Bitcoin Forum

So you like guns.

I'm interested in knowing what weapons, body armour and other high tech gadgetry you think should be allowed to the general public private citizen, not affiliated to any government and not necessary skilled in the use of the device.

This is for me a very interesting question because most people will have limits, even if that limit is a nuclear weapon. The limits various people have help me understand their political beliefs better.

Edit: If you do think there should be no limits on ownership, please indicate if you have procedural limits on the use of a typical item.

I'm not necessarily a gun advocate ( because I don't believe that guns are the most effective thing out there ;) ) but the idea behind everyone owning a gun is actually very logical because the idea is people wouldn't dare attack each other since they know they have as much strength as them and will be able to wipe them out. It's the same kind of logic with MAD, how do you think we haven't devolved into World War 3 yet? It's precisely because any country worth invading has nuclear weapons of course, Afghanistan being that rare exception of being mostly unassailable because of it's terrain and weather despite having no nuclear weaponry whatsoever or any official government.

I do think however that your average citizen before buying a weapon should be educated and trained properly in their use to prevent accidents.

I think you've kind of guaranteed a useless answer by using the term "general public". Any weapon should be available to anyone who meets the reasonable requirements for owning such a weapon, whether it be a hammer or a nuclear bomb. There is no reason to draw a line at some arbitrary point rather than imposing reasonable requirements on ownership of all weapons. I can't imagine how any person might meet reasonable requirements for a nuclear bomb, if that helps.

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

You don't give a four year old a kitchen knife. Your focus on types of weapons is unproductive, IMO.

Either pick a type of weapon and ask what restrictions should be on it, or pick a restriction and ask which weapons should be restricted no more than that. Otherwise, I don't think you'll get useful answers.

For example, "What should a person have to do to own a hangun" is a useful question. "What weapons should be available to a normal adult with no more than a background check and a day of training" is a useful question.

Nope, I don't think there should be any limits, not when it comes to government law anyway, it should be down to the discretion of the seller whether or not they think it's a good idea to sell to certain people or not.

I was just thinking something similar when I responded to the second post, so I've changed OP. I personally do believe that in no circumstance any private individual should be allowed unfettered access to and ownership of a nuclear device. Even if a they were able to satisfactorily protect their family and the weapon, any risk of a previously undiagnosed mental illness leading the owner to use the weapon is too great a risk.

Why would a seller not want to sell? Especially if he or she doesn't live locally.

Of course. A rule requiring multiple people's assent to grant access to the weapon is totally reasonable. Regular monitoring of mental health is reasonable too. As a practical matter, nobody is likely to go to the trouble of meeting these qualifications, so probably nobody will bother figuring them out in the first place. But in principle, there's no reason nuclear weapons shouldn't be available to civilians if they can meet those reasonable requirements needed to handle them safely.

Presumably, there is some set of requirements sufficient to ensure they're used properly and responsibly. If people can't meet those requirements, they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If they can, why shouldn't they have them?

It will depend on the community, but you can be pretty sure that sellers etc. in the community would take it pretty personally if they're friends got threatened with guns that they sold, the problem with taking the position of a government loyalist is that these people don't seem to realise that most don't want to fight or have violence happening around them constantly, the idea that violence happens purely because of guns is just daft by itself too, particularly when I can get my hands on all sorts of explosives and chemical weaponry at your average hardware store.

You don't have to have a government in order to live peacefully, in fact, most people do it regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods.

I would hope so. But someone wants to make lots of money will sell to whomever they want, and in a way that most citizens won't be able to stop. Selling parts by mail, or selling blueprints for 3d printed weapons, for example.

No positions are being taken. I have no loyalty to the US Government, or any particular government party of any particular country.


Source? When you say "most" do you mean "most people" or "most people I know"? ;)

OP updated again.

With no special skills, I draw the line at knives and swords. Even for shotguns and long guns, I think it's reasonable to require a gun safety course, trigger locks, and so on.

Sure Captain Specifics, I meant most people, as for the source, it's a bit like with evolution, when you look using your eyes instead of silly propaganda you'll realise that people get along with each other fine most of the time, you can even see it amongst your friends, you do have friends don't you? :)

I believe evolution exists because the preponderance of evidence supports it, not because I'm using "common sense" or my own personal experience. Can you say the same about your your view that most people live peacefully "regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods."

You may be correct, but I don't think it's out of line to ask you if you have any source material for your beliefs. It helps me judge how accurate they're likely to be.


Just because your friends live in a nice quiet neighbourhood doesn't mean all people do.


Wait, what? We're not friends anymore? :(

I like self-defense. Just happens guns are the most effective tool to exercise that fundamental human right, so I have no choice but to be proficient in their use and not hate what is used to save innocent life many times more than it is used to harm it. If The Force and lightsabers existed, or Phasers (original Trek), I'd carry one instead.

Everything should be legally available, but if you use it aggressively or negligently, you must pay, government or not. I don't see how it's possible to use a nuke in self-defense due to "collateral damage", but if you can have one (and secure it 100% against misuse) without harming innocents, then why not? Have it around in case aliens try to invade, an asteroid is on a collision course with earth, load it onto a rocket and detonate it just close enough to divert the trajectory, but not break it up so the earth gets hit with space buckshot.

The thing is my sources are what is currently around us just like with evolution, if you look around you and at other countries you'll see the majority of the time people get along with each other reasonably well and even if they don't, most disputes etc. are solved peacefully with debate or through a third party rather than blowing someones head off. I swear you really do only seem to have this kind of problem in America where you have people becoming psychopaths from the amount of abuse people seem to go through over there.

Take the research I did in other threads for example, why is it in Serbia and Switzerland we have millions of guns in civilian ownership yet we don't hear stories from over there about schools getting shot up etc.? Making guns illegal won't do a thing for public safety, I also question the logic of gun regulation when politicians oh so confidently state how well it works yet they insist on walking around with security guards carrying concealed weaponry that civilians wouldn't be allowed to have, leaders couldn't be that sure of their own beliefs if they felt the need to have armed guards around themselves 24/7 to feel safe. You also have them constantly ranting about how all countries need to get nuclear weapons but you barely ever see them attempt it either so I'd like to see how they'd justify that kind of regulation when they won't put it on themselves.

The thing that's become most obvious to me lately is that people who scream for gun regulation want everyone except them or certain groups they support to have guns which screams to me of a power grab situation rather than caring about peoples safety, it's just a shame that a lot of gun advocates can't make these kind of arguments without screaming back and sounding like they're lunatics which is precisely why I mock them both.

p.s. I know a method of self-defense that's far better than any gun ;)

http://fixr.wpmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/b2.jpg

This.

There should be no limits, even private nuke is OK for me.

The procedural limit for me is - use tactical nukes only against government forces and use strategic nukes only as a 3rd wave of strike (if governemnt retaliates). Government - any form of capitalism, communism, cannibalism, onanism.

The 2nd amendment is not intended for hunting deer and boar, it is for hunting down other people representing corrupt government.

ok  say in the spectrum of somebody owning a "PVC" pipe for spitting dried peas to owning a nuclear war head how would you state their political position. . ? ?

 :-\ ::)

Ok ay just a dumb question plus co poster. .

That's what I'm hoping they can tell me.

I agree that nukes are generally impossible to use without producing collateral damage. If you follow the libertarian principle of non-aggression, holding a nuke in a densely populated area is a threat of aggression to everyone living in that area. This is mainly because there's no way you can use your nuke purely for self defense, or to target it only at the "criminals". It's equivalent to holding a gun to everyone's head in that area.

I'm not sure whats the most efficient way to save the planet from an asteroid on collision trajectory. Perhaps, if we detect it sufficiently early, we can send a probe or satellite to fly next to it for a few weeks or months. Even the weak gravitational pull of the probe should be enough, over a sufficiently long period of time, to deviate it from it's course. It's also probably much more predictable than blowing up a nuke next to it.

Not sure about aliens ... don't think we need to worry just yet ;)

Cheers !

A nuke does have - like any bomb - non-weapon uses. Most notably in mining, particularly asteroid mining, where fallout is less of a concern. I would also argue that simply holding the nuke is not a threat to all in the area, but arming it is.

As for aliens, well, should aggressive aliens show up in our neighborhood, the more humans with nukes, the better.

Why should there be any difference which weapons I can buy based on whether or not I am wearing a government uniform?

I think there should be no restrictions on weapons. If there comes a time when armed insurrection is necessary, I do not want my enemies to have such a huge advantage just because they are supporting the status quo.

When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties. - Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

 "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Advocating the general public access to nuclear weapons.  I laugh at you all.  No sense between the lot of you.    Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

And who starts and runs those asteroid mining companies?

A company I would hope.

Not too bright, are you?

A company starts a company. :D

Let's try again, this time devoting a few more seconds of thought to your answer.

I know where your going with this and your irresponsible to try to extend that logic to the point where anyone should have a nuke.  You are the one who is showing they are not very bright.   Please do continue you to discredit yourself.  It just takes away from serious consideration of other decent points you have made.  

Continue please....

P.S.  For the record, yes companies can start companies, they are called subsidiaries.

Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?

And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?

And who runs those companies?

If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable to the point that if you were making laws, rules or policies voluntary or not, DANGEROUS.  Your advocating lunacy.   I am not going to debate with someone with such a large lack on sense by advocating dangerous ideas.   I mean dangerous to anyone around people who would be implementing them.

I should not or anyone else, need to be under potential threat of some person with an ICBM in his lawn that one day might decide I am going to arm and light this thing off someday because he decides to leave the ranch.   This is just one example and I am sure he has many more of these extreme ideas in his oh so large brain of his.   Utter non-sense.   Good day sir.


Dalkore

My point is that you were advocating the same thing:

Mining companies are comprised of, and run by, private citizens. Or does the collectivization turn them into something else?

A company heavily regulated for their access to use nuclear weapons is far and away a different thing than a private citizen.  You know that so I don't understand why you even bringing this point up?   

I have a guess and I stated it above.  You already pulled that little stunt with the waving a gun in public in which you either lied or were just purposely being ignorant to the grammar used.   I am seriously starting to doubt your intellectual honesty.   I am seeing something of quite a contrast from reading many of your statements and positions.   

So your contention is that the collectivization does turn a group of private citizens into something else entirely, simply by one of those citizens signing some papers.

Do companies never have disgruntled employees? Do these employees never have access to sensitive materials? What additional protection do you see from allowing a collected group of citizens to own and use nukes, as opposed to single citizens? What about small businesses, just a single person?

There's no such thing as a 100% safe anything, particularly nuclear bombs. However, not allowing anyone but large governments access seems unfair and dangerous. So I think keeping them from either no one or everyone is unreasonable, and a moderate solution is needed.

One good idea I saw before was to simply require full liability insurance for weapons. If your nuke goes off for whatever reason and kills innocents, you are required to pay restitution to their next of kin. That way we can buy mining nukes, but crazy idiots can't just collect them willy nilly. This policy would nicely scale down too, providing arms more cheaply to people who have taken a gun safety course. Regulations might reduce the risk of accident, but WHEN one happens without restitution it's still unjust.

This libility insurance requirement would have to go all the way down the supply chain as well. I'd imagine this could work in the context of either a state or anarchy. Thoughts?

PRIVATE CITIZENS SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS [Full Stop]

As for this disgruntled employee.  Obviously you have not researched into our current safeguard, I'll tell you how we stop that.   They get their nuke into space to the asteroid it it only gets armed once it is very close to its target, armed not by the company and control of the nuke would be in the government that regulates this activity.   They would of also submitted a plan on the project and where impact was needed so there would be some sudden change at the last second by the government that would jeopardize their investments and capital.

What is the monetary dollar value of your life?  Mine is priceless and fuck you to anyone who wants to tell me otherwise.

Well, "insurance requirement" wouldn't work too well in an anarchy, but requiring restitution and allowing insurance to pay it would, and have effectively the same result.

That's a very AnCap method of doing it.

You do know that, historically, governments have killed more people (some even with nukes!) than private citizens ever could have, don't you?

You're showing that you're operating out of fear, by your refusal to understand that mining companies are just groups of people, and hey, guess what, so are governments. Being hired or elected does not change that. They're still just people.


So, you don't have a life insurance policy?

As of this moment, I'd estimate about $10 million USD. That is to say, if my death would leave that much to my loved ones and favorite charities, their sadness would be outweighed by hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives saved. My wife would never work or go without health care again. There are things more important than me.

Do you drive to work? Do you sometimes go a long time without exercise, enough sleep, or a checkup with the doctor?

So if someone offered you 10 million, you'd do it? Off yourself, that is?

How would AnCap deter jihadists from acquiring nukes? Or anyone else who would value the nuke more than their own lives? Restitution is capped at one's lifetime income.

I'd like to say yes, but to be honest I'd think long and hard about that number if I got a serious offer.

Then maybe 10 million isn't the price of a life (yours, in this case).

You're a discredited idiot to even entertain the offer.  How can we even seriously evaluate your opinion if you would even consider suicide for money.  

"AnCap" doesn't, any more than "laws" do. Even today, it's down to individual responsibility. I'd think that manufacturers, held personally responsible for who they sell to, would be pretty discerning, yes?

Indeed it is... but something is better than nothing.

Maybe not, I just made a rough estimate. As the offer goes up, the chances of my accepting it approach 100%. So for $100 billion I would almost certainly do it, and $5 million almost certainly not. If it's the number itself that bothers you, and not the fact that there IS a number, then don't worry too much about it - I haven't calculated anything or thought too hard about the value.

I'm sorry my good sir, but I seem to have missed something you consider to be important. Why shouldn't I be willing to sacrifice myself to save others? Is it suicide that bothers you - would it be different if I worked in a hazardous environment or went on a one-way research mission to Mars?

Yes, I have to say someone who would equate the value of their existence into money as someone I have serious issues if they are discussing public policy.   If that is your perspective on the value of something I feel is most precious, you may have other ideas that would have a core fundamental assumption that life does have a price and with that, make some choices easier.


Sidenote:  My statement contains no underlining political comments about a "certain" wedge issue that is used in politics in America.  After reading my comments, I didn't want you to think I was even hinting at that. 

What if I take the dollar value out of it? If I'm willing to die to save 100 people, does that also invalidate my opinion?

I apologize if this comes across as an ad hominem, but do you drive to work? To me that seems like much the same thing, but to a lesser extent; you're accepting several micromorts in exchange for money.

I say again, do you, or would you, have a life insurance policy?

If you support Social Security and Medicare and the policies surrounding those programs (such as whether to raise the associated taxes or change how much they pay out), then you are supporting equating someone's existence into money.

That changes everything.   In a moment of crisis, I too would sacrifice myself for 100 people.  I would not on the other hand, go to be slaughter in exchange for 100 people in a per-planned act.

I actually am fortunately close enough to my work where that I do not need to drive.  Why?

I do not support those specific programs.  I would not on the other hand would be okay with letting elderly people die because of the lack of basic essentials either.

Darra in Pakistan produce 400 rifles and other weapons a day with nothing more than drill presses and hand tools.

2 years ago they got a law against producing RPG's as they messed up the neighbourhood to severly during street brawls.

You're not going to answer me, are you?

I know why, and I understand. Nobody likes admitting that they're a hypocrite.

I draw the line at weapons of mass destruction - nukes, bunker-busters, etc, (you know, all those things that governments create and stockpile by the megaton). Basically any item whose use entails indiscriminately kill large swaths of people within a geographic area ("killing the righteous along with the wicked", as it were) is something that represents an aggressive threat against everyone. It is illegitimate to claim such a device is "defensive" when by it's very nature it ensures immense "collateral damage" for miles and miles.

But the government is nothing more than a big misinformation-based mafia. Take for example the terror attacks that are part and parcel to State Warfare - Dresden, Hiroshima, essentially any bombing campaign that was ever perpetrated. The lies and propaganda run so deep that the people don't even understand the madness inherent in the system.

This is the main reason I so hate the movie "Fail Safe", which has the President offering to nuke New York in order to make up for accidentally nuking Russia. What the movie should have had was the President offering himself and all of his warlord cabinet members up for execution, not murdering more millions (who happen to be unfortunate enough to live in a certain geographic area) in order to prove it was a mistake and he was "sorry". Would the filmmakers have even dared put forth such a statement? Of course not. /rant

On earth, there's little to no reason for anyone to have a nuke, for exactly that reason. But, like all bombs, it has plenty of non-weapon uses, particularly in asteroid mining. It could be potentially useful in mining here on Earth, but the fallout and such really limits the possible utility.

What about tactical nukes (say 10KT to 200KT) for use against submarines?

One question is what motivates current "jihadists" to do what they do ? (that seems to be that their competing jihadists, also known as governments who likewise are willing to sacrifice lives of own soldiers for political or ideological goals, drew lines on maps and claimed by force "these are your borders now sucker". Not saying any of those 2 jihad groups are justified, they're both acting like small children fighting over toys, but if it wasnt for the governments interfering in their affairs the jihadists would find something better to do).

Keep in mind that the 2 main sponsors of "Jihadi groups" are the USA, and Russia. With some of their subsidiaries co-sponsoring, such as Iran, Israel, etc.

So how would ancap resist NGO jihad from aquiring means to cause lots of damage, the same way it would resist a Government-form of jihad. Social pressure, few ppl would trade with you if they see you aquire stockpiles and/or if you have a history of bullying. You'd have to pay a premium for your reputation, in other words the rest of the world would get their weapons cheaper than you and you'd never get to the point where you can do any damage.

Well, I did say little to no.

Because there is a risk associated with driving, so instead of going to a 100% certain slaughter, you'd be going to an x% certain slaughter. But if you are biking/walking then the exercise helps, so my hat's off to you. Way to be more consistent than I had cynically imagined!

But your unwillingness to die to save others (non-emergency) - no offense - sounds kinda selfish. What about you is so much more valuable than 100 other people? And when isn't it a crisis? People are dying right now.

No, I just feel at the point, putting my time into debating with you.  Your view port is currently at a place that is too extreme for my to expend energy on you.   You can't seem to see any value in what I am saying and if you knew me in person and the people I hold as company, I am known as very reasonable and someone who puts a lot of thought into what I say. 

If you want to engage further, you should go into the last couple issues we have discussed and maybe come closer to me from the extreme position you have stuck too.

I see plenty of value in your positions. I would not ask your position on life insurance, for instance, if I did not value it.

Expecting me to compromise my values so that you can feel more comfortable, however, is going too far. I am a market anarchist, and I'm not compromising the principles that underlay that position just to make it easier for you to debate.

So, it's a very simple question, and I'd appreciate the answer very much: Do you now, or would you ever, own a life insurance policy?

Pah, you can have my nuke when you pry it from my hot, glowing hands.

The issue of defining why civilians shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons is complicated by the need to rationalize why governments should be allowed them.

Serbia?

Really?

Not that surprising, after a long and horrible war there.

Nuclear depth charges in the 10-500KT range are the most effective way to combat submarines. Of course, there's also the issue of protecting yourself from other governments that might get them and use them for blackmail absent a threat of nuclear retaliation.

True as far as it goes. But that begs a whole lot of other questions.

Oh, if a seller were liable for harm caused by the person they sell to, they'd be very careful.  And have insurance.

This.

Is it aggression to sell a gun to someone who later uses that gun for aggression? If so, does this transfer all the way down - should iron miners be held accountable for selling to steel mills who sell to gun manufacturers who sell to gun dealers?

No, but given a nuke's limited defensive uses, I think it's reasonable to expect a higher level of "due diligence" for them than your average pistol.

Not all vendors will sell legally. There's a big black market for weapons now - why would that change?

Nukes don't get blown up all the time now - why would that change?

I wasn't talking about nukes specifically - this thread just got godwinned. People do go on rampages with automatics though - why would that change?

Think about where those rampages happen. In places that disarmed their visitors. When was the last rampage shooting you recall at a gun range? Police station? Gun show?

Where guns are allowed, rampage shootings don't happen.

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?

It might be interesting to ask ourselves why more people don't actually do that.

Let me rephrase to something a little less explosive:

...... In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.

All the more reason to have armor-piercing bullets. Besides, you don't think a nut who wants to go on a homicidal rampage doesn't mind being shot in the arms, legs, or head?

"In the case of guns, sure," indicates that you accept that citizens armed with guns will stop a rampage shooter armed with a gun. So, we can rule out firearms. You're now ruling out bombs. Exactly what weapon do you suppose the nutjob has, then?

It's a bad question because reality is that whoever has the top level weapons gets to keep them because they have them. All we're talking about is what the people with the most dangerous weapons will 'allow' others to do. But it's backwards, once you manage to get the top weapons suddenly you are actually 'allowed' to have them. All the current dickering is about how many orders of magnitude weaker to keep the people who are weaker than the best armed people.

OK:

But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

Isn't that exactly what happens now? Nutjob gets a gun, and proceeds to go someplace where they can use it to kill a lot of people before they are stopped? A tactical vest is not going to stop a headshot from killing them, nor a leg/arm shot from disabling or killing them, and anything more protective is really going to stand out at the mall. So the risk of an armored nutcase going on a rampage is pretty low, I'd even venture to say negligible. And even if he does, somebody might have loaded AP this morning, "just in case." (the likelihood of that happening goes up with more armored nutjobs)

So getting back to your original point, this won't happen where weapons are allowed? Or is it more like an inverse relationship with gun freedom?

It's an inverse relationship, as John Lott (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C) points out.


Care to explain to me, first, exactly what "black market" means in a society where there are no laws limiting what one can buy or sell?

Interesting, thanks. Could you post a link for me? I'm at work, not being lazy. Well, not really ;)

Care to explain to me, first, exactly what "black market" means in a society where there are no laws limiting what one can buy or sell?
[/quote]

Any arms dealer who sells weapons in  a way of which the local community would disapprove.

If you'll notice, I already did. Click on Sv. Lott's name. It leads to the Google Books version of the book, which, as near as I can tell, is the entire third edition.

They don't buy from him, or - and this is important - sell to him.

Cheers. I'm a dope and didn't notice.


There will always be criminals in a community. A successful criminal may remain hidden. While the majority of the community may shun the vendor - if they know he or she exists - that won't stop criminals. Also, if the dealer is not located locally, not selling to them won't matter.

Unfortunately it's missing the data analyses, and a bunch of other pages. Maybe there's some sort of publishing restriction for Australia, wouldn't be the first time.

There are some things I find odd about the book, like page 315 and 320 that deal with the DC gun ban not having any effect on firearm murder rates, but since the other pages are missing I'm probably misinterpreting what the author intends to explain.

So, what you're saying is that criminals will be forced to deal with criminals, and that locals won't be able to affect what is done far off. The first is a good thing, from the perspective of the community - criminals are not known for honest dealings, so the "black market" dealer is likely to get screwed on the regular, and/or have to occasionally kill his customers. The second is just a fact of life. No matter what I do, I can't stop those kids in Afghanistan from churning out AKs like hotcakes, and neither can you.

Well, it's free. You get what you pay for. ;) I'm sure Amazon will gladly ship you a complete one. (I sprung for the Kindle version)

Imposing limits on others is itself a WMD.

I consider private citizens, people.
Corporations, people.
Nonprofits, people.
Governments, also just people.

You can't have limits, for the simple reason that when you do it, only thing it does is dumb down a lot of naive people to believe that something isn't being developed or doesn't exist. (like the Manhattan Project doesn't exist, Anders Breivik didn't use firearms in his terror act in norway because norway forbids firearm possession).

So no limits at all - no limits on ownership, no limits on access to said weapon, no weapon safety skills courses? Just buy, own and use anything you want, any time or anywhere you want?

That's pretty ballsy.

It's the only way to do it without coercion. And coercing armed people is notably difficult...

Don't forget, that part right there implies someone actually has to work, and probably quite a bit, to obtain whatever it is they want. A simple pistol will cost them ~$300, a rifle probably $1k to $3k, and a nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense.

With no restriction on weapon type or use, something bad only has to happen once and a whole country will suffer.

So, instead, we entrust them to violent monopolies with genocidal track records.

Good plan.

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

The governments I support?

Sorry, should re-phrase that, the governments you seem to support lol :P

Well, by definition, if you're not an anarchist, you support some sort of government. Anything you restrict from the citizens, you entrust to the government.

I'm not an anarchist? I don't believe I've ever mentioned my affiliation, and I've made clear to you previously what my preferred type of community would be.

As usual, I want to know what others think. If something someone says surprises me, I question it. How else am I to learn?

If I already had my mind made up I wouldn't bother conversing on this board - everyone has entrenched opinions, no one (apart from me it seems) is capable of changing their minds about their political beliefs.

You may not be a statist, but you do have the unusual habit of defending their positions.

I don't know about the rest, but I am indeed capable, and willing, to change my political views. That's a hard row to plow, though, since it will require convincing me that some people do have the right to initiate force on others. It's not that I'm unwilling, it's just that no one yet has been able to poke any holes in the foundations of my beliefs, and so, the walls hold.

It is fun to watch them beat their heads against them, though.

I'm not really defending any position, just pointing things out that seem to me to be odd or illogical. Those things might or might not be illogical, which is why it's sometimes nice to have a discussion with someone who can explain the position without resorting to ad hominem arguments.


I just had a thought - how do you define "initiate"? Only instant retaliation (for example defending yourself or your property), or an ongoing feud that you know you didn't start but by god you'll finish?


I hope to have similar fun when I too have some beliefs.

Shouldn't the question really be: What "weapons" can't a criminal get?

Why? How is that an interesting question, and how does it help one understand another's political motivations?

Because it doesn't matter what weapons law abiding citizens have, it's the criminals we need to worry about. They don't follow the law. No laws made will change this fact. Another fact is we are guaranteed the right to bear arms, that right shall not be infringed. This was not put in there for hunting purposes either.

Well, leaving aside the fact that what is and what is not defense has been rigorously defined, both by case law and by the good folks at Webster, here's how I would break it down:

The beginning state is either peaceful interaction, or non-interaction (which by it's very nature is peaceful).

Then one party uses violence in the interaction, either starting off the interaction with an attack, or escalating from verbal interaction to physical violence. This is initiatory force.

The other party responds with force, acting to end the threat posed by the first party. This is defensive force.

The first party, seeing that he is overmatched, flees. The second party, seeking to end the threat once and for all, strikes him down. This is retaliatory force.

To sum up:
Initiatory force: Violence committed upon someone who is not committing violence. Never moral.
Defensive force: Violence committed upon someone who is committing initiatory violence. Always moral.
Retaliatory force: Violence committed upon someone who is not committing violence any more. Usually immoral. (opinions differ on this one)

Adding in a third party complicates the issue, adding the possibilities of:
Choosing the wrong side: Violence committed against someone who is committing defensive violence. Never moral, honest mistake or not.
Keeping the Peace: Non-lethal violence committed upon both someone who is committing defensive violence and upon someone who is committing initiatory violence, so as to stop or prevent further violence. Always moral, and thus the best option when you're not sure who's in the wrong.

Note that defensive and retaliatory force are still options for a third party, but adding that third party adds these options to the scenario.

That may be true, but crazy rich trust fund kids are usually not looking to go to jail or kill themselves. The ones that have no sense are too spoiled for it. The ones that do have sense are usually too busy working and expanding their family empire.

You have no imagination or common sense.   You think there are not unstable people that are rich or have vendetta or agenda.   You're as naive as they come.  You must just be a troll to say this utter nonsense.

I'm really disappointed in you, Dalkore. You're not even trying to present rational arguments, anymore. You can do better.

Sure, there are rich people with agendas, but they typically want to keep their money and power. Nuking people tends to go in the opposite direction for them, both financially and health-wise.
I guess maybe some old fuck who failed near the end of their life and just about lost all his money, but still owns a nuke, may want to go out with a bang... I guess I would have to hope that whoever comes to try to repossess his items will start with the nuke though.

There is nothing rational with the argument that a dollar amount like $8mil is what will keep this type of weapon technology out of the hands of unstable people.   NOTHING RATIONAL.

And the difference between me and you on this is that I would never leave this up to chance.  With the amount of violence that is portrayed in the media along with many other cultural issues, I would almost guarantee this would happen if they would accessible.  Never mind people who feel we have too many people and they may being doing mankind a service.   You have a confluence of many ideas and agendas today and this item would easily fit into many of them.   I don't see how you can either not think about these things or dismiss in a manner where you can sit back and think "typically want to keep their money and power. Nuking people tends to go in the opposite direction for them, both financially and health-wise".

Just take that example, A. you would set it off in your backyard (hopefully) B. maybe you investments are in oil, setting that thing off would make the price go through the roof..... bam, profits.   Hell we even have major short position before the WTC disaster on the airlines that were historically way outside the normal size of the shorts, who ever held those made a ton of money.   Please, widen your horizon.

Oh? Unstable people are, by definition, unstable. Are unstable people typically goal-oriented enough to put that much effort into something?

Ask yourself this: if what you fear is unstable folks getting control of nukes and killing people, why do you entrust them to people with proven track records of genocide?

You're right, you don't leave it to chance. You give the nukes to the unstable people.

Having thought for a couple days about the points raised here, I retract my "compulsory insurance" suggestion, and am leaning towards simple restitution.

1. It's not aggression to forego insurance, so I can't argue morality.
2. The people I want to stop wouldn't be stopped, so I can't argue efficiency/effectiveness.

So why don't more gun owners buy liability insurance right now? It seems like the rational thing to do. (I don't own any guns myself)

What makes you think they don't? Perhaps lots of people do.

Wow, you're just a parrot of continual charges against government as a default answer to everything.  What do we have to talk about if everything you have to say is the same thing.  Just don't bother responding and instead just reply with a blank post and I will just make up a typical response for you that will:

A.  Indict Government that is basically thugs because you didn't get a chance to volunteer
B.  Give some reference to how a privately run system for everything is the best way to do anything
C.  You logic to make it that all human decision are in self-interest
D.  And most importantly remember, Greed is good.

What would you do about it? The only two options I see are
1) Give the power to control (and thus own) nukes only to a select few, whom we'll call "government," and hope that none of their members become unstable and try to set one off
2) Make it an acceptable community standard that no one in that community should own nukes, and make everyone be responsible for keeping an eye on each other, and report/stop anyone from trying to obtain weapons-grade nuclear materials

Personally, I think option 2 will be more effective.
I'm curious, though, why do you hold government in such high regard exactly? What makes a person who works for the government different from just any other person? And if they are the same - just people - then how will government employment prevent someone from becoming unstable?


Anyone setting off a nuke will very likely be found out. A nuke isn't just something you can build in secret. So if you were to blow up a nuke in your back yard, not only will you be losing your back yard and all your neighbors, but you will likely make sure that no one will ever buy oil from you again, and will end up with a HUGE price on your head.
Otherwise, how do you propose that whoever does that in your example manages to get away with it?

Can you refute any of those?

I don't know any gun owners who do. Do any gun owners posting/lurking here have liability insurance? Are there any statistics on this?

First Issue:
Because of the destructive nature of nuclear weapons, obviously I would rather no one have them.   But in reality, the cat is already in the bag and because competing nation states have nuclear weapons in their possession, they would likely never relinquish them all because of the fear the another nation state was lying and held some back in their possession.  As for unstable people getting access that are in government, you should research the current safeguard we have in place so that only a few men have the ability to arm and launch nuclear weapons and those people are vetting quite harshly and are given continual physiological evaluations you mental stability.


Second Issue:
That is an assumption they would be found out, if you know what your doing you could be covert about it.   There are small tactical nukes are are as small as a suitcase.   Also in your example, you gave a price tag so I had to assume that person was purchasing it from somewhere not building their own.  Building your own it a whole other ball game and is very hard to mask because of the equipment needed, power consumption and raw materials.  You really need to understand, covert action happens everyday and it is effective more times than not.  History is filled with examples (that we know of) and it is only decades if not longer that we find out, or we seize records and read about them after the fact.  

Even if I did, it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't change your mind.   Not worth my effort.   You can hold those beliefs all you want, that is your right.

Liability insurance is part of your home insurance. I don't know of any specific liability insurance offerings out there other than for businesses. So, maybe a liability insurance for owning a gun just isn't offered and doesn't have a market for it.

And we can't have everyone agree not to own nukes and police each other for it, while having a private defense force in charge of keeping out outsiders, whom we entrust with owning a nuke for deterrent reasons because...?


If someone sold someone a nuke, then they know whom they sold the nuke to. If one of those nukes does go off, either whoever sold the nuke will have told everyone whom they sold that one to, or they would be held responsible. And yes, the price tag is the estimates cost of a nuke on the black market. But, regardless, why is covert action and black market suitcase nukes a problem in anarchy state, but not a problem in government controlled state? What makes people with a government paycheck different or better than people with a private company paycheck?

Who told you that lie? I'm interested in one thing: Truth. I have no interest in believing a lie. If you can prove one of my beliefs a lie, I will immediately discard it.


Indeed. Those beliefs discourage aggressing against peaceful people. On the other hand, your beliefs encourage aggressing against peaceful people, and so are worth my effort to attempt to change.

1.  This is where you need to take in the current situation and when we are talking about someone like this, it is all the matters.   Like I said, this cat is out of the bag.  I would rather have the current governments safeguard the nukes then proliferate them to a point where someone who is dis-satisfied decides to use them and kill innocent people to try and prove a point or achieve their goals.

2.  Why do you think the person would say anything, another speculation with no reason to believe that it is the case.  Maybe the person selling it, gets informed about its end use and supports it so they are glad it happens.  Another option is that it could change hands.   I never said this was an anarchy state only problem, where did you get that from?   You are so caught up in your idea of Anarchy that you assume someone who doesn't support it is so colored in their thinking that they would think in that manner.   I keep seeing interesting patterns debating with you all, quite interesting.

And, again, what makes a person working for the government different from a person working for a private company?


So... Your only concern then is with making sure that only some people being allowed to have nukes and not others...  I guess in that case, same question again: what makes those some people different from others?

You should ask the question, what safeguards would be different than for a private company.  Vastly different and more secure.   Many things make some people different than others.  

People in the government that are in positions to have access to sensitive areas like nuclear weapons and technology are vetted, monitored and routinely moved around.  Genetics and mental disposition are another two obvious answers to what makes someone different than another, but I assume you know that.

I think the word you're looking for is vetted. Especially considering that the rest of the sentence is in past tense.

So, people in private industry would not be vetted or monitored?

I'm not asking how people are different, I'm asking how two people, who might otherwise be the same with the same interests, are different from the fact that one works for the government, and one works for a private sector?

(while not defending what they do, private military companies have quite a lot of training, vetting, and security as well, as do nuclear power stations).

What I am trying to get at is that you seem to be perfectly ok with allowing some people to own nukes, while not allowing others, and since I'm sure "because they work for a government" is not your ONLY reason for that claim, I'm wondering what the other reason, besides under what system of bureaucracy they work,  that is. And if the entire reason some people whould have nukes and some shouldn't IS only because some people get their paychecks from government and some down, I want to know what makes the people working for a government different from those who do not? (besides being underpaid and likely undesrkilled I mean)

While I am completely against the idea of anyone (governments or otherwise) having nukes/WMD's, the big difference between the two is the people/organizations they work for and how their power is obtained. The realities of how they are funded can't be ignored - government can undertake insane courses of action and it is the taxpayers who bear the cost. Those in the private sector would have to divert immense amounts of their own accumulated capital - and without the benefit of being permitted to threaten violence with impunity as a way to obtain continued funds from their investors.

Guys, Dalkore's not coming back to this fight. He's at least smart enough to know when he's lost, though sadly not honest enough to admit it (perhaps even to himself).

Well a major difference is that they are working in a public service area rather than a for-profit environment.   Yes obviously companies have vetting, training and security.   But, government is not a for-profit business like private enterprise and they has a different mindset when dealing with public issues and common good.  Now what I not saying is our system currently in America is operating like that, it is out of touch and operating on a few major false assumptions.

I assume as you talk about AnCap in a theoretical sense I can talk about a democratic republic in the same sense, just so you understand where I am thinking from.

Well, I guess I was wrong. You don't know that you're beat.

You have to remember some basic economics: incentives work. When people have an incentive to do something, they do. When they don't have an incentive to do something, they generally don't.

Indeed. By allowing them to take their funding by force, they do not need to keep the populace happy (and thus, their money flowing). Most government employees don't even see re-election. So there's no incentive to make sure the people are well served. Their only obligation is to the government that employs them.

Because the incentives are screwed up.

Myrkul is entitled to his opinions. But he's not entitled to his facts. And he only argues opinions, because that's all he can do.

Oh look, my stalker is back. You're welcome to try and refute any of those facts, if you like. I'm sure I'll enjoy trouncing you again.

Let's see - you're the one who started a thread with my username in the title. I don't stalk users here - I happen across strange individuals such as yourself obsessively pushing your fantasy pseudo politics.


What facts? Most everything you discuss is about hypothetical fantasy societies in the future.

As for global warming, everything you posted that you thought was a fact was crap you pulled from deniers' blogs and sites, each with extensive published refutations.

Myrkul likes to cling to his myopic Freudian view of human nature that perfectly supports his other political views.  He calls assertions facts and his opinion as truth. 

I like how he says that incentives work when NO ONE is challenging that.  He does allows for things like moral values and national duty as proper incentives to help and make a government work. 

He harps about force and how everything should be voluntary or it is evil.  He agrees that American government workers incentives are wrong but his only option is no government, not major reformation of our constitutional democratic republic that he currently lives in and enjoys the benefits of (I can only assume).  Fringe logic to support fringe ideals to make him and his cohorts feel better that they are serving "the system", just sounds like some militant hippies transported from the 60s.

Sidenote:  I love when someone challenges his views, the first thing he does is insult them by calling them a stalker.  This is not a intellectual we are dealing with, more of a propagandist (propaganda is not an inheirently bad word either, depends on how you use it, look it up).

But we're not in that thread. We're in an entirely different one. You came in here specifically to make a statement about me. Unless you're a "gun freedom activist," too? If so, I'd greatly appreciate hearing what weapons you think shouldn't be legally available.


You can read, right? The facts you quoted earlier. And actually, a great deal of what I discuss has been done before, in whole or in part, is societies such as medieval Iceland, or pre-conquest Ireland. And those societies lasted much longer than the less than 250 yrs the US has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqt-6N7pPjY

I thought I just leave that here ;)

First you start with another insult, your assumption of a lack of literacy.


Second,  your only two examples are poor at best.   One is a isolated island in the north and just by your own wording, pre-conquest Ireland which I have been reading on and there was a tribal government system that was not voluntary and had a hierarchy.   Even if we did accept your examples (which I don't), they all fell apart as soon at it met competition from other civilizations.  That in fact shows one of the major weaknesses about the inability to defend themselves from external threat.  


You can preach about non-violence all you want but that is not what you will find in "this" world called Earth.  You need to accept that as something this AnCap will deal with anywhere it tries to take hold.  

As I said, if you can disprove anything I say, do so.

I never said or implied that anyone was challenging that. What I was saying was that government workers do not have the incentives required to keep them in line. Perhaps, as you say, some do, and act out of a sense of national duty, or moral values. But you have to accept that people who seek power are not necessarily motivated by a sense of duty to their fellowman. The only thing they all have in common is a desire for power. And if you think that evil people do not desire power, you're a more naive person than you think me to be.

Then do you have a solution? What reforms will remove coercion from the system, and place the incentives correctly?

I called him a stalker not because he challenged my views (you'll note I never called you a stalker), but because he is stalking me.

First off, Remember that whole "in part" bit? ;)

Secondly, it took 600 years for England to take down Ireland. I'd hardly call that "as soon at it met competition."

Now, since you're talking to me again, I'd very much value your opinion on life insurance.

Ok, so, why is one person's sense of "moral values" and "national duty" more correct than another's? Are you saying that those who work in the private sector, or even business owners themselves who are running for-profits, can't have moral values or a sense of national duty? Or are you claiming that any addition of money (profit) corrupts morals and duty? Do you think government employees work for a sense of morals and duty, or do they work to earn a living? And what happens what a government employee's moral values or sense of national duty do not agree with your own? I.e. what happens when someone from the government says one thing is correct (ban gay marriage, invade random countries), but you don't think that is moral or good for the country? You can't vote the employees out, but they have the power to force you to live in a way you don't think is right...

Or, to keep it on the topic of weapons, what if you think that having at most 5 nukes is enough to keep us safe, but the government insists on building 20,000 of them, in the process creating enough destructive force to obliterate the planet, and then having to waste billions to keep the weapons safe and secure, while creating problems such as environmental pollution, and greatly increasing the risk of nukes available for theft or accidental detonation? All democracy/military here, no profit incentives. How do you deal with that? (Personally, I don't think anyone in a free-market society would stockpile nukes, since it's just a waste of money)

I challenge your assumption that government employees have to work to receive their living ;)

I think we should be able to have any small arms (small arms are .50cal or less). That includes full autos. However, I support full liability for anyone who wants to have one. If you shoot your gun and the bullet goes wild, hitting someone on accident, you go to jail. (no matter how rich you are)

Who pays for the jail?

Is it that hard to imagine there's no countries?

For some people, yes, it is.

No limits but....

1) Automatics should require extensive training and certification
2) Non-automatics should require extensive training and certification over certain reasonable calibre's/power
3) Basic non-automatics should require basic firearms safety certification

4) Explosives + should require justification, training, certification, registration and inspection
5) weapons classified as WMD's should be available only to restricted governmental agencies and even then have preferential usage for peaceful civilian purposes over military might (i.e. nuclear power plants instead of nuclear bombs)

6) Concealed carry should be legal for the weopons described in item 3, with additional training and certification requirements

7) Criminal offenses of certain kinds should come with all weapon (guns, knives, shivs, barbie dolls with extra sharp pointy breasteses, whatever) restrictions, including in some cases banning/no-right-to-use, random inspection of person/premises for firearms etc.  From which even the attempt to reacquire weapons by said persons should land them back in court for appropriate disciplinary action.

8) All weapons sales should require criminal background history check, but no weapon ownership registration unless a previous bullet dictates otherwise.  Exemption: small knives with blades under a certain length, and items commonly used in standard home living (kitchen knives etc. no a machete is not a commonly used kitchen utensil)


Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

CYA laws that should be on the books -
1) Gun safe usage (If your child brings guns to school, or blows off tommy's head because he stole his transformer toys then parents/guardians should be charged with involuntary manslaughter and child abuse as well as see all their offspring sent to foster care and mental health rehabilitation, not entirely opposed to mandatory removal of their ability to produce any more offspring as well since they have proven to be careless, irresponsible and incapable parents/guardians)

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

Rights don't need proving.

If your incompetence with using something can infringe on my rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then yes some rights do need "proving" .... but really what we are debating here is the existence of revocable rights vs. privileges .... It's my belief that I and all people are born with the ability to do pretty much what they will so long as it is not a hindrance upon someone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... if I was so incompetent at firearms that I could not prove my competence to handle them with a simple certification program then I should not be allowed to legally purchase them, nor should someone legally be able to sell them to me.... but say I had one given to me as a gift or inherited from a deceased grand parent, no one should be able to stop me from taking ownership as it is not a sales transaction.  If I choose to then go out and use it no one should be able to stop me assuming I am not doing something to infringe on someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ... if I prove that I was truly incompetent and irresponsible the law should throw the book at me for operating firearms while incompetent ... up to and including manslaughter (even if all I did was pull a bad version of a Cheney) but that's for the judge to decide.

If I infringe, I lose that right. Simple, easy, and requires only defensive force.

Except in those "gun control utopias" like Chicago, NYC, DC, where blood runs through the streets and the common man is banned from proving their competence.

And this is where what I said does not match your example, I said no one should be banned from proving their competence (and to clarify further to enable the sale/purchase of firearms), those cities violate what I proposed here and look what happened to them.  What I offer is allowing all to own/use them, but restrict acquisition based upon proven competence including mass allowance of concealed weapons, my restrictions only restrict a person buying/selling them if the purchaser cannot certify with simple gun safety practices which are reflective of the type of weapon purchased

Authority must be justified.

"........shall not be infringed."
Notice there are no conditions in there, none at all? 2nd Amendment is short and to the point.

http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h428/keithh409/TJefferson.jpg

That's what we've been saying.

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops. 

Why should my rights be limited because of the actions of a few truly insane people?  Go after them, not me. This "blaming the gun" stuff is childish.  Or should we start arresting guns and letting psychopaths go free?

Next stop: The manufacturers.

It's also important to understand that police have no legal obligation to protect you unless they choose to incur that obligation. Generally speaking, you have no right to government services -- the government can set its own priorities. So if the government has a monopoly on protection but chooses not to provide it to you, you have no right to protection nor can you provide it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

That's actually an indisputable fact if you look at the response time for police in all areas, something people often choose ignore.

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive.   

Gang units are the closest things the Police have to proactive because of their use of informants on upcoming turf disputes, drive-bys and organized illegal purchases/sales.  But this only works because gangs operate as an organized unit that you can track.    Most violence is random or spur of the moment so this type of police would not be very useful in combat those situations.

You know what's great at preventing your death? A gun on your hip. Or better yet, concealed in a pocket. Concealed carry in an area makes criminals not sure whether or not anyone's carrying, thus less likely to attack anyone.

That is one of the best deterrents for sure.

Double-barrel shotgun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttZkUPV-mD0)!  :D

Can you define them more explicitly please?

How mass is mass? How much area is area? How biological is biological? Do nano-weapons counts?

What do you mean by "area denial weapons?' What about automated turrets that give a warning before "denying" entry?

I think he mostly means mines. Which I think are definitely a thought-worthy subject. On the one hand, a useful military tool, on the other hand, the civilian aftermath is simply unacceptable (though our modern predilection for pretending that civilians are not part of the conflict is somewhat naive and, given what's going on in the middle east, something most of us seem to prefer to be in denial about).

Maybe change that to "no self replicating weapons"

I think only weapons used for self defense should be legally available.  Nobody needs to defend themselves against an onslaught of attackers with an automatic assault rifle :P  That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Then again, I also advocate an unregulated market...  I don't know what to believe anymore!

Because criminals only EVER work alone. Yep.

And actually an automatic assault rifle is a weapon for missing "the enemy" most of the time, and getting "the enemy" to duck, cover, and retreat. In reality, it's called suppressive fire, not "when you absolutely positively have to kill everyone in the room" fire.

You have a point!  I'm not very good with guns so forgive me ;D  But point remains, if you're ever in need of an assault rifle, you should probably just move to a better place.

Human rights are inherent, not granted on a "need" basis.

What is a "better" place? An underground bunker where no criminal can get to you (without a bunker buster bomb) without dying in a gauntlet that only you can disarm? We'd prefer not to live in a self-imposed prison of no liberty, in the name of "security".

Aren't all firearms for killing - and defense or offense depends on the situation?  ;)

This is hillarious! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj-WcafGjbM&NR=1&feature=endscreen)  :D

He is the best shotgun salesman ever! Now, i want to buy a double-barrel shotgun! Which one is a good one?  :D

Do von Neumann machine weapons count?

Not killing, stopping. We the law-abiding, who "gun control" advocates (100% of criminals) ultimately advocate rendering disarmed and defenseless (despite their categorical BS to the contrary), do not intend to murder, we just want the violent aggression against us stopped. If the aggressor dies, then that is an unfortunate result of their own actions. If you never want a law-abider's gun pointed at you, don't commit violent crime, and if you do, then join your fellow criminals in prison interviews saying "I'm scared of my victims having guns, please pass more gun control to keep me safe by only disarming innocent victims!", or the morgue if you really want to commit suicide by armed victim.

I expect those who were informed they were ignored for being scumbags will continue being scumbags and quote this post, knowing they can get away with their bullshit replies.

Yeah, like that South African Olympian that killed his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder.

For every example of a law-abiding person who accidentally shoots a loved one that you provide, I can provide 5 or six of intruders stopped and families saved, and 3 or 4 of law-enforcers shooting innocent civilians (or their dogs).

If you're looking for harm reduction, gun control is not the way to do it.

I don't disagree with you myrkul. I think gun control in the US would cause more problems than it would solve. Although I could disagree with your statement as it applies to any specific country, depending on the available statistics for that country.

The point I'd hope I was making by creating this thread was that making arbitrary distinctions and then rationalising them is just silly. You have explained what TheButterZone was trying to explain much better on many occasions, without providing rationalisations that are illogical or are not well thought through.

If the legality of certain weapons is to be made questionable, then a legal framework needs to be decided on beforehand - not added on so that it agrees with popular beliefs.

Which is why I do not advocate placing any restriction on weapon ownership, only that they not be used in aggression.

I guess there's no way around it.  Capitalism = crime enabling = gun violence.  So gun control of any sort just leads to normal people being accused of crime, and thus they become criminals.  Freedom of all weaponry is just as scary.  Of course, those who enjoy their guns know why it's important to keep guns free; whenever anyone finally decides to make the first move against the terrorists in the WH, having even fire power against the offense is vital to actually winning the battle.  However, instituting a ban on certain weaponry wouldn't stop someone from getting it if they really wanted to get it.  So it's clear: the gun debate isn't actually about guns, it's about stopping the gov from procuring all control over resistance to tyranny, which a ban on guns would do, as those who are above the law still have the right to the banned guns and can still take out American citizens easily.  Problem is, it still doesn't solve crime, and never will.  The only solution to crime is to remove incentive to commit crime, which requires people to abandon any hope of becoming wealthier than someone else.  I don't see that happening in my lifetime :(

Care to make this non sequitur into something that makes sense?

@snapsunny

The political ideology to which a country adheres doesn't have a signficant impact on rates of gun violence. Look at the main capitalist developed nations of the world. Most are clearly capitalist, none have greater rates of gun violence than the US.

The answer to this is simple, stupid people shouldn't be able to own guns, which is why I advocate education and training, not gun control, I often look at these incidents and even without any knowledge of guns am amazed at the complete stupidity of the people who caused this. Not only that, it's seemed to most that the Olympian incident it was murder, how do you shoot someone that many times and 'think' they were an intruder?

Usually defendants in those kind of cases either plead insanity or claim it was an accident to try and reduce their jail time once they realise they've been caught, it isn't normally to do with them being innocent at all.

Stupid people shouldn't be able to own cars either, but they do. Forgive my cynicism, but I have difficulty believing a government could actually educate and train almost any applicant sufficiently to prevent accidental firearm murders.

Regardless, the quote was a response to the following:


I was implying that this was hyperbole at best, and completely wrong-headed at worst.



Let's wait for the current legal case to be completed before we call the defendant a murderer.

The problem here is if you don't think that the government aren't capable of educating or training people in firearms then what makes you think they'll be at all competent in enforcing a ban? From what I've seen American soldiers and police officers are worse than the gun owners that they're going to be banning. I shouldn't have to remind people about the infamous friendly fire incident which got British soldiers killed in Iraq which is why I am seriously staggered that anyone would suggest banning guns is going to achieve anything worthwhile.

Just to show I'm not hugely biased and just being anti-american the Tottenham riots which happened recently were supposedly started off by British police officers who were doing an arrest and ended up shooting the guy they were going to get, there was a big fuss about whether or not he resisted and stuff or did anything to deserve it. Which pretty much shows you that the idea that anyone has a right over other people to defend themselves or uphold the law with or without guns is just plain bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned the idea that police or government forces are some how 'morally' superior in enforcing this etc. is just silly loyalist propaganda.

I have no idea how competent a government would be in enforcing a ban. Probably not very good, given the number of unlicenced car drivers in many countries. You're still ascribing me preferences I don't have. From a previous post:


I'm not really following this part:


I'm not sure this is a conversation you're having with me, or a chance to blow off steam on a topic about which you feel strongly. Fair enough! We all have our favourite rant topics ;)

But I don't want to be dragged sideways into a conversation about things of which I know even less than the thread topic, and about which I have not yet formed an opinion.

Maybe you have misunderstood the general point I've been trying to make in this thread. A while after starting the thread I came to a conclusion: making arbitrary distinctions in the legality of weapons and then rationalising those categories is pointless.

The 2nd amendment doesn't place any limits. Our founding fathers knew we wouldn't always be limited to muskets, that technology would advance beyond their capabilities at the time.

Many people forget that the 2nd isn't about hunting or sport shooting, it's about being prepared to fight a tyrannical government.
It's not about guns, it's about people. I put my gun on the table and tried to bribe it to go off, but it just sat there...couldn't convince it to do anything on it's own.

An armed society is a polite society....the cities in the US with the strictest gun control have the highest incidents of crime...wonder why?

Criminals don't follow the laws. If a person is deemed unfit to have a firearm, he shouldn't be walking the streets. Maake the penalities for crimes severe...no more of this 5-10 for armed robberies and out in 3, same for murder, a sentence of life, should mean just that, not eligible for parole in 11 yrs 7 months.

Many people will have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you rephrase your post so those who are not US citizens can understand it a bit better? I have a vague idea what you mean, but you're assuming knowledge that I don't have. Maybe start with the 2nd Amendment - what it is, why it was made, and how it affects US citizens in general.

Sure, I may not explain it eloquently, but I'll try to provide the insight of our Founding Fathers and others of the times on this.

Amendment II to the Bill of Rights (The BoR are unalienable rights)


Miltia is not a standing army, it is comprised of the people. Well regulated, means similarly trained, it doesn't mean having laws imposed.

Thomas Jefferson explains the reason for the 2nd Amendment very well in these quotes:


While many people think "the militia" refers to a government troop, it does not. The militia is comprised of every able bodied man between 18-45 in the United States. However, hearing the FF thoughts makes it seems everyone is the militia.

George Mason, co-author of the 2nd, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788, said this: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Washington (our first president) said: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman said in 1788: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Patrick Henry, American Patriot said this: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Why? That requires "beyond reasonable doubt". We don't.

http://mark.reid.name/images/figures/deaths-vs-guns-20121219.png

Looks like a correlation to me.

Well the point I've been trying to make is the whole idea of blaming everything on an inanimate object when it's the squishy organic meatbag pulling the trigger that's the problem :P

A meaningless correlation. If you banned Goodyear tires, unsurprisingly the number of vehicles using Goodyear tires would plummet yet do you claim there would be fewer vehicles on the road?

"Gun deaths" is a red herring the grabbers like to trot out with depressing regularity.

Most of the gun violence in America is in large urban areas, by criminals who aren't "allowed" to own guns. Look behind the screen...

This. If you want to see a correlation, look at all violent deaths, or even better, all violent crime. The correlation that you will see, however, is not the one you are trying to make here (http://books.google.com/books/about/More_Guns_Less_Crime.html?id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C).

you are right. I fell for it.  ::)

From what I can google a simple correlation between weapon ownership and violent death rate can really not be proven.

I had thought this would be easy as for me it makes perfect sense. Humans in general are simply not mentally stable enough to have powerful weapons easily at hand. Just imagine everybody had an atomic bomb that he could explode by a big red button on his coffee table. How much people do you think would be alive after a month?

People lose temper from time to time. Better to use a fist than a gun then.

Well, getting rid of all the guns that haunt the US today would sure be difficult. I can understand people are afraid of a transition phase.

This, of course, is the next red herring trotted out by the grabbers. "People can't be trusted with guns."

OK, let's stipulate that. What, then, makes you think that if they cannot be trusted to have weapons, that they can be trusted to select people who can be trusted with weapons? If you would not trust the average Joe with a button on his coffee table that detonates a nuke, why do you trust him with the power to select who to give a button that not only detonates one nuke, but ALL of them?

The only way this makes perfect sense is if you're projecting your own mental instability onto "humans in general". Speak ONLY for yourself, please.


Where is the atomic bomb located? What is the delivery system? If the atomic bomb is in "the basement", it sure wouldn't have much purpose, except for making a suicide into a genocide. Everybody'd be better off re-purposing it into a mini nuclear reactor to power their homes and the electrical grid for a credit from the power company.

As an atomic bomb is not a weapon a single individual can operate effectively, it's not even up for debate unless you allow debate of pure BS.

I would have several people select them. Also I would have them control each other. And more importantly, the selection process would take time, not being a spontaneous blast.

edit: I must admit it really got me thinking that there was no simple correlation. <considers getting a gun...>

I am also projecting from my experience with other people. your post above reassured me once more.  :P



How is this relevant?

So, what quality grants a group of people greater trust in judgment than a single person? And the average election season keeps getting longer. Do you think that this has resulted in better leaders? I'd like to point out two things:

Argumentum ad populum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and Rational Ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance).

The former means that a group of people are not necessarily right just because they all agree, and the second means that the more people you have making a decision, the less their individual decision matters, and therefore, the less effort they will put out to ensure they make the right one.

Split the decision among enough people, and they're virtually guaranteed to fuck it up.

Indeed, why did you bring up the atomic bomb BS?

Ultimately, your "experience with other people" does not rise to that of a omniscient being, so you and everyone else are disqualified from making statements about "humans in general".

Give me a "powerful weapon" and the only fear anyone can logically have is a sociopath (or bunch of sociopaths giving orders to pawns, i.e. the government) taking it away and bringing about destructive, evil ends. I would be killed for trying to keep it safe and inert.

I take it you are a healthy male, age 18-(say)55 then? If so, congratulations, you similar or better offensive/defensive capabilities of all but the most skilled/strongest unarmed opponent.

However, large segments of the population are not. Consider them before you clamor for disarmament. Also consider the capabilities of a potential opponent should they trivially arm themselves with a knife or some kind of club (If only those darn bad guys wouldn't seek to provide themselves advantage, eh?).

I assume those who want to limit guns in our society also want to disarm the police? They are, after all, just people with guns. They might go nuts and kill you. Without any recourse for your own defense, it will more important than ever to limit the mag capacity of police and limit the types of weapons they may posses.
If you don't think the police should also disarm, I'm curious as to your logic.
It's time for the cops to trade in their glocks and ARs for revolvers and double barrel shotguns.

Against my better judgement I'll weigh in here as it's a topic that fascinates me.  I don't consider myself a "gun freedom advocate" as the subject says, though I do believe there's a legitimate place for limited gun ownership in most societies.

I thought long and hard about the question last night and came to the conclusion I can't answer it as worded.  It's easier to answer the question, "what weapons should be legally available?"  The short answer is hunting weapons of sufficient caliber to humanely kill the game being hunted.  That's it, with few exceptions.  But even that's problematic because there's very wide room for interpretation in that statement. I have a much longer answer, but I'll spare you unless there's interest.

Full disclosure:  I own several weapons, including a handgun.  I don't hunt and I don't own them for self-protection.  I take them out of their safe about a dozen times per year and fire them at the range because it's an activity I enjoy.  Even I'm a walking contradiction to my own statement, so yes, it's quite complicated in my mind.

I also find this complicated. But I don't understand the hunting exception. I own guns, including military type guns, but I don't use them to kill animals. Why should I be disallowed from having a gun just because I don't want to kill an innocent animal with it?

It's really not nearly as complicated as you're making it. tcp, have you examined why you would rather not let other people have weapons except for hunting? I'd wager it boils down to something along the lines of "I don't want them to shoot me."

The problem is, even a little .22 varmint gun, if aimed well, can kill a human. And if you're hunting large game, that gun can easily kill a human. And it's not like a "hunting gun" can't be pointed at a human. So, even your restriction of "only firearms for hunting" is no more effective than "No big scary black guns."

Howabout this restriction:

"Own whatever weapon you like, but don't use it to kill people."

Simple, yeah?

It's really not like that for me--I think you're reading into what I said.  I believe you should be allowed to own as many guns as you want and use them for whatever you want as long as you don't break the law.  I do however think there should be reasonable limits on the type of gun you own which is the focus of this thread.  RodeoX uses the phrase "military style guns" which is very subjective.  A semi-automatic AR-15, for example, is functionally almost no different than many .223 "traditional" hunting rifles. (Let's leave the magazine capacity argument aside for the sake of discussion since it's a different can of worms.)  For some reason, apparently for no other reason than because the AR-15 looks more menacing, some people believe it should be restricted.  I don't agree with them since you can reasonably use that AR-15 for hunting.  But if you argue anyone should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon or a Barrett .50 then you've lost me.  That's not to say no one should be allowed to own them, just that most people shouldn't be allowed to own them.

As I mentioned, my opinion is ever-evolving.  The hunting justification is not an absolute line in the sand here but in my mind a rough guideine of what might be considered reasonable.  I use it as reasonable because where I live most top level predators have been destroyed and management of game populations falls on humans since we created the problem.  I realize that even that is not cut-and-dried but it's a starting point.  Of course, if you believe the world is on the verge of ERL (Excessive Rule of Law) or WRL (Without Rule of Law), which I don't, then we are starting from a different set of assumptions and I don't see much room for compromise.  On the other end of the firepower spectrum we have handguns. Since I think the usual self-defense justification is quite weak I fall back again to the hunting guideline.  If it can't reasonably be used as a hunting weapon most people shouldn't be allowed to have it.  Again, if you disagree with me on the self-defense argument then here again there's little room for compromise.

So what's the requirement to own a full auto .50 cal Ma Duece? Training? Military only? Police and military only? And why?


The self-defense argument is not weak. It's the solid truth. Criminals don't like attacking armed citizens, and if concealed carry is allowed in an area, criminals are reluctant to attack anyone, because they're unsure who's armed, and who isn't. Hunting can be done just as effectively (though obviously not at the ranges allowed by guns) with a bow and arrow. If hunting is the only reason you feel a private citizen should be allowed a weapon, then why not ban guns entirely, and limit people to only owning compound bows?

@myrkul

Hey man, If you find yourself in Wisconsin let's go shooting!

 :D

As far as self defense, here is how I approach a business that does not allow firearms.
If they have a sign posted, I ask them if they are taking responsibility for my safety instead? I have a legal document that a lawyer friend made for me. It has a place for the manager to sign and agree to protect my life with their life in the event an armed intruder. They promise to fight the intruder while allowing the customers to escape.
No one has signed yet. And I'm quite sure if someone started shooting they would be the first to run and leave me to die. I don't patronize places where I cant protect myself and have zero security.

Sounds fun. I'll let you know if I ever find myself up north again.

This. You don't happen to have a pdf of that document, do you?

I don't here at work, but I should be home early enough tonight to make you one. I'll PM when I have it.

I grew up in Wisconsin. Small town up north. Used to open carry since it was legal, and the older I got, the more people were scared of someone being armed in public. I see Wisconsin finally came out of the dark ages with the new gov. Glad to see Concealed Carry made it through all the bullshit the governor had to go through with the recall elections. union thugs, and liberal whiners. Not as good as constitutional carry but it's a step in the right direction.

Where I am at now, everyone carries concealed because we have no open carry law, but that's about to change. We already had all knife laws repealed several years back, so there is no restriction on blade length or switchblades....guess what? It didn't raise crime.

Guns aren't the issue, people are. An armed society is a polite society. Go Packers, Go Badgers!

Oooh, I'd like a look, though it will have real legal weight if it's on a big firm's letterhead or a local lawyer each one of us has on retainer.

Jeez, I'm sorry you guys have to live someplace where you are always in fear for your lives.  This "Wisconsin" you speak of sounds horrible.  Oddly, I live in a US state named Wisconsin too but it must be different since I've never been in fear for my life. Ever.

Neither are we. Because we know we can defend ourselves. Now, care to answer the questions I asked earlier:

Hunting is probably the least valid reason in any case. We are are a highly developed, specialized and multi-disciplinary society which has mastered farming. There is zero need to hunt. Zero. Anyone who thinks it has some kind of special status is deluded. Once you have bowed to the requirements of "necessity", the grabbers will snuff out your hobby in a heartbeat.

It does not have much "legal weight". Any fool who signs it would take on significant liability, but it is more humor advocacy than something I would expect a store owner to shake on.

I put it here ( http://www.filedropper.com/contract ) for anyone who wants it.

I'm not at all a fearful person. Wisconsin is one of the safest places and these are some of the safest times. Still, things happen.  It's not about the likelihood of violence for me, it's about the fundamental right to protect myself. That should be timeless, because peace is so transient.

Frankly, guns are not that big a part of my life. But nobody goes after my other hobbies with such hysteria.

The only thing in my spheres of interest that even comes close to comparing is the "D&D is gunna kill ur bay-beeeees!" froth of the 80's.

I soooooo wish this were true, but it's not.  In order to keep the deer population at reasonable levels in my state 500,000 hunters have to kill over 250,000 deer each year.  The impact of not doing so means drastically increased highway deaths due to car-deer collisions and a multimillion dollar impact to the farming you say we've mastered.  Everything is connected Richy.

If we hadn't killed so many wolves, this wouldn't be an issue.

Of course, we needed to kill them to protect our livestock, so one might say that mastering farming is what has required hunting.

Alternatives to hunting could be readily deployed for that scenario. Trapping, poison bait, contraceptives... Remember, this is the government so they're not concerned with efficiency.

Come to that, they'd probably just have professional animal controllers. I guarantee that even if you would want hunting to be your full-time job, you either wouldn't like the pay or would be competing with many others for the job.

What they're really looking for right now is for control of guns to cease being a matter for law and to start being a matter for regulation. Once they have "assault" weapons down, watch them tweak the definition of "assault weapon" until they get you. Semi-automatics, guns capable of being loaded with more than one round, ammunition > 22, high fps, barrel length, scopes, gunpowder... Watch them fall one-by-one.

Don't be fooled. It's *your* gun they want, no matter what kind it is. An attack on one is an attack on all. Everything is, indeed, connected.

I respect your opinion even though I feel it's extreme.  All either of us can say for certain is that you and I view the world very differently.

You still haven't elucidated your position on who should be allowed to have what firearms. I'm honestly curious as to where you draw the line.

No problem. We're not really at odds. Just bear in mind that I grew up in a country where gun confiscation became near-complete in my lifetime. Once the majority does not have a dog in the hunt (if you'll pardon the pun), it's already the endgame.

This thread is not about firearms - that's too limiting. It's about weapons in general. What weapons shouldn't people be allowed? Harkening back to a previous post, I would like access to area denial weapons. I would like to deny Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and door-to-door salesmen the area in front of my front door

I just read an old news story about a guy walking down the street in his pyjamas, brandishing a samurai sword and threatening people. My question is - to protect the public from having to view such embarrassing incidents, which should be banned -  the private ownership of swords or the private ownership of pyjamas?

This implies that the public needs protection from "having to view such embarrassing incidents."

I do. What would have happened if his penis had flopped out of his pyjama pants? I would forever associate penises with swords, that's what. Once seen, a doodle in public cannot be unseen.

Then do not look. You do not have the right to not be offended in public. Sorry.

How do you not look at something? In order to know there's something you don't want to see, you have to know of it's existence. Your recommendation "Then do not look" is, for me at least, not suitable.

When you see someone in their PJ's, look away before you see the doodle. I say again, you do not have the right to not be offended in public. Sorry.

Don't be sorry! I didn't think you'd be someone to apologise for opinions, don't start now ;)

So, I'm walking down the street, minding my own business. I notice someone walking toward me, topless and wearing strange flannel pants. He has some sort of hairy rubber ball stuck to the front of his pants. I look a bit closer and I realise it's actually scrotum I'm seeing. I vomit from disgust, and the vomit happens to go all over the guy. He attacks me with a sword I didn't notice earlier, in defense against the vomit (he considers vomit more of an offense than physical violence).

So, who's in the wrong - the guy with the way too open front of his pyjamas for making me vomit, or me, for not refusing to see what I saw?

Well, you're the one who looked closer, ain't ya?

You don't want to some dude's junk, don't go staring at the front of his pants. (Living in a community with restrictions on what can be worn on the street - and not visiting areas without these restrictions - might help, too.)

Not on purpose though. I vague out and stare at anything while I'm out walking and half the time it doesn't register - until  something unusual happens. On the other hand he was walking down the street in his pyjamas on purpose.


Beyond the scope of this discussion.

On the contrary, you specifically stated that you "looked a little closer." That implies increased - and therefore volitional - scrutiny. Don't do that. Just be content with the silly man with the hairy rubber ball stuck to the front of his PJs.

Indeed. Of course, so is the whole discussion of the man in his PJs in the first place. Now, to get back on topic, neither ownership of PJs or ownership of swords should be banned. However, prohibiting hitting people with swords (or threatening to) seems like a good idea to me. Though, it is my impression that this is already illegal in most places, so it does not seem as though any further action need be taken.

Perhaps you're right.

However, I maintain that while ownership of either might remain legal, use of both items at the same time should not.

Further, the penis has long been compared to a weapon. In "NAMING OF PARTS: GENDER, CULTURE, AND TERMS FOR THE PENIS AMONG AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS" (http://www.michelepolak.com/221fall10/Weekly_Schedule_files/Cameron.pdf) by Deborah Cameron (1992), it is clear that the appelations males give their tally-whackers tend toward the violent. If the penis is thought to be in some way a weapon, should it be banned? Should one need a licence to carry a concealed penis in public? Or should the licence be for carrying an unconcealed penis in public? What should be the maximum number of penises that any one person be allowed to have? Should a penis owner be gaoled for not giving a judge or the police root access to his or her penis?

The are all important points to consider.

You contend, then, that should a man find himself in need of home defense in the middle of the night, he should stop to get dressed before picking up his weapon? Or perhaps undressed?

"Open carry," as it were, of the penis strikes me as entirely a property ownership question. As in, the owner of the property onto which one is attempting to carry one's penis should be able to decide whether or not it is permitted to be carried openly, or must be concealed. Your anecdote of the man in his PJs, then, is clearly seen as a tragedy of the commons.

Absolutely. A man should dress for an occasion. Especially if it's your first experience at having your home invaded. How would you like to remember your first home invasion experience - a man feeling out control, embarrassed at not wearing appropriate attire while holding gun, or as a man in control of his destiny, wearing camo and a bandolier?

The first would scar one for life and possibly cause PTSD, although might be a good ice-breaker at parties. The downside of the former is of course that you'd have to wear camo and ammo to bed for the rest of your life on the off-chance you experience a home invasion.


That does address the concealment issue as it pertains the penis ownership, and perhaps these decisions would be best made on an ad-hoc basis as you suggest. Perhaps this arrangement could work, but there are many misconceptions about penises, and only half the population has any adequate penis ownership experience. I imagine there would be many arguments about the right to bear penises openly, form a militia, etc.

However, to bring the conversation back to the thread topic, what happens if the penis in question is a WMD or an area denial device? Would you still be so sanguine about it's acceptability to other property owners, regardless of the concealment status of the penis in question?

Certainly, the ownership of such a penis would be it's own punishment, as, again, the owner of the property onto which one is trying to carry such a penis would have the final say on whether or not you could do so, and I feel reasonably certain most property owners would object, in quite strenuous terms. Going back to my discussion of privately owned nuclear weapons, no sane property owner would allow such a penis onto their turf.

And if a penis is sufficient to be classified as a "WMD" or an area denial weapon, I do not believe the trousers have been made that could conceal that fact.

After much consideration, I feel that if the concealing trousers were constructed of a reasonably thick concrete (that is, a thickness appropriate to the penis WMD in question), most property owners would not object since the damage could be contained. How many houses have floors which can support concrete a couple of hundred meters thick remains to be seen.

"WMD" is a broad term. Bio-weapon penises would be easily concealable, even in normal trousers - in fact the concealment of said penis can itself constitute a crime. Luckily, in order for the bio-weapon penis to cause significant megadeaths, victims would have to be compliant.

Can I join?

In theory and ideally, there should be no limits.

For local government (or national government) or for practical purposes, or for purposes of having a limit, have it absurdly high that any existing weapon system is covered.

For example, it might be reasonable to legislate that anyone can have anything they are able to carry, that is not crew served with no need for registration or licensing or permitting, and for projectile based firearms, with ammunition no larger than .90 caliber (or 20 mm).

Muskets were larger than .50, and shotguns can load slugs that are .73. 200 years ago (more or less) all guns including cannons and artillery were privately owned.

Small arms are defined. But just arms is not, and that leaves interpretation open as to what is an arm.

An electronically controlled turret that is within my property should be allowed so if superman decides to invade my home I can attempt to defend myself.

As a real life example, in the Philippines, any citizen can legally own any pistol up to .45 caliber, and any rifle up to 7.62 mm. Most everyone who has a rifle stick to 5.56, and many with pistols stick to 9 mm or .38.

Members of the military and national police are usually caught with larger weapons even after they have left the service.

Ask the local rebel movement, and they'll issue you a rocket propelled grenade to help their cause.

When a crime is committed, you prosecute the perpetrator of the crime, not prohibit the car he drove, or the weapon he used.

I was just reading about what Senator Feinstein is proposing for gun regulation. She is trying to outlaw all assault riffles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. Never mind the argument about how few crimes are actually committed with such weapons, the ban is silly because it focuses on features which are more cosmetic than functional.

I do not want to give too many ideas to make them ban even more weapons, but consider the M1 Garand, which would not be banned by such a law, but this powerful and capable weapon helped the US win WWII, but the wimpy (in comparison) M1 carbine would be banned.

Also consider that all AKs will be banned by the law, but the functionally simmilar SKS would be allowed. The SKS uses the same cartridge as the AK, but does not come with a pistol grip and has a fixed magazine which can be loaded using 10 round stripper clips to keep up a steady fire almost equal to that of a semiauto AK.

What I think is the most hilarious is (if I understand correctly) the proposed law specifies the Ruger mini-14 tactical, while leaving the other model of the Ruger mini-14 legal, just because one has a pistol grip and the other does not. They are the same damn gun, but due to the arbitrary line which the law draws, one is legal and the other is not.

[/rant]

Careful, you're in dire danger of making sense.

I'm surprised this thread is still going..though admittedly I haven't kept up with all the pages. Personally, I have no problem with weapons and the ownership of such. I find firearms to be fascinating, mechanically speaking.

And as I'm sure someone has pointed out already.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw ..a possible solution to a number of problems :P

Bullet control is already happening.  Have you tried to buy ammo recently?

That's not intentional, say, through a tax or the like, it's just supply and demand at work.

The thread hit its zenith at posts 241 to 255. I think they're a must read. Otherwise it's mostly the same points and ideas rehashed as early on in the thread, with many posters thinking its a pro vs anti guns thread.

I'm implying that the gaps in supply are due to http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/)

Seems an odd way to go about reducing the supply...

Just went back and read them. I had a good chuckle while recognizing the analogies :) ..good stuff.

Pop Quiz:

Is it morally correct for a police officer to shoot in order to save an innocent victim from an attack?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If no police officer is present is it morally correct for the innocent victim to shoot to protect self or dependents from an attack?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

The proper response to a drive-by shooting is...
[ ] prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying the type of the car used by the perpetrator.
[ ] prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying the type of the gun used by the perpetrator.
[ ] prosecute the perpetrator of the crime

The proper response to an arson is...
[ ] prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying gasoline.
[ ] prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying any flammable fluids, matches and lighters.
[ ] prosecute the perpetrator of the crime

The proper response to electronic fraud...
[ ] prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying computers.
[ ] limit you and other law-abiding citizens to computers that have no more than two of the following features: 1GHz or faster processor, 1 mbps  or faster internet connection, 8GB or more RAM, 1TB or larger hard drive.
[ ] prohibit use of decentralized virtual currencies or heavily regulate them
[ ] prosecute the perpetrator of the crime

If I am confronted with a life-threatening situation, police will ______ be there in time to prevent any damage.
[ ] always
[ ] possibly
[ ] unlikely

If my child or my spouse were assaulted, I would...
[ ] run away and hope my kid or spouse can keep up with me
[ ] be a good witness so I can tell the cops what happened later
[ ] try to convince the attacker to stop through verbal persuasion
[ ] fight to stop the attack

If I choose to resist, my primary concern would be...
[ ] health of my attacker
[ ] my own safety

Given a choice, I would prefer to defend myself with...
[ ] my bare hands
[ ] an ineffective weapon, such as pepper spray
[ ] an effective weapon, such as a firearm

If defending myself with a firearm, I would want the magazine to hold...
[ ] one round
[ ] six rounds
[ ] ten rounds
[ ] 30 rounds

Police officers carry high-capacity handguns and store shotguns or submachine guns in patrol cars because...
[ ] the cops are evil and want to kill innocents.
[ ] police deparments cannot afford tanks.
[ ] such firearms are effective means of self-defense.

If all guns were outlawed, I think that all criminals would...
[ ] turn in their weapons to police and become model citizens.
[ ] turn in their guns and beg for small change
[ ] keep their guns and prey on disarmed law-abiding people.

A rapist choosing between two victims (one armed, one unarmed), would prefer to...
[ ] attack the armed one, so he could "take her gun and use it against her".
[ ] attack the unarmed one because that would be less hazardous.
[ ] not to mess with either, as he can't tell which one is armed.

First Amendment to the US Constitution:
[ ] Authorizes free speech for official State news agencies.
[ ] Protects the individual's right to own quill pens and 18th century manual printing presses.
[ ] Recognizes inalienable individual right to free speech.

Second Amendment to the US Constitution:
[ ] Authorizes posession of arms by the Army and National Guard.
[ ] Protects the individual's right to own flint lock muskets and other 18th century arms.
[ ] Recognizes inalienable individual right to keeping and bearing arms.

If your elected officials do not trust you with firearms, unrestricted access to books and the Internet, or with other personal choices, do you think they represent you well? What steps can you take to regain your rights?
[Answer in Essay Format]

Police want to have the most effective weapons possible. Budgetary constraints sometimes get in the way.

That's OK, the fedgov will buy them for them.

http://benjaminfcarlson.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/120511-news-militarized-police-2-ss-662w.jpg

@Dabs, lol.  Yet, those are the choices.

Having congress decide on our gun laws is like putting the blind in charge of designing the traffic lights. Why would we not listen to people who know what they are talking about? Is it because they are going to tell anti-gun folks something they don't want to hear?

Criminals in charge of their own utopia.

No, that's what it is, not what it is like. ;)

Holy shit! What the hell is going on in Tampa to make it so bad?

Absolutely nothing.

The DHS is giving out tanks to pretty much every police force in the country. Keene, NH recently (and with a good bit of controversy) got a BEARCAT.

Keene is billed as the most libertarian city of the Free State Project. Surprised they didn't get a Death Star aimed at them.

They are just getting ready for when they implement their next set of policy changes and the masses finally get upset.

Yeah, well, it backfired. Even the locals are pissed. If anything, this firmly puts the FSP in the "good guy" camp, in a lot of minds.

Damn.  That is one well-armed gang.

I love how they think painting "rescue" on the side of a tank somehow makes it not a tank.

Of course, these are also people who think printing "legal tender" on a piece of rag paper makes it money, so....

Oh, wait, I remember! Tampa is the city that hosted the Republican National Convention last year. Those fucks are cray cray!!!

Bloomberg was asked by some reporter "In the spirit of gun control, are you willing to disarm all your bodyguards?"

Of course not. The elites think they're better than the rest of us.

And the honest answer would be "No, because then I couldn't slanderously claim law-abiding gun owners are planning to assassinate me, when days, weeks, months, years, decades go by, and I never suffer any violence. Because criminals only kill pro-civil rights advocates, not people who advocate infringing civil rights into the grave, like me."

This thread never fails to make me smile.

I just misread:

"Bloomberg was asked by some reporter "In the spirit of gun control, are you willing to disarm all your bodyparts?"