Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available?

[bobbit]

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.

[organofcorti]

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.

[bobbit]

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)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

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:

”The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

”No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

”And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....”

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?"

[Richy_T]

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

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

[phelix]

Looks like a correlation to me.

[Lethn]

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.

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

[Richy_T]

Looks like a correlation to me.

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.

[bobbit]

Looks like a correlation to me.

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...

[myrkul]

Looks like a correlation to me.

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.

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.

[phelix]

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

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.

[...]

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...

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.

[myrkul]

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?

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?

[TheButterZone]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[phelix]

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?

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?

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 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

How is this relevant?

[myrkul]

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?

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?

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...>

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, and 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.

[TheButterZone]

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?

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?

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 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

How is this relevant?

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.

[Richy_T]

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

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?).

[RodeoX]

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.

[tcp_rst]

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.

[RodeoX]

... The short answer is hunting weapons of sufficient caliber to humanely kill the game being hunted.  That's it, with few exceptions.  ...

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?

[myrkul]

... The short answer is hunting weapons of sufficient caliber to humanely kill the game being hunted.  That's it, with few exceptions.  ...

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?