The Left is Rallying to Take Your Guns Again

muichimotsu said:

The question is whether it's remotely prudent, to say nothing of a simple requirement of licensure or the like would not be overreach for something that can fire more regularly. Are we just going to say fully automatic weapons are fair game too for everyone to own?

Click to expand...

I would.
Because it's not the type of gun a crazy person owns that makes them dangerous, it's the type of person who owns any gun.
Most people, aren't going to use their guns, even if they have a fully automatic gun, for murder
I know I wouldn't. With that in mind, if I'd trust them buying a single shot .22LR, I'd trust them buying an AK-47. If I wouldn't trust them with a fully automatic AK-47, I wouldn't trust them with a BB gun. I don't look at it as "well *IF* they go on a murderous rage I'll only trust them with a revolver, then at least they only kill 6 people". It's pretty much all or nothing.

HARK! said:

So do firearms; but all of the other tools that I mention could be used to kill many people in a short amount of time. You see, it's not the tool that is a problem; it's the mind behind it.

Click to expand...

Firearms have a use, but their utility changes as the caliber goes up. Bird shot, buck shot, 22, etc. is one thing. When you reach semi-automatic with armor piercing bullets, what is their use?

Your examples included gas ovens, welding torches, household chemicals and bows and arrows. How many people can the average person kill with the above "weapons" in what length of time?

It is both the mind and the tool. Be reasonable.

muichimotsu said:

So you admit you need a hunting license? What's the difference? That you think it's perfectly logical for anyone to be able to buy something that is pretty much purely designed to kill people and that merely because someone's intent is to protect others that there should be NO regulation or restriction in terms of gun ownership?

Click to expand...

Where'd I say I need a hunting license. I don't kill things not due to not having a license for it but because I don't want to.

That said hunting is not a right it's a privilege, and there are some things you can hunt without licenses, such as feral hogs in Texas.

You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth like you simultaneously care about freedom above all else and then supposedly have concerns about public safety. The situation you describe only sounds fine if we assume everyone regards guns in the same way, but that's demonstrably not true and many would use it to enact violence for terroristic ends

Infringement of the second amendment is not creating simple requirements of background checks or such, if that's what you're insinuating. If anything, I should be far more concerned, I live in the Bible Belt, thank you very much, maybe don't assume about where I live because of me speaking in a way you construe to indicate how things are where I live rather than the ideal state of compromise in gun ownership and public safety.

Click to expand...

We have background checks, background checks are fine, because they screen to see if you've done something to warrant revoking your right.

Licensure is not, because it involves qualifying to "earn" a "right" which makes it not a right, but a privilege.

Kettriken said:

Firearms have a use, but their utility changes as the caliber goes up. Bird shot, buck shot, 22, etc. is one thing. When you reach semi-automatic with armor piercing bullets, what is their use?

Your examples included gas ovens, welding torches, household chemicals and bows and arrows. How many people can the average person kill with the above "weapons" in what length of time?

It is both the mind and the tool. Be reasonable.

Click to expand...

see post #459

Jamdoc said:

I would.
Because it's not the type of gun a crazy person owns that makes them dangerous, it's the type of person who owns any gun.
Most people, aren't going to use their guns, even if they have a fully automatic gun, for murder
I know I wouldn't. With that in mind, if I'd trust them buying a single shot .22LR, I'd trust them buying an AK-47. If I wouldn't trust them with a fully automatic AK-47, I wouldn't trust them with a BB gun. I don't look at it as "well *IF* they go on a murderous rage I'll only trust them with a revolver, then at least they only kill 6 people". It's pretty much all or nothing.

Click to expand...

Bull pucky, a 9 mm is not comparable to an automatic rifle that can spray into a crowd and kill/injure dozens of people. The capacity of a weapon is pertinent to the discussion of ownership and restrictions thereof. To say otherwise is hopelessly naive

A mentally ill person can freaking drive their car into a business and kill people if they scope out the place

Not sure we're working on your level of trust of people, that's not how we should do anything, mere subjectivity solves nothing, it's merely how we start to approach a question, as individuals that then collaborate our observations.

HARK! said:

The same holds true for law enforcement officers.



These folks already have guns;and if they haven't been breaking the law so far; why would they suddenly become criminals? 21 states are now constitutional carry states, as of OCT 2021. Which of these states have suddenly turned into OK Corral? These fears are irrational; and Lott has already demonstrated that the inverse of these fears is the reality.

Click to expand...

Because the issue is radicalization and the like in American culture, where the idea is being promulgated far more often that if you disagree with how the government is doing something and you've tried your other methods, then the next level of solution is using threats or actual violence. They don't suddenly become criminals, I never said that, I'm saying we are turning a blind eye or are otherwise ignorant to signs that someone is becoming unhinged because we stigmatize getting mental health care or even having a mental illness, because it's somehow not that big a deal, its' a moral failing, it's freaking demons or other nonsense.

No one is stating that the whole state will become the Wild West, but you seem to assume that because we're more modern, we're more civilized when honestly people are just as willing to use their weapons to get their way even if any sane person would note that such an impulse is on the level of a psychopath

Where'd I say I need a hunting license. I don't kill things not due to not having a license for it but because I don't want to.

That said hunting is not a right it's a privilege, and there are some things you can hunt without licenses, such as feral hogs in Texas.

Click to expand...

So if you did hunt, you wouldn't need it? Why is that suddenly a privilege when it's the use of the gun or such that seems to determine that distinction? The mere belief that one is using it for self defense should not be sufficient to justify the ownership, especially once it's too late and their toddler shoots themselves in the face or the like. Responsible gun ownership is not taught effectively and it doesn't stick when we seem to have people that will just as soon use that gun for selfish ends as any kind of supposedly good intentions that we hear about, but rarely seem to see by contrast of murderous scum

We have background checks, background checks are fine, because they screen to see if you've done something to warrant revoking your right.

Licensure is not, because it involves qualifying to "earn" a "right" which makes it not a right, but a privilege.

Click to expand...

The idea that someone just has that right is where it's idiocy, even if you can try to interpret the 2nd amendment in that respect, which isn't universally agreed upon. Does a 5 year old have ea right to own a gun? I'd sincerely hope you say no, in which case, it is not an innate right, you earn it, even if merely by reaching a certain age and depending on the nature of aspects like concealed carry, that you may require training for that. How is getting training for concealed carry (distinct from visible carry) somehow oppression or interference when the nature of how you are bearing that deadly arm is of utmost importance as regards how people approach you?

HARK! said:

Inciting a riot is illegal, and an extreme danger to the public. Should we issue licenses for the right to speak, in the wake of recent riots?

Click to expand...

Not remotely the same thing, speech is not an object, nor a tool in that sense, it is something that can be considered action depending on the nature and context. EQuivocation would seem beyond you, but I guess I was wrong. And your attempt at wit fell flatter than a pancake, so good job

HARK! said:

How may people have been murdered with automatic firearms in the last 50 years? Has there been a single case?

Click to expand...

How big you want those goalposts there? The issue is not whether they have happened, but that they very well could unless you actually have regulations in place so people can't just get access to anything they want unless they can demonstrate they have training for something of that nature.

There's also other factors, like high capacity magazines that compound the risk assault weapons already have even merely as semi automatic

muichimotsu said:

Bull pucky, a 9 mm is not comparable to an automatic rifle that can spray into a crowd and kill/injure dozens of people. The capacity of a weapon is pertinent to the discussion of ownership and restrictions thereof. To say otherwise is hopelessly naive

A mentally ill person can freaking drive their car into a business and kill people if they scope out the place

Not sure we're working on your level of trust of people, that's not how we should do anything, mere subjectivity solves nothing, it's merely how we start to approach a question, as individuals that then collaborate our observations.

Click to expand...

The point completely flew over your head.
What makes them dangerous is not the weapon they possess but what's going on in their head.

If I wouldn't trust them with a machine gun... I wouldn't trust them with any weapon whatsoever, not even a pointy stick.
If they can't get a Semiautomatic rifle, they'll use a semiautomatic pistol, if they can't get that, they'll use a pump action shotgun, if they can't get that, they'll just go on a stabbing spree, or blow people up with fertilizer, or run them over with a moving van that they rented from ryder or uhaul on the cheap during a parade.

This idea of not trusting someone with one level of weaponry because you think they might murder a bunch of people with it, but trusting them with the capability to carry out a smaller number of murders makes no sense.

at least the full blown "repeal the 2nd amendment" people are consistent.

Jamdoc said:

so do AR-15's, especially in Texas and the south.
People hunt razorbacks with them, it's open season on them because they're such a dangerous nuisance, an invasive species that breeds rapidly and has to be culled.
there are entire business around flying yuppies around in helicopters culling hogs with AR-15's or even actual fully automatic machine guns.
You want at least a semiautomatic rifle for them because they travel in groups and they will charge and they are dangerous.

Click to expand...

Pick the helicopter or the AR. You don't need both. Better yet, go with pigsticking, a real man's sport.

Jamdoc said:

I would.
Because it's not the type of gun a crazy person owns that makes them dangerous, it's the type of person who owns any gun.
Most people, aren't going to use their guns, even if they have a fully automatic gun, for murder
I know I wouldn't. With that in mind, if I'd trust them buying a single shot .22LR, I'd trust them buying an AK-47. If I wouldn't trust them with a fully automatic AK-47, I wouldn't trust them with a BB gun. I don't look at it as "well *IF* they go on a murderous rage I'll only trust them with a revolver, then at least they only kill 6 people". It's pretty much all or nothing.

Click to expand...

You know we can't restrict everyone's rights. I don't want to. That's what the constitution is all about. We're talking about minimizing damage when people inevitable try to get their hands on the heaviest weapons they can. As a society, we are only asking gun seekers to jump through a few hoops, in order to make it a little harder for murderous, unbalanced young adults to access fast action firearms. Is that really too much?

Jamdoc said:

The point completely flew over your head.
What makes them dangerous is not the weapon they possess but what's going on in their head.

If I wouldn't trust them with a machine gun... I wouldn't trust them with any weapon whatsoever, not even a pointy stick.
If they can't get a Semiautomatic rifle, they'll use a semiautomatic pistol, if they can't get that, they'll use a pump action shotgun, if they can't get that, they'll just go on a stabbing spree, or blow people up with fertilizer, or run them over with a moving van that they rented from ryder or uhaul on the cheap during a parade.

This idea of not trusting someone with one level of weaponry because you think they might murder a bunch of people with it, but trusting them with the capability to carry out a smaller number of murders makes no sense.

at least the full blown "repeal the 2nd amendment" people are consistent.

Click to expand...

You're not the one that decides that, nor should that be the case, otherwise you'd be held liable in no small part because you thought there was no risk. Your ignorance is not an excuse under the law when you provide an item you know can kill people to someone you merely believed was fine

Pretty sure it's not the same thing when you use things that have other purposes aside from the potential of murder, that's like claiming my argument is everyone shouldn't be allowed to have anything that could be a weapon. I'm not saying that at all, I'm pointing out guns are not nearly so ambiguous as a butcher knife. The mere possibility of a good person with a gun doesn't negate the possibility of a bad person or even that same good person going bad. Vigilance is the goal here, not paranoia

Or maybe amend the 2nd amendment, is that a crazy idea?

HARK! said:

Speech is a tool that can be used as a deadly weapon. It's an extension of the most deadly weapon of all, the mind. Through the wicked imagination, nearly anything can be used as a deadly weapon. I can kill a man with a toothpick. You might try ruminating on that.

Click to expand...

Not really, because that's still far more abstract than the direct and concrete example with a gun that can and often does kill people.

Yeah, imagination, which I'm pretty sure is not admissible in court or legally, you're engaging in speculation on a philosophical level, which is rarely pertinent in regards to legal discussion or even judicial discussion.

If you're trying to bring more support for fascism, you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

HARK! said:

Evil will not be regulated. It can only be defeated by force.

Click to expand...

"Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing."