Assault weapon bans

[hawkeye]

Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.

Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition.    It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.

[Spendulus]

Imo science is used to support significant amounts of tyranny in our society.  Which quite saddens me being a huge science enthusiast.

People should not be compelled to do or not be able to do things based on whether it is a scientifically good idea or not.  eg.  just because smoking is considered bad does not mean it should be banned.  Same for healthy food, you should be allowed to eat what is scientifically proven to be bad for you if that's what you wish.  etc.

Science says guns are dangerous obviously, just as many implements are dangerous.    That doesn't give anybody the right to start deciding who gets to own them and who doesn't.  The minute you shoot someone with one is when it becomes an issue, just as you get questioned the minute you decide to impale someone with your kitchen knife but not before just because you own one.

Of course the argument could be made (leave it for me, the guy in favor of "pro choice" vis a vis guns), to make the argument for the fascist...

• GUNS ARE LIKE FLOURIDE IN THE WATER!  GUNS ARE LIKE MEASLES AND SMALL POX VACCINATIONS!
• THE WISE ELDERS OF SOCIETY MUST TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO!

You see, even for those who are pro choice of guns, many of us recognize certain social imperatives across the whole of society.

[Rassah]

Well, personally, I think shooting criminals and taking away their guns is the only way to keep guns out of criminals' hands, since, you know, they're criminals who won't care about licensing or laws... But if you think laws and licensing works...

Please be sincere and answer the questions. Shall I accept this as what you think should be done? Also, please note that I asked three questions.

Yes, I kinda did.

Why don't you offer up any solution or suggestion to get guns out of criminals' hands?

The only way to do that is to shoot them, or take them while threatening them with your own gun. Criminals don't follow laws. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. And thus, they will still be able to get guns and other weapons illegally. The person who is using their own gun to take away the criminals' guns can be either police, or private security, or just a private citizen. Really no different than the way it is now.


Or do you just not care?

Not care about what? That criminals have guns? That depends. If I have more guns and security than they do, then no, I don't care. If they have guns, are near my area, and I don't have a gun because I'm not allowed to use one, and the prolice rarely respond on time, then I would care. Luckily, for me personally, I live near, but not IN, a high crime area, and the police station is a few blocks over. But just because I am lucky doesn't mean I would deny others who might need guns for protection from getting them. Criminals have them, despite the laws banning them.

Do you just want the gun population to rise and rise, and with that, we'll see gun deaths rise and rise as well?

Yes. Gun deaths will rise and rise until most criminals and idiots are shot and killed off. Then, when everyone knows that being a criminal or a negligent idiot might get you shot, gun deaths will decrease.

I want the same for a lot of things. For example, we have more and more people depending on pensions and social security, because they don't care to save up for retirement while they are working. And the situation is getting worse and worse, as more and more people see that they don't have to save for retirement, while the amount we have to pay out continues to grow. If we were to cut, or drastically reduce retirement payments, sure, there will be a lot of people who will be very poor and destitute for a while, but as more and more people realize that they need to save, lest they end up like those broke old people, the number of people who are poor and dependent on government pensions will go down. It's called personal responsibility. We teach people that it's not needed when we have government step in and take care of things for us (be they financial or personal security). As a result, more and more people become dependent, and by extension ignorant/stupid. You can't fix that problem other than by removing the nanny state and forcing people to start learning how to take care of themselves.

[rizzman]

What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?

I am a die hard supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe it is every persons God given right to acquire the means to defend themselves, as well as their duty to contribute to the overall safety of our society as a whole.

You don't have to look too far back to see that the right to bear arms was, is, and always will be the bedrock by which free countries are built upon. It is so disgusting to hear people harp and complain about how people don't need guns, and often assert "that's what they have the police for". Or, "the only people who should have Assault weapons should be the military and police".

I would point out that during the revolutionary war, the only ones that had the equivalent "Assault Weapons" at the time were the British Red Coats... And we all know how much protection they afforded the colonists. As such, be sure to thank a Frenchmen if you live in the USA. Our countries fate literally depended on them and their willingness to sell us "Assault Weapons" and Ships.

And without bantering about the dangers of having a state where only the Police and military are armed, I would point out that the police are primarily a reactionary force. One which exists to put down those who cannot conform to society when they intrude on the rights of others - Which is a good thing and beats the hell out of an Anarchistic society in which you can't walk out of your front door without the threat of being killed, robbed, or raped. It is this reactionary limitation of police which makes it necessary that everyone should be armed.

An armed society is a safe society, one which not only has the means to stop incidents like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, or Aurora but also one in which its very existence serves as a deterrent to those who would commit such acts. Think about it... would Adam Lanza have targeted Sandy Hook if he knew that he would be outgunned 3 to 1 in the minutes before his rampage? I would bet blood he wouldn't.

...So yes, I am definitely for the right to bear arms more so, I am for the right to own the biggest guns legally possible, not because I need them but because I can and as such I will continue to to fight harder, spend more, and be louder than those who would give their rights away at the drop of a hat. And I hope others continue to do the same.

Aside from my opinion, and my support for the Second Amendment, I am also an Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer that supports the Bitcoin Community as well.

If you ever find yourself looking for arms, you can purchase from me using Bitcoin. All sales must conform to ATF regulations for transfer and shall follow the same guidelines as Fiat Purchases. No Exceptions.

Check out our auctions on GunBroker.com, or contact me directly if interested.

Thanks for reading.

[tacoman71]

Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.

Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition.    It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.

Challenge accepted. Technically the word "country" just means a geographical area, just as Scotland, England, and Whales are still "countries" under the rule of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland. Government is the organization or a group of organizations that essentially make the rules and enforce them.

[Spendulus]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/04/Violent-Crime-Drops-As-Gun-Sales-Rise-In-Virginia

...."an interesting trend given the current rhetoric about strengthening our gun laws and the presumed effect it would have on violent crime." And although he stressed that this increase in gun ownership and the corresponding decrease in violent crime do not necessarily prove people ought to reject future gun control laws, he said that the drop in violent crime "really makes you question if making it harder for law-abiding people to buy guns would have any effect on crime."

[Mike Christ]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/04/Violent-Crime-Drops-As-Gun-Sales-Rise-In-Virginia

...."an interesting trend given the current rhetoric about strengthening our gun laws and the presumed effect it would have on violent crime." And although he stressed that this increase in gun ownership and the corresponding decrease in violent crime do not necessarily prove people ought to reject future gun control laws, he said that the drop in violent crime "really makes you question if making it harder for law-abiding people to buy guns would have any effect on crime."

A comment I liked:

Accidental drowning deaths of 0-15yr olds was 726 in 2010 according to the CDC, compare to 52 due to accidental discharge of a fire arm. Traffic accidents account for 1418 deaths, and there were 274 suicides.

Moral of the story your children are more likely to drown in the bath tub or a swimming pool then an accidental discharge.

[hawkeye]

Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.

Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition.    It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.

Challenge accepted. Technically the word "country" just means a geographical area, just as Scotland, England, and Whales are still "countries" under the rule of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland. Government is the organization or a group of organizations that essentially make the rules and enforce them.

Makes the rules and enforces them where?  Everywhere? 

As for countries, if they are just geographical areas then why do they change so much?  eg. if you look at a map 100 years ago, it is very different to today.   And especially in Europe where it changes pretty much regularly.  How so if it is simply a geographical area?

[tacoman71]

Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.

Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition.    It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.

Challenge accepted. Technically the word "country" just means a geographical area, just as Scotland, England, and Whales are still "countries" under the rule of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland. Government is the organization or a group of organizations that essentially make the rules and enforce them.

Makes the rules and enforces them where?  Everywhere? 

As for countries, if they are just geographical areas then why do they change so much?  eg. if you look at a map 100 years ago, it is very different to today.   And especially in Europe where it changes pretty much regularly.  How so if it is simply a geographical area?

That was the original definition anyways. Nowadays the word country means a geographic region and the polity that controls that region.

[Rassah]

Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.

Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition.    It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.

Challenge accepted. Technically the word "country" just means a geographical area, just as Scotland, England, and Whales are still "countries" under the rule of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland. Government is the organization or a group of organizations that essentially make the rules and enforce them.

Makes the rules and enforces them where?  Everywhere? 

As for countries, if they are just geographical areas then why do they change so much?  eg. if you look at a map 100 years ago, it is very different to today.   And especially in Europe where it changes pretty much regularly.  How so if it is simply a geographical area?

That was the original definition anyways. Nowadays the word country means a geographic region and the polity that controls that region.

Did you say "polity" as a clever way to avoid saying "government" in your definition of "country?"

[tacoman71]

Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.

Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition.    It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.

Challenge accepted. Technically the word "country" just means a geographical area, just as Scotland, England, and Whales are still "countries" under the rule of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland. Government is the organization or a group of organizations that essentially make the rules and enforce them.

Makes the rules and enforces them where?  Everywhere? 

As for countries, if they are just geographical areas then why do they change so much?  eg. if you look at a map 100 years ago, it is very different to today.   And especially in Europe where it changes pretty much regularly.  How so if it is simply a geographical area?

That was the original definition anyways. Nowadays the word country means a geographic region and the polity that controls that region.

Did you say "polity" as a clever way to avoid saying "government" in your definition of "country?"

Well I did follow the challenge to the letter didn't I?

[pisces1999]

The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault

[PrintMule]

Ladies and gentleman i present to you,  the most dangerous and sophisticated piece of machinery that endangers our kids, our wives, businesses, community's and our way of life!
"They call it":     The Filco NKR, Tactile Action Mechanical Keyboard

Wow, what a strange placement of decals on this one.

[RodeoX]

The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault

What gun would that be? I can assault someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun if I keep hitting them hard enough. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of assault. Only people commit assaults, and they should be charged for it. 

[J603]

The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault

What gun would that be? I can assault someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun if I keep hitting them hard enough. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of assault. Only people commit assaults, and they should be charged for it. 

No, you cannot kill someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun, no matter how hard you pull that trigger. There is a difference between an AK-47 or other assault rifle and a squirt gun.

[RodeoX]

The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault

What gun would that be? I can assault someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun if I keep hitting them hard enough. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of assault. Only people commit assaults, and they should be charged for it. 

No, you cannot kill someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun, no matter how hard you pull that trigger. There is a difference between an AK-47 or other assault rifle and a squirt gun.

I think I could kill someone with a squirt gun, although it would be easier with my AK. My point is that the weapon is irrelevant. It takes a person with malicious intent to assault another. They might use a gun or a Bible or a railroad spike or a large dried fish. Whatever they use, they are the assailant and not the weapon. They should face justice without offering them the excuse of "an evil gun made me do it".

[Peter Lambert]

When I first looked at this, I was like "That's a great point, we should change the laws so that boy can have his chocolate egg" but after thinking about it for a bit, now I think they were trying to go the other way ...

[J603]

The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault

What gun would that be? I can assault someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun if I keep hitting them hard enough. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of assault. Only people commit assaults, and they should be charged for it. 

No, you cannot kill someone with a Dora the explorer squirt gun, no matter how hard you pull that trigger. There is a difference between an AK-47 or other assault rifle and a squirt gun.

I think I could kill someone with a squirt gun, although it would be easier with my AK. My point is that the weapon is irrelevant. It takes a person with malicious intent to assault another. They might use a gun or a Bible or a railroad spike or a large dried fish. Whatever they use, they are the assailant and not the weapon. They should face justice without offering them the excuse of "an evil gun made me do it".

What? Who gets the excuse that "the gun did it"? Whether you murder someone with a fish or a gun you get the same murder charge.

Yes, it's technically possible to kill someone with anything. However good luck killing someone with a squirt gun. It is much easier to kill someone with an AK than with a water pistol.

Murderers don't need easy access to assault weapons.

Mind you, I'm not against guns in general, just ones like AK47s or other automatics which clearly have no merit as a weapon for "self defense". A small pistol or knife is fine. An assault rifle is not.

[RodeoX]

What? Who gets the excuse that "the gun did it"? Whether you murder someone with a fish or a gun you get the same murder charge.

Yes, it's technically possible to kill someone with anything. However good luck killing someone with a squirt gun. It is much easier to kill someone with an AK than with a water pistol.

Murderers don't need easy access to assault weapons.

Mind you, I'm not against guns in general, just ones like AK47s or other automatics which clearly have no merit as a weapon for "self defense". A small pistol or knife is fine. An assault rifle is not.

I am playing devils advocate here. Of course your right that a firearm is more dangerous than a toy. But I can decide for myself what is a good self defense weapon. Most of the worlds soldiers choose an AK for defense. I am licensed to carry knives also, but I rarely do. Even with seven years of studying martial arts and specializing in blades I do not feel confident that I would survive a knife fight. 
In America an automatic weapon is almost impossible to get unless you can pass very stringent background checks including unannounced home inspections. I carry a pistol but it took four months, hundreds of dollars in classes and licenses, two background checks (full checks with prints and all), and a waiting period and another check for buying the gun.  It is simply untrue that these weapons are easy to get.

[J603]

What? Who gets the excuse that "the gun did it"? Whether you murder someone with a fish or a gun you get the same murder charge.

Yes, it's technically possible to kill someone with anything. However good luck killing someone with a squirt gun. It is much easier to kill someone with an AK than with a water pistol.

Murderers don't need easy access to assault weapons.

Mind you, I'm not against guns in general, just ones like AK47s or other automatics which clearly have no merit as a weapon for "self defense". A small pistol or knife is fine. An assault rifle is not.

I am playing devils advocate here. Of course your right that a firearm is more dangerous than a toy. But I can decide for myself what is a good self defense weapon. Most of the worlds soldiers choose an AK for defense. I am licensed to carry knives also, but I rarely do. Even with seven years of studying martial arts and specializing in blades I do not feel confident that I would survive a knife fight. 
In America an automatic weapon is almost impossible to get unless you can pass very stringent background checks including unannounced home inspections. I carry a pistol but it took four months, hundreds of dollars in classes and licenses, two background checks (full checks with prints and all), and a waiting period and another check for buying the gun.  It is simply untrue that these weapons are easy to get.

I'm not sure where you live but in NH I can go to the firing range and buy a semi-automatic AK-47 at age 18 if I get a background check which takes like a week (you can even rent out full auto firearms provided you take a safety class).

I could purchase the tools necessary to modify this semi-auto AK and turn it automatic. The modification process is illegal but the acquisition of the parts and rifle itself (before being modified) is legal.

If you want to go the completely legal route, I believe the laws for automatic weapons are the same no matter where you go in the US. In 90 days max you could have a fully automatic weapon legally if you get your license from BATFE.

So it takes 3 months to get your license. 3 months and you can have a military grade automatic weapon. I'd say that's pretty easy.