote says you don't have the right to practice your religion, that's the end of the story. Better accept it. Because we don't have any "so-called rights" at all, now do we?

Well, that is why I am grateful that we live in the US where the founders had the insight to enshrine these rights in a document that could serve as an actual, meaningful bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Without this, you or I could argue that we have inherent rights until the cow came home but it would be just an opinion without anything meaningful backing it up.


Only one person in this conversation doesn't have anything meaningful to back up his rights.  The rest of us do.

Maybe :)

If you are referring to a gun, there are many examples in history of people who fought against tyranny and injustice without having a gun in their hand.

If you are referring to my lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns or the NRA, that shouldn't call into question any arguments that I make that are not based on those specifics.

Yes, if you have a lack of knowledge about the technical details of guns you absolutely have no valid basis upon which to opine on gun-related arguments regarding what types should be allowed, where, how they're stored, etc.  Idiocy masquerading as fear and ignorance is no different than tyranny when it comes to trying to remove my rights.

Aside from my flippant and admittedly ignorant response about 'Eddie the Eagle' you will find I made no argument whatsoever on the technical details of weapons themselves and indeed have refrained from defending any particular ban or restriction. I have consistently presented an argument based on the concept of inherent rights and the limited nature their limited use as a trump card against gun restrictions in general.

Frankly, I find it a bit elitist and snobbish the way you seem to think that only pro-gun advocates have the expertise to present any legitimate opinion whatsoever regarding the issue gun restrictions. I may not be able to identify whether a glock is loaded or not and the different tiers of such a determination, but that doesn't mean that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding the entire subject of gun restrictions and inherent rights.

Dramaman,

I feel for you here. Lacking expertise on the topic doesn't disqualify you from having an opinion. Here are a few things (not exhaustive by any means I personally believe you or someone like you can and should have an opinion on:

- What should disqualify gun purchasers (criminal history, mental illness, whatever)
- How and to what extent background checks should be required
- Punishment for people who store guns unsafely and allow a child to shoot his playmate
- Where concealed carry should be allowed/disallowed

Here are some examples of things I do not feel the uninitiated can form a valid opinion on:

- What types of guns should be allowed
- What constitutes safe storage
- What type of training, if any, should be required to own/carry a gun
- How we should teach children about guns and gun safety
- Magazine sizes
- The use of guns in self defense ("Why don't you just shoot them in the leg?!)

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks, Winkey. I would generally agree with you on everything with some caveats for items #3 and #4 in your second listing. While I may not have the expertise on specific matters of training, I think it is not unreasonable to express an opinion about the overall need for training to own/carry a gun and general matters of guns and gun safety. I don't have to know how to drive a car to believe that one should have some kind of training or at least be able to demonstrate a level of proficiency before getting a license to drive. As for kids, I may not be able to opine on the best way to train kids to use guns, but that shouldn't preclude me from having a say regarding how guns are taught to my kids in a public school.

You influencing how gun safety is taught in classrooms is like someone who thinks sex is a dangerous and shameful thing that should never be done outside of Christian marriage between a man and a woman influencing how sex ed is taught to children.

Someone who is opposed to sex in general can't effectively teach the realities of it to children. People opposed to guns in general can't effectively teach the realities of them to children.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 01:41:55 PM by winkeyman »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #697 on: April 06, 2016, 02:03:42 PM »
Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns.  It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.

Watch the interview please.  You can find it on YouTube. Then make a mental note to look into the quotations you randomly find while googling before assuming they support what you think they do.  Feinstein is talking about a loophole in assault weapons ban legislation.  She isn't talking about picking up your hunting rifles, shotguns, revolvers, or other handguns.

"Nobody wants to round up all your damned guns." - Jesus Christ from the 1st book of Abraham Lincoln

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #698 on: April 06, 2016, 02:18:54 PM »
but I have provided a reasonable counter argument that the AR-15 is not vital to personal self-defense.

No, you haven't.  You consider it reasonable, only because you are uninitiated.  Even if 'vital' was a defining requirement.  It isn't.

My counter argument is that the AR-15 is not needed to reasonably and effective defend oneself in the US. If the AR-15 did not exist, people would easily be able to defend themselves with shotguns and other types of weapons that would be available to them. As of yet, I have seen no evidence that refutes this. Thus I believe it to be a reasonable counter argument.

Again, it doesn't matter what evidence you see or don't see.  Self-defense is a right, by reason of which, I have a right to decide how to best do that.  Since this is the root given of the US foundation, it is the responsibility of those who support addition restrictions upon the AR-15 to justify those restrictions to us, not the other way around.  Produce some evidence that an AR-15, in particular, is a weapon that would benefit society at large & gun owners/self-defense advocates in particular, if it were more restricted.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #699 on: April 06, 2016, 02:21:54 PM »
Making the Eddie Eagle or similar gun safety program mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged) in elementary schools would be a common sense, practical, move that would provide immediate tangible benefits. There would be fewer accidents involving children with guns. Pro gun people would agree to this measure. In fact we have been pushing for something like it for many years.

I'm not surprised you've been pushing to bring the NRA's cartoon propaganda mascot into the schools to brainwash kids into becoming the next generation of gun activists unable to feel safe unless they have a gun with them at all times.

I already offered an existing alternative, the Appleseed Project.  They teach a lot of Revolutionary War history during the events as well, so it fits nicely with middle school civics.