Assault weapon bans

[NewLiberty]

You seem to be confusing a number of things. In order to help you gain clarity, you should consider the nature and stability of the government in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.

Can you be specific?  What nature, what government?  What do you imagine that I am not considering in the way you deem proper?

[FirstAscent]

You seem to be confusing a number of things. In order to help you gain clarity, you should consider the nature and stability of the government in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.

Can you be specific?  What nature, what government?  What do you imagine that I am not considering in the way you deem proper?

You should consider the nature and stability of the government of the nation in question in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.

[NewLiberty]

You seem to be confusing a number of things. In order to help you gain clarity, you should consider the nature and stability of the government in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.

Can you be specific?  What nature, what government?  What do you imagine that I am not considering in the way you deem proper?

You should consider the nature and stability of the government of the nation in question in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.

You might as well take your own advice on that.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I am not the one generalizing.  I am ASKING whether your principles can be generalized or whether your advocacy is only to disarm Americans?  (as someone else put it because we are "most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths").

You have adequately answered this, it seems.  Your position is not a general principle as it is predicated on the nature and stability of the government in question.

[FirstAscent]

You have adequately answered this, it seems.  Your position is not a general principle as it is predicated on the nature and stability of the government in question.

Absolutely. Furthermore, I advocated gun rights earlier in this thread, with reasonable limits. Feel free to go back and read them, so that you will stop stating what you think is my position.

[PrintMule]

soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.

I hear you. My point is that being the US a place where there are so many individuals self-conscious of their rights and armed with guns precisely to protect themselves from the abuse of Government thugs, you would expect a reaction if the government just milks his citizens, outright stealing from them to commit mass murder. That's a pretty big attack to your freedom, isn't it?

Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders.

Look at Obama now, he is saying "Syria is not similar at all to Iraq, we will just bomb them to protect civilians"... Its clear that the best way to avoid civilians to be murdered with Syrian chemical weapons is to murder some civilians with American drones and tomahawks. I know many of you agree this is ludicrous, and that most of you are informed and know that those weapons came from Saudi Arabia and thus this was probably a "rebel" action... But still, you say guns protect you from your Government, but I see no reaction to this awful situation. What would you say about that?

Do you recommend that Syria do a better job of gun control?  Making sure that no one there (except the government, military, police) has anything that could be considered a weapon?

I personally would love that. People would be still oppressed, but there would be no shitstorm of current proportions today.
BUT, I'm guessing those rebels did not get their weapons from shops Ak47's, RPGs, FN-Fals, Steyers, and explosives.
Now imagine you are living there, and loyalists or rebels break down your door, to entrench in your apartment.

If you have a gun in your hand, you're pretty much dead.

[NewLiberty]

You have adequately answered this, it seems.  Your position is not a general principle as it is predicated on the nature and stability of the government in question.

Absolutely. Furthermore, I advocated gun rights earlier in this thread, with reasonable limits. Feel free to go back and read them, so that you will stop stating what you think is my position.

Please try to avoid confusing questions with statements.
I do not know your position, but I am hoping to learn your position, and what those limits are so that we can then discover how reasonable they are.

Since we have discovered that your position does distinguish between the governments...
What gun rights ought the Syrians citizenry have, and how are these different from what rights Americans ought have, and why?

[NewLiberty]

I personally would love that. People would be still oppressed, but there would be no shitstorm of current proportions today.
BUT, I'm guessing those rebels did not get their weapons from shops Ak47's, RPGs, FN-Fals, Steyers, and explosives.
Now imagine you are living there, and loyalists or rebels break down your door, to entrench in your apartment.

If you have a gun in your hand, you're pretty much dead.

Is there a limit to the oppression that you see as acceptable for others, or ought there be some arbitrary limit, such as "genocide" or one of the other lines like "WMD"?

[PrintMule]

I personally would love that. People would be still oppressed, but there would be no shitstorm of current proportions today.
BUT, I'm guessing those rebels did not get their weapons from shops Ak47's, RPGs, FN-Fals, Steyers, and explosives.
Now imagine you are living there, and loyalists or rebels break down your door, to entrench in your apartment.

If you have a gun in your hand, you're pretty much dead.

Is there a limit to the oppression that you see as acceptable for others, or ought there be some arbitrary limit, such as "genocide" or one of the other lines like "WMD"?

Any country can change it's course in nonviolent way. Gandhi way maybe?
If you gather for a demonstration, and stones and molotovs start flying - someone's bound to be hurt shot. But that's the way of these protesters, especially towelheads.
That's a provocation, caused by protester leaders, who in turn are paid to ignite this passion, and instigate hate.
Among rebels are soldiers of fortune, coming from other countries. They are very well armed.
Armed citizens would never oppose those rebels, maybe only join, adding instability.
Also every war like this, is not just about citizens vs government. It's about other countries secret services, about political infighting, and mostly about tribal feuds. Sunnis vs kurds, poor vs rich, etc.

Imagine Obama has turned into an evil oppressor, with senate and other on his side. Big brother.
Even if anyone had guns up to that point, how much would rebel and use them? 1% 5%?
What would be the point?
Your guns will not protect your freedom.
Only if (following their own interests) Mexican druglords, Cuban army, local republican rednecks, Somali pirates and other rubbish with Europe's intelligence help, and weapons supllied from Russia and McCain as their leader suddenly emerge.

[mdude77]

Imagine Obama has turned into an evil oppressor, with senate and other on his side. Big brother.
Even if anyone had guns up to that point, how much would rebel and use them? 1% 5%?
What would be the point?
Your guns will not protect your freedom.
Only if (following their own interests) Mexican druglords, Cuban army, local republican rednecks, Somali pirates and other rubbish with Europe's intelligence help, and weapons supllied from Russia and McCain as their leader suddenly emerge.

Imagine a world superpower invading a 3rd world country and after many years of endless warfare, losing?  Think Afghanistan?

Those defending themselves against an evil oppressor, whether from the same country or not, have a decided edge against the oppressor.

What if the Jews had guns in the holocaust?  Do you think they would have been hauled off by the millions to be slaughtered?

Granted it would be an awful battle.  The casualties would be horrible.  But compared to the alternative, I can see how so called "insurgents" can run up to a tank and stick a grenade in the barrel.

M

[mdude77]

This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions.

I'm not so sure about your first point.  If I was a woman (or man for that matter) being sexually assaulted, and I had a gun available, if I had to reason to believe my life was in danger, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger.  Doesn't mean it'd have to be a deadly shot, just enough to stop him.  However, if he turned out to be like a bear where bullets only aggravate him, there would be little choice in the matter.  I do recall the advice that used to be given to women to "let him do what he wants, you'll live in the end" turned out to be bad advice.  If you're threatened by knife or gun to be raped, I would assume your life is in danger.  Rapists tend to not like their victims being able to identify them.

M

[TheButterZone]

What if the Jews had guns in the holocaust?  Do you think they would have been hauled off by the millions to be slaughtered?

Granted it would be an awful battle.  The casualties would be horrible.  But compared to the alternative, I can see how so called "insurgents" can run up to a tank and stick a grenade in the barrel.

M

This has been answered multiple times by people who seem to want to imagine no alternate universe where Jews were not incrementally disarmed by gun control to be exterminated.

1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition
1935 the Nuremberg Laws
1938 The Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz)

These effectively neo-Nazis seem to believe that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising's conclusion was destiny and the Jews should have just submitted to gun control and genocide instead of fighting for their lives. I can't believe sociopaths like these do not have positions in the highest levels of government.

[mdude77]

You have adequately answered this, it seems.  Your position is not a general principle as it is predicated on the nature and stability of the government in question.

Absolutely. Furthermore, I advocated gun rights earlier in this thread, with reasonable limits. Feel free to go back and read them, so that you will stop stating what you think is my position.

Please try to avoid confusing questions with statements.
I do not know your position, but I am hoping to learn your position, and what those limits are so that we can then discover how reasonable they are.

Since we have discovered that your position does distinguish between the governments...
What gun rights ought the Syrians citizenry have, and how are these different from what rights Americans ought have, and why?

All free men ought to be able to own a gun.  If they can not, they are not free.  Anyone who opposes a government is labeled in one way another, all the way up to treason.  That's the nature of governments.  One can not always clearly say objectively who is the right party in such situations.

M

[mdude77]

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

The same way all people who shouldn't have guns get their hands on guns. The huge demand for guns in the U.S. by gun lovers has made sure there's lots of guns to go around.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this?  Cars are stolen regularly and used for crime.  Should we ban cars too?

Your solution is to punish the innocent for the crimes and carelessness of others.

If I could eliminate every single gun of any sort, and all knowledge of them, from every single person, government, LEO, whatever, the only thing that would change is spears and swords would become commonplace again.

M

[Spendulus]

.....
EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist .

This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions.

I don't read your statements as being in line with any of the several state statutes which I am familiar with.

First, you assert "we can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die.  No exceptions."

But that's not the way the law is worded because it does not create actionable guidance.

Rephrase it as "threat of serious bodily injury" and maybe add "imminent" and yo have more realistic wording.  But then your prior assertion is falsified.

Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone.

And this statement is simply false.  But if you are referring to killing someone after the act is completed, then yeah, that shouldn't be done and would be murder.

[FirstAscent]

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

The same way all people who shouldn't have guns get their hands on guns. The huge demand for guns in the U.S. by gun lovers has made sure there's lots of guns to go around.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this?  Cars are stolen regularly and used for crime.  Should we ban cars too?

Your solution is to punish the innocent for the crimes and carelessness of others.

I suggest you refrain from replying to my statements until you have read all of my posts, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind without understanding my position.

[mdude77]

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

The same way all people who shouldn't have guns get their hands on guns. The huge demand for guns in the U.S. by gun lovers has made sure there's lots of guns to go around.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this?  Cars are stolen regularly and used for crime.  Should we ban cars too?

Your solution is to punish the innocent for the crimes and carelessness of others.

I suggest you refrain from replying to my statements until you have read all of my posts, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind without understanding my position.

I suggest you stop spewing garbage.  I've read all your posts.

M

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

[Spendulus]

.....

I suggest you refrain from replying to my statements until you have read all of my posts, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind without understanding my position.

All guns should be banned because sometimes they are used for bad things by bad people.

All nitroglycerin products should be banned because some of their derivative products are used in bombs by bad people.

All opium products should be banned because some of their derivative products are used for bad things by bad people.

The only exception would be all government agencies at all levels who could use opium, nitroglycerin derivatives, and guns as they choose.

That's your position.  See anything a bit wrong with it?

[Rassah]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

[Rassah]

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.

I hear you. My point is that being the US a place where there are so many individuals self-conscious of their rights and armed with guns precisely to protect themselves from the abuse of Government thugs, you would expect a reaction if the government just milks his citizens, outright stealing from them to commit mass murder. That's a pretty big attack to your freedom, isn't it?

Not exactly. If the tax rate was 75%, high enough to pay for these wars directly, you can be sure that people would be royally pissed. But they are stealing a pretty small percent of people's income, something like 15% to 22% in a directly visible way, and less than that for many more people. Instead they are just borrowing the money from war from China and from people they are promising to pay back much later. Oftentimes without people even realizing they are being borrowed from. No so one sees the theft, or cares about it. Part of the reason Bitcoin may improve things: governments will have to actually work for your money, and you will actually have to see and care what the money taken from you is paying for.

And no, I don't think guns protect me from government. They do protect me from criminals. Money protects me from government.

[Rassah]

There was a case some years ago, Cory Maye, where he shot through a door at what he presumed was an armed intruder.  It turned out to be a police officer that was doing a SWAT team style raid on the wrong house - a "no knock raid".  He was convicted of capital murder, spent ten years or so in the state pen and was released on appeal to the state supreme court.

Moral of that story:  DO NOT EVER THINK about shooting at something behind a door

His might actually have been a prudent decision. For shooting through the door, he got ten years in prison. What do you think he would have gotten had he waited for the SWAT team to break down his door and see him with a gun pointed at them?