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

[organofcorti]

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.

[1714761808]

1714761808

[1714761808]

1714761808

[1714761808]

1714761808

[1714761808]

1714761808

[myrkul]

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.

[organofcorti]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[organofcorti]

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?

[myrkul]

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.)

[organofcorti]

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.

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.

(Living in a community with restrictions on what can be worn on the street - and not visiting areas without these restrictions - might help, too.)

Beyond the scope of this discussion.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

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.

(Living in a community with restrictions on what can be worn on the street - and not visiting areas without these restrictions - might help, too.)

[Beyond] the scope of this discussion.

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.

[organofcorti]

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" 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.

[myrkul]

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.

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?

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" 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.

"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.

[organofcorti]

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.

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

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.

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" by Deborah Cameron (1992), it is clear that the appellations 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.

"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.

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?

[myrkul]

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.

[organofcorti]

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.

[Dabs]

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.

[Peter Lambert]

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]

[myrkul]

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

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

[Korbman]

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

[wdmw]

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

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

[myrkul]

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

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.

[organofcorti]

I'm surprised this thread is still going..though admittedly I haven't kept up with all the pages.

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.