Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice American Style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    Fully automatic guns are regulated by the Feds and require a FFL license.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state
    Nope. They require a $200 Federal Tax Stamp but no FFL license.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
      That IS in fact my argument.

      I never understood why "I want to own a gun" turns into "I want everyone else to own a gun also"

      Surely the fewer people have guns the better for me, no ?
      Technically yes but that's the difference between nations and individuals. Nations exist in the Wild West, there is no government to constrain then and there is no prison if they break the rules. Even the likes of North Korea can flaunt international law with no consequences. In that environment whoever is most well armed can achieve a monopoly on power and use it to limit the power of others with no risk to itself.

      Individuals don't have that luxury. The state has a monopoly on power and no matter how well armed you are the state will always be stronger. Sure I don't want anybody who might threaten me to be armed but the only vehicle to achieve that is the state. The problem is the state is unreliable and just as likely to decide that my weapons are unacceptable as they are to go after criminals. Their logic always follows that the only way to disarm criminals is to disarm everyone. The state also has an interest in disarming the people because a disarmed populace is less of a threat to its power.

      In this environment it comes down to a choice between guns being ubiquitous and them being completely unavailable. Priority one is for me to have the ability to defend myself. That rules out the no guns anywhere option. Also the state cannot be trusted to responsibly decide who is and isnt worthy of owning a gun. They would abuse that power without hesitation and the second an anti-gun politician took power we would become Australia. Thus the only solution is to make it impossible for the state to effectively eliminate my right to own guns. This is done legally through the Constitution and practically by proliferating guns so wildly that they could never all be found and trying to do so would topple the country. This limits the state's power and forces them to accept that they couldn't get rid of guns even if they wanted to.

      The fact that criminals can access guns is an unfortunate side affect of this but it is the leaser evil. Some inner city thug is less of a threat to me than a politician trying to do something "for my own good".

      Its also important to note that its sort of impossible to prevent criminals from owning anything. In a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty a person isn't a criminal until after they commit a crime, by which point it is too late to prevent hem from buying a gun. Even for repeat offenders like gangbangers they usually have a network of straw buyers who keep clean records and buy for them. Stricter laws wouldn't fix either of those issues.
      "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
        (...)
        In this environment it comes down to a choice between guns being ubiquitous and them being completely unavailable.. .
        But that is simply not the case, guns are neither ubiquitous or completely unavailable here.

        It's just that you need get a permit( as hunter, marksman, collector or even explicitly for self-defence), decide on owning an illegal gun or both.

        Neither is impossible or particularly difficult, it's just that by the nature of things most people don't make the effort.

        And that suits me just fine
        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
          But that is simply not the case, guns are neither ubiquitous or completely unavailable here.

          It's just that you need get a permit( as hunter, marksman, collector or even explicitly for self-defence), decide on owning an illegal gun or both.

          Neither is impossible or particularly difficult, it's just that by the nature of things most people don't make the effort.

          And that suits me just fine
          Are they available for self defense? Can you carry them with you every day? Belgium is also not the only example. That's why I brought up Australia. If it is possible for the government to ban and confiscate guns then there is always the threat that you will lose your right completely when the political wind changes. You may be satisfied with the situation in your country and I'm glad you're happy. I for one do not trust any government that much to allow them even the possibility of taking my rights away without a fight.
          "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
            Are they available for self defense? Can you carry them with you every day ?
            That is the biggest difference, they are available for self-defence, but you cannot carry them around, unless you have a very specific job that requires one.

            You can keep them at home though, or at your place of business, mostly in high risk locations, large house in a remote location, jewellery store, that sort of thing is fairly common.

            Of course weapons used for hunting or sports can also be used for self-defence.

            But to carry them around in case you're attacked on the street or something is pretty much impossible if you want to go the legal route.

            Of course that also means chances of being attacked with a gun in a petty crime is extremely small here.

            ...it is possible for the government to ban and confiscate guns then there is always the threat that you will lose your right completely when the political wind changes. You may be satisfied with the situation in your country and I'm glad you're happy. I for one do not trust any government that much to allow them even the possibility of taking my rights away without a fight.
            You actually fear them physically coming over to your place and take your guns ?

            That did not even happen under German occupation - there's always a place to hide a few guns, in fact some are still hidden where they were in 1940
            Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              That IS in fact my argument.

              I never understood why "I want to own a gun" turns into "I want everyone else to own a gun also"

              Surely the fewer people have guns the better for me, no ?


              Fewer guns do not mean less violence.
              It just means that there is a chance that there will be fewer gun deaths.
              (assuming we are able to get the criminal element to comply with our efforts to take their guns too)

              If you remove all guns, you make the existence of the weak, the elderly or the outnumbered dependent on the mercy of the strong.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                Fewer guns do not mean less violence.
                It just means that there is a chance that there will be fewer gun deaths.
                (assuming we are able to get the criminal element to comply with our efforts to take their guns too)
                That's the statistical truth.

                But for me as an individual that doesn't matter.

                As long as I am armed, the more unarmed people around me - the safer I will be.

                If you remove all guns, you make the existence of the weak, the elderly or the outnumbered dependent on the mercy of the strong.
                That is simply the natural order of things.

                Note I never argued for all guns to be removed, quite the contrary.
                Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                  That's the statistical truth.

                  But for me as an individual that doesn't matter.

                  As long as I am armed, the more unarmed people around me - the safer I will be.



                  That is simply the natural order of things.

                  Note I never argued for all guns to be removed, quite the contrary.


                  I see your point. I like the idea of me having a gun and others not to.
                  I didn't think you were arguing that all guns be removed, sorry if I wasn't more clear. Sometimes work interrupts my posting.
                  Last edited by Cambronnne; 26 Feb 16, 11:30.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    How is the average citizen to resist a threat, foreign or domestic, who is armed with nuclear weapons if they're not allowed the same? Wasn't that part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment?
                    You are purposely sidetracking the thread into the ridicules, muddying the conversation with absurd extremes,
                    What if? What if Martians invade and they have laser guns?
                    When you reduce to the ridiculous it's an art, a little too much and you present yourself as a cartoon character, you should change your moniker to Wiley Coyote.
                    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                      But to carry them around in case you're attacked on the street or something is pretty much impossible if you want to go the legal route.

                      Of course that also means chances of being attacked with a gun in a petty crime is extremely small here.
                      True but I don't believe in proportionality when my life or the lives of my friends and family are on the line. Doesn't matter if someone has a gun, knife, baseball bat, crowbar or just a big guy with his bear hands, I want to be able to use the maximum available force to end the threat as quickly as possible.


                      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                      You actually fear them physically coming over to your place and take your guns ?

                      That did not even happen under German occupation - there's always a place to hide a few guns, in fact some are still hidden where they were in 1940
                      Fear? No. That's the reason I mentioned Australia. They might not go door to door searching for them but they very well could ban them. You can hide them but then what? The second you use them you are a criminal with illegal guns and you bet they'd cone to confiscate them then. Thats my point. There are so many guns here that even an Australian style ban would be impossible because so many people would resist that it would basically be a war. That's the entire point after all. Limit the government's power buy making the people stronger. Not individually of course but as a whole.
                      "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                        You're forgetting two things Elmer.





                        Its quite a bit different. Imagine there were only 200 odd people in the world and only 8 or 9 of them had a gun. It would definitely not be in their interest to allow everyone to have them because it gives them so much more power that they are much safer because they could easily crush anyone who tried to threaten them with no response. That's what nuclear weapons are like today. Now imagine 100 of those people had guns but you had no idea who they were. That's too many to keep track of and account for realistically and too many to really control. Thus your only recourse is to arm yourself too just in case.

                        You're intentionally confusing to wildly different ideas and situations to make a fallacious point that doesn't make logical sense.

                        No, it is the same issue and your description of nuclear non-proliferation doesn't explain why the vast majority of signatories got on board. Sure it is in the interest of the 8 or 9 but why would the others agree?

                        It is a question of the most effective means to reduce harm caused by a particular weapon. Individual deterrence or restriction. BTW, I'm not pretending there is an absolute answer on either side, but the assertion that more guns equal more safety is patently false.


                        In your example, setting aside the purely legal argument over amending the constitution, wouldn't society be safer the government took steps to reduce the supply and lethality of weapons in society at large?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                          No, it is the same issue and your description of nuclear non-proliferation doesn't explain why the vast majority of signatories got on board. Sure it is in the interest of the 8 or 9 but why would the others agree?
                          The rest of them agreed because they were told to and most of them fell under the protective umbrella of a nuclear power. If only 9 people had guns and said if you try to get one I'll shoot you but if you stick with me I'll protect you with my gun which do you think they'd chose. The two situations are completely different and you intentionally trying to compare them is fallacious.

                          Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                          In your example, setting aside the purely legal argument over amending the constitution, wouldn't society be safer the government took steps to reduce the supply and lethality of weapons in society at large?
                          Not at all. People can still hurt each other with knives, objects and their bear hands. As long as that's the case I want the most effective means to defend myself and the people I care about with as little risk as possible and that's a gun. Society isn't my responsibility, my safety and that if my family is. Self defense is a natural right and I don't have the right to deny it to someone else any more than they can deny it to me. Some I'll defined naive greater good isn't worth that.
                          "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by frisco17 View Post


                            Not at all. People can still hurt each other with knives, objects and their bear hands. As long as that's the case I want the most effective means to defend myself and the people I care about with as little risk as possible and that's a gun. Society isn't my responsibility, my safety and that if my family is. Self defense is a natural right and I don't have the right to deny it to someone else any more than they can deny it to me. Some I'll defined naive greater good isn't worth that.
                            You avoided the question.

                            In your example, setting aside the purely legal argument over amending the constitution, wouldn't society be safer the government took steps to reduce the supply and lethality of weapons in society at large?
                            Yes, when a bad guy is at your particular door then having a gun is better for you then not having a gun. An assault rifle is getter than a handgun and a tank would be better than an assault rifle.

                            The question is about policy and the harm to society at large. Yes, it's not rocks, knives or nukes that kill people. It's not heroin that kills people, it is the addict who injects it. But they have very different levels of lethality and potential for accidents.

                            So when considering firearms policies, why wouldn't lethality be a valid concern?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Actually a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot is considered the optimum home defense gun...
                              Credo quia absurdum.


                              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                                So when considering firearms policies, why wouldn't lethality be a valid concern?
                                Because it is impossible to ensure that only the law abiding have access to guns. If they exist and are out there criminals WILL get them. If you don't believe me look at prohibition, the war on drugs and the like. Besides a criminal is a law abiding citizen with all the asociated rights until the second he commits a crime. How do you stop him from getting a gun? You can't. The only way to ensure that criminals done have guns is to ensure nobody has guns.

                                Knowing that I'm not willing to give up my right to own mine thus I cannot accept the idea of nobody having guns.

                                Lethality doesn't come into play because it isn't the goverents job to decide what is too dangerous for me to be trusted with like a hovering parent. As a free citizen I have the right to make that decision for myself, as does everybody else and I should not be punished because some people choose to abuse their right and more than cars should be banned because people choose to drive drunk.

                                In this country we have a right to do anything we want unless there is a specific law saying other wise. Rights are not granted, they exist naturally and the state must prove they have the constitutional authority to limit those rights. In this case it is very clear that they don't have that power.
                                "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X