Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...
One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.
Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.
That was not my point. My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards. Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge. Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools. I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices. You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective. I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.
If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?
Pretty clearly, which is why we don't argue for things like the repeal of the Firearms act of 1934 or to be allowed to have nukes, missiles, bombs, etc.
The problem is, when firearms-ignorant people like yourself get to make firearms laws, we end up with half-assed arbitrary bullshit like the AWB. Go google "shoulder thing that goes up". It is disgusting what the ignorant want to ban that they have zero understanding of.
But you keep harping on this point, page after page, as if it makes some difference. It doesn't. Because you can't make a rational argument why an AR-15 should be banned. Not based on capability, on statistics, or on anything else. So why are we still fucking discussing it? You might as well be telling us you can outlaw cucumbers because they aren't vital for self defense. So what? It doesn't mean anything.
I agree that trying to present an intelligent theoretical argument to anyone whose sole criteria for intelligence is knowing whether a glock is loaded or unloaded is probably a waste of time.
Climb down off your intellectual high horse there, hombre. Note that my insistence on your knowing about the Glock was only a predication for your qualification on enacting legislation on how to store said Glock. If you don't understand the differences between the various firearm conditions, you have zero knowledge of safe storage. Period, the end. You simply can't have an intelligent discussion on the matter because you don't know the facts.
Actually I enjoy discussing issues with folks on the forum who can appreciate logic and political philosophy*. As for why I keep repeating myself? I guess just to make sure that the logical reasoning I'm presenting can rise above the BS replies from ignorant people. Sigh, yeah, I know its a Sisyphean task.. Oh, don't worry about looking up Sisyphus. That was a story told by ancient Greeks and they were obviously not intelligent because they also couldn't tell whether a glock was loaded. ;)
Keep pushing the rock up the hill. Because that's all you're doing, is mental masturbation. "Ohh, looky here, I could take away your right to an AR-15 if I could prove it dangerous somehow
because it isn't necessary to your right of self defense." The problem is the italicized, you can't
prove that, partially because you lack any sort of technical understanding about firearms, and partially because it simply ISN'T more dangerous, the fact is wrong!
So why keep arguing about it? To win imaginary points on your debate team chalkboard in the sky?
PS, don't perpetuate the classic liberal bigotry that everyone who disagrees with you and/or likes guns is unintelligent, unsophisticated, or uncultured. Just because I say fuck a lot and like things that go bang doesn't make you smarter. It's pretty empty arrogance given the number of times you've stomped on your dick with your own ignorance in this thread.