Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345579 times)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #650 on: April 05, 2016, 06:42:18 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #651 on: April 05, 2016, 06:54:25 AM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

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

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

Lets try this on for size:

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

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

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #652 on: April 05, 2016, 07:09:58 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #653 on: April 05, 2016, 07:27:13 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #654 on: April 05, 2016, 07:46:47 AM »
Guitar and Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

Dramaman,

The answer to your question is two-fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #655 on: April 05, 2016, 07:55:53 AM »
No comment on the militia use angle?

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

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

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


dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #656 on: April 05, 2016, 08:07:10 AM »
No comment on the militia use angle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #657 on: April 05, 2016, 08:27:46 AM »
Winky, thanks for the details regarding the AR-15. Your justification for WHY it is necessary for self-defense seems to mostly boil down to it being popular, cheap, and offers some qualitative benefits over some weapons. Assuming all this is correct, one has to wonder if this is a significant enough justification given the availability of other choices, such as the classic shotgun, that may not offer all the benefits of the AR-15, but certainly has demonstrated to be an effective and reliable tool for home protection over the years. If society deems that banning the AR-15 is beneficial, I still can't see that your self-defense justification is grounds to override such a determination, given the numerous other alternatives. For now society apparently does NOT think such a ban is useful, but it is is not unreasonable to revisit such considerations at some point down the road. The same should be true for other types of arms as well, if it can be demonstrated that such weapons are not vital for self-defense.

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

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

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #658 on: April 05, 2016, 08:28:35 AM »
No comment on the militia use angle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the problem.

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

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

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

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







winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #659 on: April 05, 2016, 08:39:49 AM »
Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #660 on: April 05, 2016, 11:15:28 AM »
What you have not done is explain why the AR platform should be banned.

That's the heart of the matter. 

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

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

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

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #661 on: April 05, 2016, 02:04:11 PM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

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

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

Lets try this on for size:

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

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

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #662 on: April 05, 2016, 02:21:06 PM »
Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #663 on: April 05, 2016, 02:23:33 PM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

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

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

Lets try this on for size:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #664 on: April 05, 2016, 02:24:51 PM »
What you have not done is explain why the AR platform should be banned.

That's the heart of the matter. 

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

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

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

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

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #665 on: April 05, 2016, 02:25:31 PM »
Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign. Any response to this?

No comment on the militia use angle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the problem.

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

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

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

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








dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #666 on: April 05, 2016, 02:38:21 PM »
Dramaman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign. Any response to this?

No comment on the militia use angle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #667 on: April 05, 2016, 02:57:08 PM »
Also, if you are really concerned about passing gun laws, you should focus more effort on compromises.

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

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

Lets try this on for size:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #668 on: April 05, 2016, 04:00:06 PM »

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

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

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

Quote

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



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

Quote


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


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

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

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

Quote

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

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

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #669 on: April 05, 2016, 04:00:37 PM »
So you would not be willing to give a little in return, only take.

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

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

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #670 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 #671 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 #672 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 #673 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: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #674 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 #675 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 #676 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 #677 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 #678 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 #679 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: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #680 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #681 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 #682 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 #683 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #684 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 #685 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #686 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 #687 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 #688 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #689 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 #690 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 #691 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 #692 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 #693 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 #694 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: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #695 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 #696 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 #697 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #698 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 #699 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.