Gun control - again

Politics and Social Issues
141

cont’d…

What pistol rounds? There's no such thing as "pistol rounds". Who's being arbitrary? The US Military and law enforcement sure do like those tiny rounds that you say are no big deal. They sure kill people pretty good for being a tiny projectile. Did you want to tell everyone how safe .223 is again?
There are such a thing as pistol rounds. That is where the definition of "armor-piercing ammunition" comes from. By armor-piercing, you have to ask what is meant by this? Do they mean body armor, like the average police officer wears, or do they mean say the armoring on the presidential limousine. The term refers to pistol rounds that can penetrate the armored vest that the average police officer wears. There are specially-designed pistol rounds that can penetrate this kind of armor. These types of pistol rounds are not legally available to civilians. You need a special license to even manufacture them and they are only available to law enforcement and the military. ALL rifle projectiles, however, will penetrate this same armor. So all rifle rounds are "armor-piercing" by that standard. As for why the military uses the .223, a few reasons: 1) After WWI, the Soviet, United States, and German armies realized that most soldiers engaged each other at distances far less than what the rifles they were using were capable of. They were equipped with rifles that were far too powerful for infantry warfare. So the goal became to equip them with reduced-power rifles. This way, they could also carry the same amount of ammunition for less weight or more ammunition for equal weight. The rifle itself would also weigh less and thus be easier to carry. 2) The United States had concerns about the Cold War as Warsaw Pact forces greatly outnumbered NATO forces, so the idea was the U.S. soldiers be equipped with a smaller projectile so that they could carry enough ammunition to (theoretically) face down two Soviet soldiers. 3) The .223 that the military used it is debatable as to how lethal it is. Some soldiers say they work fine, others say they lack stopping power. Of course the .223 is plenty capable of killing people. If it wasn't, then AR-15s would be relegated to plinking and training gun status. But in comparison to other rifle projectiles, the .223 is pretty tiny and weak. It is safer for home use because of the design of the walls in the average home, which reduces its ability to penetrate because of its fragmenting aspect.
142
You think the likes of Cuomo and Feinstein are the government? You must live in fear.
Dianne Feinstein tried to push through legislation that was supported by the White House. Cuomo has presidential ambitions and just rammed through, with the aid of the New York State legislature, some very anti-gun legislation. That said, no I do not think that those people alone are the government, but they can have a lot of influence and it shows that there are multiple such people in government.
They're not, of course, and ramblings regarding the "option" of confiscation is just that and nothing more. More significantly, they refer to a type of firearm, not all firearms.
No they don't. They refer to whatever firearms they want them to refer to. Ramblings about something are always that until it happens.
You've made it exceedingly clear you have concerns regarding the use of the words "assault weapons" but even this toothless discussion of possibilities by some politicians doesn't suggest that all guns should, must or will be confiscated.
Toothless? I would argue that the AWBs passed in multiple states most certainly are not "toothless."
And the Second Amendment doesn't grant a right to bear arms of any kind, because it is subject to the test of reasonability. It is not sacrosanct, nor is any other constitutional right.
You are correct that the Second Amendment doesn't grant such a right. Such a right is pre-existing. Sure it can be regulated to some degree, just as other rights can, but for the most part, the government's job is to protect it.
So, our politicians should be discussing what reasonable regulation may be, and unsupported fears of confiscation of all guns by the government doesn't contribute to such a discussion in any useful sense.
Again though, no one cares about the government saying they won't engage in confiscation, it's their seeking to stop the further production of. If the government was trying to stop the production of various books, would you be comforted by their saying that they are not going to go and confiscate the books people already have?
143
LogicMan-1) You seem to think that because you define something a certain way, then that's that. That isn't the case.
You know why I'm making this definition. You just can't recognize it in this thread, or your whole argument crumbles. Your justification for "reasonable" goes out the window. That's why we are addressing this point again now for about the 8th time here. I list what should be banned, give good evidence for it, and you counter with how I'm being arbitrary, how all guns are essentially the same(!), and then add on a big dollop of technical gun talk, most of which is unrelated to this debate. Some of which is loosely based on facts.
2) Why should such weapons be banned? Who makes you the ultimate authority on this?
See? You are just gonna keep asking this over and over again. Those weapons should be banned because they combine rugged weapon platforms that shoot powerful ammunition cartridges(powerful meaning rifle or pistol or shotgun shell that at any time was adopted by the police or military...some examples would be .44mag, .40 S&W, .223(5.56), .308(7.62) 9mm or 7.62x39 to list a few) and their platforms allow them to be fitted with magazines that can carry over 10 rounds or up to 100 or more in many cases. Weapons such as these pose the biggest threat to peaceful civility and are the most devastating choice for mass murders in public places.(of which the US people are not going to take much more of.) Did you catch that? Did it sink in this time? Or are you going to use your technique of breaking down my example into its constituents and comparatively justifying them. For example, I suppose you'll talk about how lot's of guns shoot high powered ammo. Or how there's lot's of semi-automatics since the 1920s. That's where you are being disingenuous. That's because all you really have is: "The Second Amendment Protects my rights." That's all you got. The centerpoint of my argument is the total functionality of the guns. Not their individual characteristics. It's the totality of semi-automatic capability combined with the ammunition they shoot, combined with their high capacity magazine options. That's why they should be banned! It is unreasonable for civilians to own such weapons. The only tough part once they are banned, is slowly getting them off the streets and waiting for the last ones to finally wear out. That will take a long time. But once ammo becomes even more scarce, many individuals will be willing to turn in their guns for amnesty buyback programs. It won't be long before the importation of foreign military surplus ammo is going to be outlawed. Domestic military surplus ammo will be outlawed for sale to the public as well. No more importation of cheap foreign military weapons. No more importation of Ex-US military weapons re-imported back into the US for sale to the public. Yeah..look at how many times I used the word "Military" there. All of it actual military ammo and weapons...just like you said doesn't exist.
144
You know why I'm making this definition. You just can't recognize it in this thread, or your whole argument crumbles. Your justification for "reasonable" goes out the window.
My argument doesn't crumble by any means, because I stand solidly behind a person's right to own semiautomatic weapons with detachable box magazines. I will rant and rave about the term "assault weapons" but if one wants to debate about semiautomatic guns period, I have no problem doing defending those.
That's why we are addressing this point again now for about the 8th time here. I list what should be banned, give good evidence for it, and you counter with how I'm being arbitrary, how all guns are essentially the same(!), and then add on a big dollop of technical gun talk, most of which is unrelated to this debate. Some of which is loosely based on facts.
You list what should be banned, but only give a one-sided argument for it (criminals can use them). You repeatedly say that semiautomatics with magazines of over ten rounds should be banned and that's that (who decides this number as "adequate" or "appropriate?"). I have never said all guns are essentially the same, I have said that there is no difference between "military," "law enforcement," and "civilian" guns (which there isn't).
See? You are just gonna keep asking this over and over again. Those weapons should be banned because they combine rugged weapon platforms that shoot powerful ammunition cartridges(powerful meaning rifle or pistol or shotgun shell that at any time was adopted by the police or military...some examples would be .44mag, .40 S&W, .223(5.56), .308(7.62) 9mm or 7.62x39 to list a few) and their platforms allow them to be fitted with magazines that can carry over 10 rounds or up to 100 or more in many cases.
As I've already explained, just because the military uses an cartridge or gun doesn't mean that either one is particularly powerful (.223 is not particularly powerful by any means). Also, your logic here seems to be limited to the idea that if it was used by the military, than civilians shouldn't use it. Why? Civilians own guns for the same reasons the military uses them, i.e. to have the ability to kill other humans if needed, because war is not just something soldiers get into. Same with law enforcement. They are not military, but carry weapons of war. You say that the guns should be banned because they are "rugged." Well are civilians only supposed to have flimsy guns? You say the magazines are bad. Why? Civilians can have great need for such magazines.
Weapons such as these pose the biggest threat to peaceful civility and are the most devastating choice for mass murders in public places.(of which the US people are not going to take much more of.)
How do such guns threaten peaceful civility? This is a country of 300+ million people, yet very gun crimes involve such weapons each year. Most gun violence occurs with cheap handguns. Where I have seen civil order break down is in France in 2005 and the United Kingdom in 2011. Also in the U.S. in 1977 in New York City during the blackout that occurred and in Los Angeles in 1992 due to the Rodney King trial.
Did you catch that? Did it sink in this time? Or are you going to use your technique of breaking down my example into its constituents and comparatively justifying them. For example, I suppose you'll talk about how lot's of guns shoot high powered ammo. Or how there's lot's of semi-automatics since the 1920s. That's where you are being disingenuous. That's because all you really have is: "The Second Amendment Protects my rights." That's all you got.
It's disingenuous to state facts in an argument and try to argue one's point?
The centerpoint of my argument is the total functionality of the guns. Not their individual characteristics. It's the totality of semi-automatic capability combined with the ammunition they shoot, combined with their high capacity magazine options. That's why they should be banned! It is unreasonable for civilians to own such weapons.
Why is it unreasonable for civilians to own such weapons? And as I've already explained, ammunition can be more dangerous in certain uses and safer for other uses. And there is no standard definition of "high-capacity."
The only tough part once they are banned, is slowly getting them off the streets and waiting for the last ones to finally wear out. That will take a long time. But once ammo becomes even more scarce, many individuals will be willing to turn in their guns for amnesty buyback programs.
"Buyback" is a misleading term for such a program, as the government cannot "buy back" something that it never owned in the first place.
It won't be long before the importation of foreign military surplus ammo is going to be outlawed. Domestic military surplus ammo will be outlawed for sale to the public as well. No more importation of cheap foreign military weapons. No more importation of Ex-US military weapons re-imported back into the US for sale to the public. Yeah..look at how many times I used the word "Military" there. All of it actual military ammo and weapons...just like you said doesn't exist.
All of those guns you label as "military" are either functionally identical to guns made for the civilian market in terms of their ability to kill or literally the same guns and ammunition. And again, right to keep and bear arms means the right to possess the basic tools of war. Militaries use such tools, police use such tools, and civilians have a right to such tools, because war can be made by people in society on both law enforcement and civilians.
145
LogicMan-My argument doesn't crumble by any means, because I stand solidly behind a person's right to own semiautomatic weapons with detachable box magazines. I will rant and rave about the term "assault weapons" but if one wants to debate about semiautomatic guns period, I have no problem doing defending those.
Right like I said all you have is the Second Amendment.
You list what should be banned, but only give a one-sided argument for it (criminals can use them). You repeatedly say that semiautomatics with magazines of over ten rounds should be banned and that's that (who decides this number as "adequate" or "appropriate?"). I have never said all guns are essentially the same, I have said that there is no difference between "military," "law enforcement," and "civilian" guns (which there isn't).
My argument is not because criminals use them. These weapons should be banned for the same reason narcotics and hand grenades are illegal. They are too damaging to society.
As I've already explained, just because the military uses an cartridge or gun doesn't mean that either one is particularly powerful (.223 is not particularly powerful by any means). Also, your logic here seems to be limited to the idea that if it was used by the military, than civilians shouldn't use it. Why? Civilians own guns for the same reasons the military uses them, i.e. to have the ability to kill other humans if needed, because war is not just something soldiers get into. Same with law enforcement. They are not military, but carry weapons of war. You say that the guns should be banned because they are "rugged." Well are civilians only supposed to have flimsy guns? You say the magazines are bad. Why? Civilians can have great need for such magazines.
The argument isn't about the individual components of guns or ammo. It's the totality of the guns function and capability. In this case there are many guns that combine several features that when taken in total add up to a type of gun that is unwarranted for civilian use.
How do such guns threaten peaceful civility?
Because people have used them to terrorize schools and churches and colleges to name a few.
It's disingenuous to state facts in an argument and try to argue one's point?
What facts have you stated?
Why is it unreasonable for civilians to own such weapons? And as I've already explained, ammunition can be more dangerous in certain uses and safer for other uses. And there is no standard definition of "high-capacity."
The law is perfectly capable of setting down standards. They set emission standards for cars for example. No is really interested in your interpretation of ammo characteristics. I'm not.
"Buyback" is a misleading term for such a program, as the government cannot "buy back" something that it never owned in the first place.
Yeah that's your opinion. They use that term all the time. I think it's catchy. It's a good program.
All of those guns you label as "military" are either functionally identical to guns made for the civilian market in terms of their ability to kill or literally the same guns and ammunition. And again, right to keep and bear arms means the right to possess the basic tools of war. Militaries use such tools, police use such tools, and civilians have a right to such tools, because war can be made by people in society on both law enforcement and civilians.
By that argument you could say that all power tools are functionally identical because of their ability to kill. Good luck with trying to support the Second Amendment with the "right to possess the basic tools of war" thing. That's gonna work well in the coming years.
146
You think the likes of Cuomo and Feinstein are the government
Logically, they are. How can they not be?
147
3. People absolutely DO NOT have to deal with the same criminals as police do. The vast majority of people go through their lives without ever even interacting with a criminal. Police do it every day. They are proactively involved with confronting criminals.
True, the vast majority don't, but what about the few that do have to live with violent criminals daily?
4. Yes, I don't usually use those terms when talking about guns. However the vast majority of people could easily discern between sporting guns and military guns.
Probably not.
148
MidAtlantic-True, the vast majority don't, but what about the few that do have to live with violent criminals daily?
Right, the vast majority don't. Who are the people who have to deal with violent criminals daily? Other criminals? Of the remaining few who aren't criminals, who may deal with a violent criminal, what percentage of them are prepared to defend themselves with weapons? And of that extremely small minority, how many could easily defend themselves with a regular shotgun or pistol? Probably most. Whatever the case, we're dealing with an extremely small number of people. Not enough to justify allowing the public to have weapons that clearly should only be used by the military or police.
149
You are correct that the Second Amendment doesn't grant such a right. Such a right is pre-existing. Sure it can be regulated to some degree, just as other rights can, but for the most part, the government's job is to protect it.
Pre-existing? Just where does it exist, then, and what does it predate? Have you ever seen the movie Zardoz? Do you mean that God has decreed that "The Gun is Good", that sort of thing? Regardless, though, what we have to deal with is the Second Amendment, not some "pre-existing" right. If the Second Amendment doesn't grant the right to bear arms of any kind, that's that. The question then becomes--what arms should not have Second Amendment protection, and how those that do should be regulated.
150
Right like I said all you have is the Second Amendment.
Nope, right to arms can be defended without any Second Amendment.
My argument is not because criminals use them. These weapons should be banned for the same reason narcotics and hand grenades are illegal. They are too damaging to society.
Where do they damage society? The only "damage" they do is to get at most a couple of dozen white people killed here and there from a mass shooter. Handguns are used to kill hundreds of minorities every year, but because it happens in poor neighborhoods, and not in mass shootings, no one really cares. Many would argue that handguns are the menace to society. Which just shows how one can argue for any guns to be banned.
The argument isn't about the individual components of guns or ammo. It's the totality of the guns function and capability. In this case there are many guns that combine several features that when taken in total add up to a type of gun that is unwarranted for civilian use.
In your opinion.
Because people have used them to terrorize schools and churches and colleges to name a few.
The largest mass shooting to date was Virginia Tech, conducted with two handguns.
What facts have you stated?
Don't be silly.
The law is perfectly capable of setting down standards. They set emission standards for cars for example. No is really interested in your interpretation of ammo characteristics. I'm not.
It's not "my" interpretation. The FBI's Firearms Training Unit conducted extensive testing on this issue back in the 1990s, after a shootout in which pistol rounds fired ended up blowing through the walls of the home fired into with a lot more penetration than the .223s fired. Like many people, the FBI wondered, "How the heck did that happen?" and that is what led to what we know now. There have been other tests since then conducted as well. Or the pistol rounds that can penetrate police vests which as I pointed out as outlawed. I would argue that the government is not very capable of setting standards correctly for a lot of things, which is why we have the ridiculous "assault weapons" bans in the first place. That said, there are plenty of decent standards in place, such as the limitations on automatic fire weapons, requirement that guns cannot be easily convertible to automatic fire, limitations on certain types of ammunition, limitations on how powerful a gun someone can own, etc...
Yeah that's your opinion. They use that term all the time. I think it's catchy. It's a good program.
You think that because they "use it all the time" that this makes it the correct terminology? You know using the wrong terminology to describe a law or policy is often called propaganda. The fact is that the government cannot "buy back" something it never owned to begin with.
By that argument you could say that all power tools are functionally identical because of their ability to kill.
You could. Do you think an electric drill designed for use in the field by the military versus an electric drill utilized by the average civilian are any different in overall function? Good luck with trying to support the Second Amendment with the "right to possess the basic tools of war" thing. That's gonna work well in the coming years. Why wouldn't it? People aren't stupid. Again, war is not just something that nation states make on one another. If someone is trying to kill you, that person is at war with you.
151
Pre-existing? Just where does it exist, then, and what does it predate? Have you ever seen the movie Zardoz? Do you mean that God has decreed that "The Gun is Good", that sort of thing?
Do you not understand the Constitution? The Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to protect pre-existing rights. That is the core reason to create a government in the first place, to protect rights. Part of having a constitution is to protect the citizens who have created said government from said government as historically governments abuse their power, as they have a monopoly on use of force. Right to self-defense (which includes right to arms as humans are pretty much defenseless against other humans in numbers and/or with weapons) goes all the way back to the writings of Aristotle and Cicero, Machiavelli, John Locke, Charles Montisquieu, Sir William Blackstone, etc...possession of arms has been a basic party of human life since the beginning of time. And as a result, historically, governments have sought to disarm the general public to be able to control them.
Regardless, though, what we have to deal with is the Second Amendment, not some "pre-existing" right. If the Second Amendment doesn't grant the right to bear arms of any kind, that's that. The question then becomes--what arms should not have Second Amendment protection, and how those that do should be regulated.
"Arms" historically have been defined as weapons in common usage among the citizenry. All arms are, by their nature, tools of warfare. Not all tools of warfare, however, are arms. For example, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are not arms. The Founders were not writing about one having a right to keep plague on hand, for example.
152

Look, it is not LOGICAL, based on current gun laws, to assume that the 2nd Amendment is in place so that the average citizenry will be able to overthrow our own government, should our government become so tyranical as to compel us to do so. If that is what the 2nd Amendment is for, then it has failed, because we would need a hell of a lot more weaponry than the, admittedly massive (but still relatively innefectual), arsenal of semi-automatic weapons that exist in the hands of our citizenry today, because our military and police forces have vastly superior weaponry and technology.
That’s not going to change anytime in the foreseeable future. Just as it is not going to change that U.S. citizens are going to have massive amounts of guns, anytime in the foreseeable future.
What should change, and what coulld change, is making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to get guns.
If gun advocates are so intent on blocking that, then I support the development of an equally strong and well organized countervailing movement, one that meaningfully presses for the actualization of the worst paranoid ideations of the gun advocates. If that is the only way to get compromise, so be it. If that means restricting everything that even looks like a military style weapon, then, at this point, I think that it is what gun advocates deserve, due to their intransigence. The NRA and its supporters may rue the day that it refused to give even a token of support to those who have lost loved ones due to gun violence.

153

Speaking of the NRA, here’s a comical story - NRA gives lifetime membership to boy suspended for Pop-Tart gun - Washington Times
One detail that stands out in the article, is the claim that the boy has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

154
Look, it is not LOGICAL, based on current gun laws, to assume that the 2nd Amendment is in place so that the average citizenry will be able to overthrow our own government, should our government become so tyranical as to compel us to do so. If that is what the 2nd Amendment is for, then it has failed, because we would need a hell of a lot more weaponry than the, admittedly massive (but still relatively innefectual), arsenal of semi-automatic weapons that exist in the hands of our citizenry today, because our military and police forces have vastly superior weaponry and technology.
That is just one aspect of the Second Amendment, but I would have to disagree completely there. No government can maintain control over a population that is armed if the population doesn't want that government to. This was one of the things the Nazis learned as they conquered Europe but then didn't take into account how to manage the populations. There are only so many places that the government can place troops and attack. Think of the following: 1) Why is it that the Syrian regime has had such trouble overthrowing the resistance that formed? They've been using tanks, artillery, attack helicopters, infantry, etc...against it, but haven't been able to easily crush it by any means. And the Syrian people are not armed like the American people. 2) Why does the Chinese government watch its people like a hawk? Why do they constantly censor? What are they afraid of? 3) What is one of the reasons it would be considered insane for the United States to try invading Iran if some felt we ever needed to? One is Iran's being four times larger than Iraq, the other is that its population is roughly 80 million people. Don't you think the U.S. military would run into some problems trying to control a population of 80 million if they didn't want us in their country? The people having arms serves as a counterweight to the government and helps to balance things is all.
That's not going to change anytime in the foreseeable future. Just as it is not going to change that U.S. citizens are going to have massive amounts of guns, anytime in the foreseeable future. What should change, and what coulld change, is making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to get guns. If gun advocates are so intent on blocking that, then I support the development of an equally strong and well organized countervailing movement, one that meaningfully presses for the actualization of the worst paranoid ideations of the gun advocates. If that is the only way to get compromise, so be it. If that means restricting everything that even looks like a military style weapon, then, at this point, I think that it is what gun advocates deserve, due to their intransigence. The NRA and its supporters may rue the day that it refused to give even a token of support to those who have lost loved ones due to gun violence.
The gun control movement already pushes for these so-called paranoid ideations. And the NRA has no problem in principle with universal background checks, it is how to do them without infringing on gun rights. On "intransigence," well you cannot expect the gun rights movement to support every proposed gun control measure. No more so than you could expect the ACLU to support continual infringements on rights it protects.
155
Do you not understand the Constitution? The Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to protect pre-existing rights. That is the core reason to create a government in the first place, to protect rights. Part of having a constitution is to protect the citizens who have created said government from said government as historically governments abuse their power, as they have a monopoly on use of force. Right to self-defense (which includes right to arms as humans are pretty much defenseless against other humans in numbers and/or with weapons) goes all the way back to the writings of Aristotle and Cicero, Machiavelli, John Locke, Charles Montisquieu, Sir William Blackstone, etc...possession of arms has been a basic party of human life since the beginning of time. And as a result, historically, governments have sought to disarm the general public to be able to control them.
I know a bit about the Constiution and the law generally, yes. I know a bit about Cicero and the others you mention as well (the name "ciceronianus" hints, ever so subtly, at my regard for Cicero). But come, we're not debating theories of natural law or inherent rights, here. You or the NRA may invoke God or natural law against restriction of firearms, of course, if you so desire, but we're talking about the law which will be enforced or restricted by lowly humans like you and me, which is to say the Second Amendment. Even here in God's favorite country the courts are unlikely to strike down laws because they are contrary to the Will of God or they are inconsistent with the Universe. It's far more likely they will refer to laws made by human beings. Let's just deal with those, shall we?
156
LogicMan-All of those guns you label as “military" are either functionally identical to guns made for the civilian market in terms of their ability to kill or literally the same guns and ammunition.
So by that train of thought there is no difference between a Twin Prop passenger plane and an F-16 Fighter Jet? All guns are functionally the same and all airplanes are functionally the same. That's what you are saying? What guns did I label as military anyways? Can you find that quote from me? And earlier when I asked "What facts have you stated, I wasn't joking. You replied-"Don't be silly." I'm asking again, what facts have you stated? The quote right here in this post isn't a fact. It's your convoluted opinion. But it isn't fact. All you are doing on this forum is rebutting everyone's statements with your opinion. You're opinions are not instructive, they're not even constructive. Really, they aren't even constructive debate opinions. You just disagree with what everyone says. On another note, are you one of these people who feel schools would be better with more guns and more prayer?
157
I know a bit about the Constiution and the law generally, yes.
Yes, I didn't mean that in any condescending manner. However, the way you worded it, you sounded shocked at the idea that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right as opposed to granting a right. I was just pointing out that that is what the Constitution and the government are there to do (at least by the concepts of the Founders).
I know a bit about Cicero and the others you mention as well (the name "ciceronianus" hints, ever so subtly, at my regard for Cicero).
Yes, he's one of my favorite people too.
But come, we're not debating theories of natural law or inherent rights, here. You or the NRA may invoke God or natural law against restriction of firearms, of course, if you so desire, but we're talking about the law which will be enforced or restricted by lowly humans like you and me, which is to say the Second Amendment. Even here in God's favorite country the courts are unlikely to strike down laws because they are contrary to the Will of God or they are inconsistent with the Universe. It's far more likely they will refer to laws made by human beings. Let's just deal with those, shall we?
Would have to disagree here. By that standard, we could say that women should still be the subjects of men with no rights and that blacks should still be slaves, because historically-speaking, that's how the laws were written. Pre-existing rights do not have to rely on a belief in God. If one does not believe in any pre-existing rights however, then the law becomes one big free-for-all with regards to what the government can do. You speak of laws made by human beings, well self-defense as a law of nature, if you will, has been around forever. Pretty much everyone throughout history has understood this. The idea that people do not have a right to self-defense is a much more recent phenomenon that is a result of the luxury of First World societies.
158
So by that train of thought there is no difference between a Twin Prop passenger plane and an F-16 Fighter Jet? All guns are functionally the same and all airplanes are functionally the same. That's what you are saying?
Twin prop passenger planes and F-16 fighter planes are two different kinds of plane. However, twin-prop planes flown by the military are not any different in terms of the basics of how they fly then ones for civilians. The guns the military uses are the same as those civilians use.
What guns did I label as military anyways? Can you find that quote from me?
You just arbitrarily say that semiautomatic guns with magazine capacities of greater than ten rounds should not be legal for civilians.
And earlier when I asked "What facts have you stated, I wasn't joking. You replied-"Don't be silly." I'm asking again, what facts have you stated?
And again, stop being silly. I have already explained myself in plenty of detail.
The quote right here in this post isn't a fact. It's your convoluted opinion. But it isn't fact.
Yes it is, as I have explained in detail numerous times already. The firearms used by civilians are the same as those that have been used by the military for decades now.
All you are doing on this forum is rebutting everyone's statements with your opinion. You're opinions are not instructive, they're not even constructive. Really, they aren't even constructive debate opinions. You just disagree with what everyone says.
That's your opinion (no pun intended). I have tried to explain my points as much as possible. As for "disagreeing with what everyone says," I disagree with most of what most have said, and that's just a result of the forum leaning more for gun control than against. I have just sought to clear up some misconceptions.
On another note, are you one of these people who feel schools would be better with more guns and more prayer?
I do not believe prayer should be forced onto people. In terms of guns, it depends. I think armed security and allowing concealed carry for teachers (who get approval from a board of the school and with parents knowledge) is fine as well. I am not however one of those "arm all the teachers" types.
159
Would have to disagree here. By that standard, we could say that women should still be the subjects of men with no rights and that blacks should still be slaves, because historically-speaking, that's how the laws were written. Pre-existing rights do not have to rely on a belief in God. If one does not believe in any pre-existing rights however, then the law becomes one big free-for-all with regards to what the government can do. You speak of laws made by human beings, well self-defense as a law of nature, if you will, has been around forever. Pretty much everyone throughout history has understood this. The idea that people do not have a right to self-defense is a much more recent phenomenon that is a result of the luxury of First World societies.
You must be referring to the question whether the Second Amendment should be law. That question may be analagous to the question whether slavery should be law, or whether it should be the law that women may vote. I'm not referring to that question, though. I accept the Second Amendment as law; I don't say it should be repealed, nor am I saying anything about its merits one way or another. I'm addressing questions regarding what is or is not allowed by the law and what restrictions of it are or are not appropriate. From that standpoint, whether there is a an additional, pre-existing right apart from the law is irrelevant. From that standpoint, we're not addressing any pre-existing right. We're just addressing the Second Amendment. That's all that can be addressed.
160

The US populace is the most heavily armed society in the world.
The US populace will continue to be one of the most heavily armed societies in the world.
If the NRA wanted background checks and waiting periods to limit criminals and crazies access to guns, legislation could be passed in a week.