It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3   Page 3 of 3   [ 55 posts ] New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:47 pm • # 41 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 2238
Location: 208
You know the last lib that asked me why I needed one of those types of rifles. I replied by asking him why do I not need one considering that I am a law abiding citizen. It was pretty funny watching him try to search for an answer only to come up with "well I just don't think people need those types of guns with the big clips". Yes because they look scary and have magazines that hold 30 rounds is a good reason :lol I am pretty much to the point where I no longer argue with them.


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:10 pm • # 42 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Ok. Since Sasha brought it up. My favorite answer to the question: Why do you need an assault rifle with a 30 round clip? Answer: I don't know, how many assault troops do you intend to send?


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:20 pm • # 43 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Once again on the subject of laws: the direction of the logic is supposed to be relativism > written codification (a law). Benefit is certainty. Here you have 2 nd amendment > relativism. Benefit is chaos. Chaos is good if you want fundamental transformation. See how it works?


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:31 pm • # 44 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Whenever I use the term chaos I think of the scene where the research scientist explains to Jeff Goldblum how they are going to keep the Dino population in check by creating a vitamin deficiency and he just laughs and says "nature will find a way". Just so when you fiddle with any law. You always end up getting eaten alive.


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:32 pm • # 45 
User avatar
Jr. Member

Joined: 01/02/12
Posts: 76
So, Sasha, what if I was your neighbor and you saw me hauling dozens of boxes of explosives into my house. You say "I had no idea we had so many beaver dams. What on earth do you plan to do with that?" I respond coolly, "I just like having it around."


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:15 pm • # 46 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
No deterrent value to a basement full of dynamite, and you only get one use! Does work on a national level with the concept of mutual destruction by nukes though.

John Lott is the expert on defensive use of firearms as it relates to public safety. The interesting question is if more guns could be shown with statistical certainty to make the general public safer, would it be adopted as policy by those advocating for greater public safety but who oppose gun ownership? Or restating the question if fewer guns made the public less safe would they support a gun ban anyway?

The only way out is to argue that there are no reliable studies, which does not happen to be true. As the saying goes, you can be entitled to your opinion but not to the facts. I give extra points to the Quakers for taking the position that they might be unable to defend themselves, but that is preferable to the commission of violence against another.

Most gun owners do not ascribe to this position, although for both gun owner and Quaker the likelihood of being put to the test is low.


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:48 pm • # 47 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 2238
Location: 208
Clarkfork wrote:
So, Sasha, what if I was your neighbor and you saw me hauling dozens of boxes of explosives into my house. You say "I had no idea we had so many beaver dams. What on earth do you plan to do with that?" I respond coolly, "I just like having it around."



I mind my own business :D


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:02 pm • # 48 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Ah, you can't mind your own business because in the hypo there are more reasons you don't need the explosives than reasons you do. But with the AR the equation is flipped. There are more good reasons to own than not. Obviously the gun is equally well suited to shooting good or bad guys so that factor is a wash.


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:25 pm • # 49 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 2238
Location: 208
Oh but I can ;)


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:58 pm • # 50 
User avatar
Jr. Member

Joined: 01/02/12
Posts: 76
I should say I don't have any problems with people owning guns. But I think the hysteria over gun control is being whipped to a froth by those who are making a huge profit from this situation: manufacturers of weapons and accessories being first on the list. You guys are being used big time. The political likelihood of tighter gun control at the federal level is slim to none at the moment, and that's the reality of the situation.


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:50 am • # 51 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Hard core Sasha! I like it!

Clark, the situation is much worse than you think. There is a reservoir of distrust in the public that has not near been drained. As usual, the clearest evidence is on the margin. The run on 22lr ammo is a much better bellweather than the sale of ARs.
And the fact that the shortage has been under- reported is also a bellweather.

I first encountered the theory about gun makers driving the "hysteria" with a smile. Saw it in Rolling Stone. A true paranoid is likely to turn on his friends faster than his enemies. The paranoid is hyper vigilant to evidence of betrayal, since the genesis of the paranoia is often a fear of abandonment, externalized.

The gun maker theory works for the anti's because it pre-supposes that the "victims" are simpletons who merely need to have the error of their ways pointed out to them. Gun control then becomes for good for them whether they like it or not. If profits from gun sales drives gun sales, then the solution would be to stop gun sales. Surprise, the anti's original goal! And the gun makers were the true villains all along. Surprise! Really, who is being played for the fool?

Now the vast majority of gun owners are no more or less paranoid than the next guy, but talk of gun control is not the way to lessen the fear. If truly paranoid, they get more paranoid and move next door to David. If not paranoid already, they become so watching politicians sneaking up on them! For their own good, of course.

History is full of politicians promising gun control right before all the other freedoms were taken. Suprise!

And the Iranians want nuclear materials for peaceful purposes. Suprise!

And Israel should give up the Westbank. Suprise!

I am getting tired of surprises.


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:19 am • # 52 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/29/12
Posts: 1834
Location: Rusagonis, New Brunswick, Canada
Well, as a non-US firearms owner, this is certainly interesting. Can't say I've seen anything new from either side of the argument, although the presence of the few follk who can see both sides is refreshing.
As you know, we Canadians have much more restrictive 'gun control' measures than you 'merkins, and particularly as it pertains to handgun ownership. We only recently, through public/political pressure, dismantled our long gun registry. Granted, we are a much more rural country than you folk, and we certainly have a higher true subsistence hunting population. What I note is that the principal arguments for the dismantling of the gun registry, and the general argument against existing (and any new proposed) firearm control, is that it punishes legitimate competition firearms owners and, more importantly, the law-abiding hunter and farmer for whom the rifle is a tool, no more or less value-laden than a hoe or rototiller. There is, of course, the usual urban-rural split.
But almost completely absent in the argument, is this business of personal and property protection (from people), and at NO time has the argument been made that we need firearms in case we want to shoot federal civil servants (although I gotta say, we've all had those feelings around tax time :D )

No judgement; just observation.
brent


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:05 am • # 53 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Thanks for the comments Wheeze. It is refreshing to get another view.

I find it very interesting that Canada also was the stage of some pitched battles between the British, the French, and the Americans. In both 1776 and 1812. As you say though, not the same argument with regards to arming militias in Canada. By the way, one of the briefs in Heller talked about the formal history of militias in the US. There is still a militia statute in federal law, although few know it is there and I do not believe it has ever been invoked.

I wonder if the American Civil War did not have the effect of fixing the concept of gun ownership in the national psyche to a higher degree than in other countries. That and the Indian "wars" (lopsided as they were overall). These conflicts are close enough in time to have left a mark.

If that theory is correct, it would explain why military- style weapons hold such allure. Texans have the Alamo, which is memory enough for us.


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:19 am • # 54 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 09/06/11
Posts: 565
It is sad the Indians won and now net and spear fish to their little hearts content. Just pointing to a real battle that needs winning....


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:35 am • # 55 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
The Indians in Texas were a bit hardier. :)


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3   Page 3 of 3   [ 55 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


- OurBoard Support -