Actual act of rebellion in America

[Naughx]

do you agree that background checks, psych exams, etc. should be required prior to owning a firearm? do you agree that bombs should be purchasable by the public? what differentiates bombs from assault rifles? shotguns? pistols? this is an open question to anyone willing to respond.

Should everybody have the right to carry hazardous materials? (For example: Viral specimens that are of a biosafety level 4)

[eclipse]

do you agree that background checks, psych exams, etc. should be required prior to owning a firearm? do you agree that bombs should be purchasable by the public? what differentiates bombs from assault rifles? shotguns? pistols? this is an open question to anyone willing to respond.

Er. . .what?

Like, what the hell does this have to do with the original topic?

[Esau of Isaac]

I didn't say they were given super secret training, but they're more guaranteed to be trained.

Once again, it depends. What's your experience with firearms and the military and law enforcement? What standards are you referring to that private owners apparently tend to lack?

Some, not all. Why state-by-state when some states are much more lax about this than others? Why not provide some sort of national standard instead of letting the states handle it? What makes this so special that it should be a state issue?

Because national initiatives tend to be bloated and ineffective, and ill-suited to the populace in question. There are national standards already, but the specifics inevitably vary given that the United States is a very large country made up of numerous, uh, states. Federal standards are meant to set as a baseline, with state standards being more, but never less, stringent.

Then what else are guns used for? Hurting people, too. Do you scratch your ass with your gun? Bake a cake? Cut your meat? If you're gonna say my perception is infantile - then I'm going to say it's not and say yours is infantile.

It is an infantile perception because firearms do not have to be used to be an effective deterrent to crime or tyranny.

It's not going to get to that point, and I won't be alone. But it's still more humane to defend those rights than the right to bear arms.

You failed to answer my question. If your government tomorrow decided to repeal the intrinsic freedoms you earlier said you hold dear enough to fight for, and you finally decided to do something about it, how would you possibly plan on fighting back?

Segregation was a basic American principle in accordance to people before the 1960s. So was slavery in the 1860s and prior. I'm not saying it's equitable so much as saying that culture can change in the US even when it's ingrained. I mean, in the 1800s I'm sure people didn't think that the south could function without slaves, and here we are. Perception towards desegregation wasn't particularly high either. Don't pull that sharia shit on me, at any rate.

Segregation was not an intrinsic American principle, it was a practice. Perception towards desegregation wasn't high in some areas, but to assume that all Americans behaved in such a way is silly. The fact is that Americans have become quite opposed to gun legislation in many regards following the failures of the assault weapon bans in the 90s.

So you would be against getting guns away from our neighboring countries too? I mean you did bring this up as an issue; I brought up a solution and you responded by making fun of me.

Because it is a braindead idea. It's not logistically possible to deal with the gun presence in America and you're trying to tell me America should then move south and reform the nightmare that is Mexican drug and gun cartels too? What are you even talking about? How?

Define "more violent."

"Most violent": The superlative form of the adjective violent.

Or you could learn better martial arts. I know there is a form of martial arts that is able to protect you in street fights against exactly this kind of shit. Knife users are much easier to defend against with your bare hands than a gun.

There are no effective defensive techniques against anyone with a knife or a gun, when you lack a weapon. If you respond to a knife attack in any way other than running when you're bare-handed then you deserve the injuries that are coming your way.

It's not a right. Stop saying it is. The entire point is to prove whether or not it's a right, you have not done so. If it were an inalienable right objectively then this argument would be over.

It is a right. It's recognized as an inalienable right in my country. Just because you don't recognize it as one does not change that.

You do not condone murders yet you see them as a necessary evil to your right to carry guns.

In the same sense you don't condone heart disease but are fine with people being allowed to buy Whoppers.

Yes, and interestingly enough there's actually a much more significant push away from smoking in the US by the government and many other organizations than away from guns. On top of that, I'm surprised you didn't bring up alcohol or any of that either. The difference is that their purpose isn't to kill, and you can't just light up a cigarette and kill someone.

You are shifting the goalposts now. You acknowledge that it can kill others nearby, and indeed that thousands die from its use every year while serving absolutely no benefit to society, yet defend it still. Why is this?

Well, aside from making it a lot harder to kill other people.

And defend other people too.

Quote relevant parts.

I'm not going to quote the whole article. Pretty sure that's not cool. But I'll be super duper cool and post the opening I suppose.

"Some surveys show ownership rates declining, but whether that's simply because Americans have become less likely to tell strangers they own guns is "an open question," said Arthur Kellermann, a policy analyst at the think tank RAND Corporation.

Referring to the General Social Survey's finding last year that 34% of households have guns, down from percentages in the mid-40s in the early 1990s, Dr. Kellermann, an emergency physician, said, "Is it really 34%, or are there 10% of people out there who told the survey researcher 'no' but they have an assault rifle in the closet? That's a question I can't give you the answer to."

The director of the GSS, which is run out of NORC, an affiliate research institution at the University of Chicago, said he is confident most Americans answer the survey honestly. Tom W. Smith cites the structure of the survey, conducted in person over about an hour and a half. "It's asked well into a survey," he said. "They've already told us all kinds of things about themselves." He said less than 1% of respondents have refused to answer the question in the history of the survey, which goes back 40 years, though refusal rates have gone up recently: to 3.6% in 2010 and 2% last year.

Some researchers, however, say owners may be less inclined to tell pollsters about their guns than they used to be. They point to federal gun laws passed in the early 1990s and the stiffer gun restrictions proposed after December's shooting in Newtown, Conn.—as well as messages from the NRA and other gun groups highlighting potential threats to ownership from the government. "It's a different political era," said Dr. Kellermann.

Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, points to Gallup surveys that find a much higher rate of ownership than does the GSS, with guns in 43% of American households and owned by 29% of American adults last year. He thinks these figures are more reliable because they are based on phone surveys, while the GSS is fielded in person. "People are more reluctant to admit to gun ownership or anything controversial or legally questionable in non-anonymous surveys," he said."

My reasoning for banning them is because unlike food or any of that shit (which is meant to be a pleasurable thing), guns are literally designed to hurt people. Everything else that is linked to death does not exist to kill people or cause disease. However, none of these issues have slipped under the radar and all of these places are universally under scrutiny (including McDonalds) and their businesses are actually dying. Tobacco is being taxed more and more and is consistently increasing in price. These changes are happening, yet when it comes to guns, any restriction is taking away your rights. You have heard of the NRA right?

Actually, there are a number of associated licenses and taxes that make firearm purchasing increasingly difficult in some states. For example, here in California I have to pay some minor but annoying fees, but you really feel it when looking at the price tag. Many of the dealers charge higher prices in the hundreds of dollars because of associated fees with stringent policies.

If you were trying to make a worthwhile point, then you wouldn't compare heart disease to gun violence. Besides, I don't eat at McDonalds and I don't smoke in front of other people just to avoid that shit and I actively encourage others to follow in my footsteps so let's not try to make me look like a hypocrite. Address the argument at hand instead.

Of course it's a worthwhile point. I asked you, in the same vein of your earlier logic, whether you would support banning harmful foods that cause many, many more people to die yearly than all firearms together, and you required negatively. That shows, to me, that your hollow appeal to emotion is just that.

It should not be a right. This is the argument.

You are missing the point. I do not need most of the things I own and value highly. I don't need any of my rights to survive, really. I'd do just fine without a right to freedom of speech. I value it deeply nevertheless.

Numbers and definitions pls

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

This doesn't help your argument.

It merely points out that ineffective measurements are just that. These policies are enacted by initiatives of people that have no interest outside of garnering political support, whose constituents have no real knowledge of the gun crime issue outside of what they see on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and their ilk.

Ban firearms and this isn't an issue.

Of course it's an issue. In a situation where law-abiding citizens hand back their firearms and criminals do not, how many millions of those that are unregistered and floating around do you think are going to make their way back to the police in any semblance of order?

Yeah I'm sure that Great Britain is gonna attack us on our soil again when we don't have an army. Do we got any other native americans to hunt to take control of their property cause I'm sure I'll be down for it partna!

The invasive governing body is any such which arises from burgeoning bureaucracies with a vested interest in maintaining power. That includes, but is not limited to, the unjust empires of yesteryear. It also includes those today.

SAFE USE OF PEANUT BUTTER IS EQUIVALENT TO SAFE USE OF GUNS AND SAFE USE OF HEROIN M I RITE SO LETS BAN EVERYTHING

Except that one is for hurting people and one isn't. This is a point you don't seem to care about. You keep cloaking "this is for self-defense" when no, it's used to hurt people so you save your own ass. Peanut butter is a condiment. Anyone who dies from using peanut butter is allergic (in which case you're told to avoid it) or I don't even know, they choked on it somehow. When's the last time someone killed a group of people with peanut butter? Threatened to rob another dude with peanut butter? Threatened to defend themselves with peanut butter.

Do not take these arguments at face value. I can't even think of a metaphor to describe your argument about two completely incongruous things than what you just did. Peanut butter and guns. That's a new one.

oh no please save me from the peanut butter shooter i'm afraid of being injected with too much sweet squashed peanut flavor

Seriously, this is ludicrous.

1.) My firearm has never had to fire at another person. Even in a situation where I'm involved in a home defense, the sound of a Mossberg 500 chambering a shell can be its own deterrent. More, a prospective criminal that is well aware his peers is armed can easily be dissuaded simply because of the lack of perceived benefit compared to its risk. If I had to break into homes, for example, I would surely find a locale that does not believe in gun ownership.

2.) Peanut butter is a condiment, yes. Peanut allergies can be quite violent and unpredictable. Many die yearly because they are unaware of their reaction. In following with your previous argument, in which you state that because there is no need for it, it should be permissible to ban it, the same can logically be applied to such substances. This follows with really any substance that has recorded higher instances of harm and death, including such earlier mentioned examples as alcohol and tobacco, among others. If it can be demonstrated that there are deaths that arise from it, and if your argument is that something which provides no immediate benefit to society yet brings risk to it should be banned, then it would follow that you condone the limiting of peanut butter production.

Let's say we go on a message board where people don't derail the conversation to make the other guy seem stupid. How about we talk about the implications of gun ownership in a thread about guns? You can save rainbow farting and flying on dragons for tumblr or Far From The Forest.

Sure. And while I'm there I'll visit the magical world of America without guns.

So why didn't you refute the argument? The ratio of danger/not dangerous use of all of these products is several - SEVERAL - orders of magnitude lower than that of a gun. Which happens to be because guns are an intrinsically violent tool whereas all the other things are not.

I did refute the argument. I pointed out the errors that these surveying bodies create when gathering statistical data.

Yes, and I could just as easily link you to a paper that argues the opposite point and still cites scholarly articles. But again, I'm not really in any sort of mood to read it, especially since that would require me to put more effort towards this post than you put towards yours.

So what you are saying is that you are in a mood to post tons of scholarly data in an effort to silence me by sheer weight of data, but you are unwilling to comb through any data that doesn't suit your worldview.

How very apt.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Esau of Isaac

[Lord Raven]

I had a post typed up but it's not worth it because you're condescending as hell.

I'll end it with

Peanut butter

- Exists for people to eat and feel good about

Fast food

- Exists for people to eat quickly and feel good (other times not)

- Many chains like McDonalds are declining

Smoking

- Gives people some stimulation, purpose is not to harm others

- More heavily taxed, becoming steadily more expensive

Guns

- Purpose is to harm or scare others

- Somehow, we're given more freedom with them despite this

See? I can use half truths to justify myself too.

[dondon151]

no one gives a shit that you use firearms safely. we're not concerned about people who use firearms safely. furthermore, a traditionally safe user is not guaranteed to never have a lapse in judgment or memory that results in an unsafe outcome.

the stated impossibility of creating a gun-free USA because of an entrenched gun culture is a weak argument. newsflash: cultures change. we once had a strong tradition of slavery that was defended by the claim that abolition would yield profound negative political, social, and economic consequences.

i look forward to the day when gun ownership is no longer a right in the USA and gun nuts are given the proper ridicule that they deserve.

Edited January 7, 2016 by dondon151

[Phoenix Wright]

Er. . .what?

Like, what the hell does this have to do with the original topic?

what does any of like the last 4 pages have to do with the op? why did you single out my post lol

also, the original topic is kinda boring to discuss anyway tbh

Should everybody have the right to carry hazardous materials? (For example: Viral specimens that are of a biosafety level 4)

what are you getting at

Privileges are afforded. Rights are not. That is what makes the difference so important to recognize.

We imprison criminals because they demonstrate an inability to function properly in society. We call this justice. Infants can't use guns. Non citizens residing in the US are obviously not treated identically under the law with actual citizens, and we have at least mostly good reasons for that. None of this changes the fact that every man, woman and child is endowed with certain liberties that no government has the power to grant and should never be taken away.

The bans on fully automatic guns are probably mostly pointless, and any sufficiently dedicated and/or mechanically inclined person can convert certain semi automatic rifles to their fully automatic version if he is willing to break the law. I'm sure some people do just that, but evidently they're not generally committing crimes with those weapons. All of those scary semi auto rifles aren't really used to commit crimes period.

i don't understand what you mean. regardless, don't get tripped on word choice. replace privilege with right if you wish.

endowed with certain liberties by who? who, or what, gives us these liberties? we don't have them by virtue of being human. if one can imagine a lawless "society," one can imagine that within the "society" the philosophical idea behind rights remains just that. rights wouldn't be in practice in such a situation. there is no such thing as an inherent right; we aren't entitled to anything at birth, except what the government grants. without a government, we wouldn't get anything. we wouldn't even be guaranteed food, shelter, or love in such a "society."

why is it pointless? whether or not semi auto rifles are used in lots of crime is irrelevant. the fact is they shouldn't be used by the public. the difference between guns and drugs or food is best outlined in this way:

--i can't force people to eat themselves to death

--i can't force people to drug themselves to death

--i can kill people using a gun, or some other weapon, but much more slowly. also, i can kill lots of people with a gun.

obese people are obese of their own actions, as with drugs. people that have fallen to guns often don't even get to see it coming.

you want to defend yourself, and that's okay, but why exactly would you ever need more than a pistol?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Moblin Major General]

no one gives a shit that you use firearms safely. we're not concerned about people who use firearms safely. furthermore, a traditionally safe user is not guaranteed to never have a lapse in judgment or memory that results in an unsafe outcome.

the stated impossibility of creating a gun-free USA because of an entrenched gun culture is a weak argument. newsflash: cultures change. we once had a strong tradition of slavery that was defended by the claim that abolition would yield profound negative political, social, and economic consequences.

i look forward to the day when gun ownership is no longer a right in the USA and gun nuts are given the proper ridicule that they deserve.

You'll be dead before then. Slavery took 300 years to leave North America, with the US being the last to abandon it. Guns have been the norm since Roanoke, and it's been more than 400 years since then. Guns have outlived slavery by more than a century. And with the media straight-up saying the world is going to shit, people are looking to see who or what they can trust to protect them. If you can't trust the police, you can only trust yourself. And what is most available? The second amendment, that's what. Gun control will come when it seems that weapons are unnecessary, but the truth is, we'll need them more than ever. Gun hoarders are stupid, but your viewpoint is unfathomably asinine.

[Esau of Isaac]

I had a post typed up but it's not worth it because you're condescending as hell.

I'll end it with

Peanut butter

- Exists for people to eat and feel good about

Fast food

- Exists for people to eat quickly and feel good (other times not)

- Many chains like McDonalds are declining

Smoking

- Gives people some stimulation, purpose is not to harm others

- More heavily taxed, becoming steadily more expensive

Guns

- Purpose is to harm or scare others

- Somehow, we're given more freedom with them despite this

See? I can use half truths to justify myself too.

Your entire argument was to state that it is unneeded because the deaths are not outweighed by its lack of purpose in society. Smoking, fast food, and peanut butter, carry no more intrinsic worth to society than firearms. Less, even. And all of them, by being legal, allow for some form of harm to befall society. You sidestepped this issue by shifting the goalposts away from your argument that because deaths arise as a result of availability, they should be banned, in favor of a nebulous argument that guns' only purpose is to cause harm and thus should be banned, as if the hundreds of millions of guns that are not used in crime yearly are outweighed by the thousands that are.

[eclipse]

what does any of like the last 4 pages have to do with the op? why did you single out my post lol

The gun control thing came in because the idiots in the compound have firearms, and said that they'd use them if necessary. If they didn't have access to legal guns, it would be a different situation.

If you think it's boring, you're free to make a topic that interests you.

[Tryhard]

And with the media straight-up saying the world is going to shit, people are looking to see who or what they can trust to protect them. If you can't trust the police, you can only trust yourself. And what is most available? The second amendment, that's what. Gun control will come when it seems that weapons are unnecessary, but the truth is, we'll need them more than ever.

You sound incredibly scared. Guns will solve your fear? I guess almost every other first world countries citizens are just fucked because they don't have easy access to firearms, correct? Are you referring to this as some US-only thing or something? The media fear-mongering is nothing new, and to base your ownership of weapons on that seems... unwise, to say the least.

Unless you do want to keep giving money to gun manufacturers because of fear, then go right ahead.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

The gun control thing came in because the idiots in the compound have firearms, and said that they'd use them if necessary. If they didn't have access to legal guns, it would be a different situation.

If you think it's boring, you're free to make a topic that interests you.

if that's the case, then those questions served the purpose of probing for answers on how far gun control can/should go.

[dondon151]

Not to get involved in the argument, but question.

If guns were to be banned completely, how would the second amendment be worked around from a legal standpoint to accomplish this?

repeal the second amendment

[eclipse]

if that's the case, then those questions served the purpose of probing for answers on how far gun control can/should go.

Not really, since you're asking about things that aren't guns, AND are great stepping points for going off-topic (like bombs).

Gun control will go as far as the Second Amendment. Good luck trying to get that repealed.

[Phoenix Wright]

they're weapons all the same and with something as vague, incomplete, and flawed as the united states constitution, who knows what the hell they meant.

[Esau of Isaac]

It can be ascertained what the forefathers meant of the second amendment by examining their independent thoughts on the matter, of which the document was originally written using. I am sure everyone here is at least dimly familiar with the common talking point that the militia was an all-encompassing term which referred to all able-bodied males. I'd learned of this in high school. It was later in college during an interesting discussion on the topic with a friend they had claimed something interesting, that the term "well-regulated," in the context of the writing of the document, had a different interpretation back then. He claimed that its use was more similar to something being proper. I checked that day and sure enough, that seems to be another common talking point on the issue.

In any event, what really matters in law is precedent. The precedent for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has generally been favorable as time has passed.

[Moblin Major General]

You sound incredibly scared. Guns will solve your fear? I guess almost every other first world countries citizens are just fucked because they don't have easy access to firearms, correct? Are you referring to this as some US-only thing or something? The media fear-mongering is nothing new, and to base your ownership of weapons on that seems... unwise, to say the least.

Unless you do want to keep giving money to gun manufacturers because of fear, then go right ahead.

It's called the book of Revelation. Bash me and my faith, but this is one of the few reasons I won't support gun control. Who doesn't feel scared if that happens? The rapture isn't a guarantee, and if I'm living in a world out for my ass, I'm not going to roll over and die.

[blah the Prussian]

It's called the book of Revelation. Bash me and my faith, but this is one of the few reasons I won't support gun control. Who doesn't feel scared if that happens? The rapture isn't a guarantee, and if I'm living in a world out for my ass, I'm not going to roll over and die.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but you oppose gun control because you feel you will need guns for the Rapture? Are you serious?

[Moblin Major General]

The Rapture isn't in Revelation. Not once is it mentioned. Even if there is, it doesn't say how many will be lifted. I want to be, but I am a pessimist, so if it comes in our lifetime, I am unsure. I'm hopeful, but not certain. If I do go, my worries are over. If not, the daily struggles I face will cease to be relevant.

[amiabletemplar]

Is this how far this conversation has sunk? If you want to debate gun control, or religious motivations for political choices, wouldn't it be better to take either of them to its own thread?

As it stands, it sounds to me like the conversation about an "actual act of rebellion in America" has run its course. There are idiots on both sides (seriously, wtf is up with you, federal judge? They served their sentences and had already been released! seriously, wtf is up with you, protestors/insurrectionists? an armed takeover of a federal building is NOT the solution to your problem!) and the whole thing is obviously a debacle from every angle.

Beyond that, it's just being used as a proxy for other issues.

Edited January 7, 2016 by amiabletemplar

[Anouleth]

Is this how far this conversation has sunk? If you want to debate gun control, or religious motivations for political choices, wouldn't it be better to take either of them to its own thread?

As it stands, it sounds to me like the conversation about an "actual act of rebellion in America" has run its course. There are idiots on both sides (seriously, wtf is up with you, federal judge? They served their sentences and had already been released! seriously, wtf is up with you, protestors/insurrectionists? an armed takeover of a federal building is NOT the solution to your problem!) and the whole thing is obviously a debacle from every angle.

Beyond that, it's just being used as a proxy for other issues.

You haven't even mentioned the horrendously awful media coverage where multiple prominent media sites had fits over an Ammon Bundy impersonator on Twitter.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Anouleth

[amiabletemplar]

You haven't even mentioned the horrendously awful media coverage where multiple prominent media sites had fits over an Ammon Bundy impersonator on Twitter.

How on earth is it that additional sides can be added to this trainwreck, and yet every single one is just as stupid as the ones that came before?

I just...I don't even. EVERYTHING about this is moronic. The media coverage--both what they say and what they don't say. The "protesters" and their completely off-kilter response to a legit problem. The federal judge, for re-sentencing people that had already served their prison sentences and returned home. The feds themselves, for blowing off small-town issues of land usage. The arsonists, for somehow thinking that random shlubs setting fire in the forest--rather than trained professionals--is a good goddamn idea. Commenters, focusing on completely irrelevant issues like gun control, which have no legal bearing whatsoever on the case.

I cannot even wrap my brain around the fact that literally everyone engaging with this situation is wrong! This is...just...I think I'm done paying any attention to this issue. Unless shooting starts, which would just make the "protesters" wronger than wrong, I'm checked out of this. Nothing good or interesting can come of it at this point--because any new developments are just going to be another reflection in the Funhouse Mirror Maze Of Ultimate Stupidity.

[Tryhard]

It's called the book of Revelation. Bash me and my faith, but this is one of the few reasons I won't support gun control. Who doesn't feel scared if that happens? The rapture isn't a guarantee, and if I'm living in a world out for my ass, I'm not going to roll over and die.

I ain't gonna bash your faith, but your reasoning for not supporting gun control is, as you said, "unfathomably asinine". I could understand perhaps every other reason above this.

I'm afraid that I wouldn't be paranoid enough to run out and purchase guns solely for the fear of a possible global annihilation or state of emergency no matter what my faith was.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Tryhard

[Naughx]

Can the US federal government considers it as a potential domestic terrorism threat and deal with them?

Because even if they banned guns right now it wouldn't fix the problem that a bunch of armed folks took a building. (Far-right extremist groups could still have kept their weapons illegally in a concealed location)

Gun control is effective for troubled individuals, no so much for extremist groups which is the case for this thread. (There is a political motivation for said group + a lot of planning)

Edited January 7, 2016 by Naughx

[Phoenix Wright]

It can be ascertained what the forefathers meant of the second amendment by examining their independent thoughts on the matter, of which the document was originally written using. I am sure everyone here is at least dimly familiar with the common talking point that the militia was an all-encompassing term which referred to all able-bodied males. I'd learned of this in high school. It was later in college during an interesting discussion on the topic with a friend they had claimed something interesting, that the term "well-regulated," in the context of the writing of the document, had a different interpretation back then. He claimed that its use was more similar to something being proper. I checked that day and sure enough, that seems to be another common talking point on the issue.

In any event, what really matters in law is precedent. The precedent for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has generally been favorable as time has passed.

i don't actually have any contentions with the wording of the amendment, except for what "arms" means. one comment in particular goes into detail for what it may mean (individual service weaponry vs crew service weaponry), but i'm not sure of the validity (stranger making claims that aren't sourced). in my experience, the interpretation varies from person to person, and even from supreme court to supreme court.

precedent is important in law, but it means nothing to me if i don't actually agree with it in the first place. society has changed enough that i feel the 2nd amendment simply grants too much actual killing power to its citizens. historical interpretation doesn't remove all of the flaws of the original document, and since the courts usually lean one way or the other (in my time on earth they have been strikingly conservative), contemporary "precedent" won't hold as much meaning to people depending on the contrasting ideologies. at this time, i'm reading this page, which is pretty interesting, but i have to go to class.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Duff Ostrich]

i look forward to the day when gun ownership is no longer a right in the USA and gun nuts are given the proper ridicule that they deserve.

Please do hold your breath.

endowed with certain liberties by who? who, or what, gives us these liberties? we don't have them by virtue of being human. if one can imagine a lawless "society," one can imagine that within the "society" the philosophical idea behind rights remains just that. rights wouldn't be in practice in such a situation. there is no such thing as an inherent right; we aren't entitled to anything at birth, except what the government grants. without a government, we wouldn't get anything. we wouldn't even be guaranteed food, shelter, or love in such a "society."

why is it pointless? whether or not semi auto rifles are used in lots of crime is irrelevant. the fact is they shouldn't be used by the public. the difference between guns and drugs or food is best outlined in this way:

--i can't force people to eat themselves to death

--i can't force people to drug themselves to death

--i can kill people using a gun, or some other weapon, but much more slowly. also, i can kill lots of people with a gun.

obese people are obese of their own actions, as with drugs. people that have fallen to guns often don't even get to see it coming.

you want to defend yourself, and that's okay, but why exactly would you ever need more than a pistol?

We have rights precisely because we are human. I hope you'll forgive me for being lazy but even Wikipedia can do this subject more justice than I can. Of particular importance is the notion that these rights are "inalienable". The American government operates under this basic assumption. The law indeed cannot work in the way you describe without fundamentally changing the character of the country. They would have to rewrite the Constitution from scratch, and I don't think the result would be an improvement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

If semi automatic rifles are not used in crime then why shouldn't the public have access to them? The stated aim of gun control after all is the preservation of life. If it's not even hardly used to kill people then why would anyone care? Given that this is the aim of gun control it is why obesity and drugs are still relevant points. Typically though I've preferred to compare guns to cars. dondon claims that we have decided that cars are worth the loss of life incurred by them, but the disparity between car fatalities and gun fatalities is enough that I find that to be a weak excuse. Gun control advocates who evidently care so very much over the loss of life can't even be bothered to yawn over how our currently highly comprehensive traffic laws do not prevent the deaths of thousands yearly. Automobile deaths are actually steadily decreasing, but it doesn't stop every year from being nearly ten times the number of casualties as the number of American soldiers lost in the entirely of the Iraq War. Furthermore, the majority of gun deaths are suicide, and so in fact it just may be more comparable to fast food and drugs than it is cars in the first place! ...At least with regards to the distinction you made.

I don't need anything more than a pistol. I don't even need a pistol. But I want what I want and so do other people. Personally I only own one rifle (Kentucky Long Rifle) and it's an heirloom and nothing I would ever shoot for any purpose. Otherwise I favor handguns, and I own far more than any three men should ever "need", but I like my hobby.

Not many people own an AR-15 for the purposes of home defense, but is a very popular gun regardless. The point is that this isn't about what anyone may or may not need. It's about the things people want to have, and what they feel entitled to be allowed to own. And they are entitled to the pursuit of these things, if by nothing else then the law of the land. No one should ever blame them for resisting the efforts of people who don't know anything about guns trying to pass laws on a basis of misconceptions and fearmongering.