Which is why I can not join them. Assault rifles cannot be defended as legitimate civilian weapons. Sorry to tell all of you paranoid USA government people this.
NRA is too radical
Which is why I can not join them. Assault rifles cannot be defended as legitimate civilian weapons. Sorry to tell all of you paranoid USA government people this.
Re: NRA is to radcial
When did you come to this conclusion.
Nice to see the gun debate comes up again. Ding ding round 231231235341513242421 no? ;x
GARCIN: I "dreamt," you say. It was no dream. When I chose the hardest path, I made my choice deliberately. A man is what he wills himself to be.
INEZ: Prove it. Prove it was no dream. It's what one does, and nothing else, that shows the stuff one's made of.
GARCIN: I died too soon. I wasn't allowed time to - to do my deeds.
INEZ: One always dies too soon - or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are - your life, and nothing else.
Jean Paul Sartre - No Exit 1944
Re: NRA is to radcial
'too'Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
Please define 'assault rifle'.
Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 12-30-2010 at 02:24.
Re: NRA is to radcial
The purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting, nor even self defense, but to provide citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government (as evidence, I would submit the many statements of the founders about this. Arguments that a civilian uprising would be impossible are both irrelevant - such arguments do not change the constitution as written - and suspect, considering how well the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing).
Using a definition of assault weapons as select fire rifles (for example, the US Army M4, which fires the 5.56 cartridge in both semi-auto and fully automatic fires), they are arguably the most protected weapon under the second amendment, because they are the primary modern infantry weapon.
And what do you mean, can't be defended as legitimate civilian weapons? They're just tools, and how they are used is up to who is using them.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: NRA is to radcial
Are you calling the NRA racial or radical?
Also - Hands off my firearms!
Re: NRA is to radcial
Now that the 2nd Amendment has been formally incorporated onto the individual states, the gun debate is moot for the US. The only thing to discuss is the level of security we will take to prevent criminals and mentally ill from getting them. Chicago and any other local/state government will not be able to deny guns anymore. NRA is mostly moot at this point except to act as a small vanguard in case a future supreme court attempts to challenge the incorporation (almost completely unlikely).
Re: NRA is to radcial
I like how the Constitution is some kind of sacred text, the Final Stopping-Place of the Buck, the Document of Last Appeal. Where are the studies on whether the right to bear arms is empirically good or bad?
Re: NRA is to radcial
Far right people who bring up the Constitution do treat it almost on the level of a holy text, which is silly. However, part of the point of this country is to be adhering to the rule of law where no man is above justice (like a king). Therefore, the highest law does demand the highest authority and respect when it comes to the issues it discusses.
Re: NRA is to radcial
Nothing is empirically good or bad, nothing as emotionally complicated as the wish to defend oneself and the wish to wield power can be so simply categorised. The concept of good and evil is an aesthetic but flawed philosophy and they are both in reality encompassed and replaced by humanity.
Re: NRA is to radcial
I wish it were so.
But Chicago, New York City, and others will fight to the end to deny people their rights.
The NRA is far from moot. States like California restrict semi-auto firearms to ridiculous levels (no detachable magazines, no pistol grips, etc.), others deny people the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Others want to impose draconian registration requirements.
New Jersey threw a man in prison for seven years for having an unloaded pistol in the trunk of his car.
Obama does what he can to oppose gun rights.
We're a long way from being able to own and carry semi-auto handguns and rifles in the entire nation.
EDIT: Not to mention truly moronic laws about how some semi-auto rifles legal to own and make in the US cannot be imported, or how a certain number of parts on each rifle have to be made in the US or it's illegal to own.
Double EDIT: Also, the ATF will throw you in jail for merely possessing the parts to assemble an 'illegal' rifle - one with a barrel that's to short, for example. And all the stupid laws against rifles with short barrels.
CR
Last edited by Crazed Rabbit; 12-30-2010 at 07:47.
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: NRA is to radcial
Chicago and New York City can battle and fight all they want, but the greater war has been decided. The law is the law and judges will see to it that it is carried out. They are not threats to your ownership.
Clamoring over detachable magazines and pistol grips being banned is just as over the top as me hollering over the censorship of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words and declaring it to be an infringement of the First Amendment to the utmost extreme. The laws are moronic, of course, but it's not the tyranny coming to get ya over the hill as completely banning guns (or free speech) is. Those completely denying a gun to defend yourselves will also be washed away by the Supreme Court's ruling, it only takes time and enough lawyers. They are not a threat in the long run either. You will have to explain what "draconian" entails before I comment on that sentence.
The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.
That is what the NRA vanguard is for. Hire a lawyer and tear the bill apart in court. Nothing else needs to be done. No gun waving or speeches about cold, dead hands needed.
We're a long way from complete freedom from censorship, but that doesn't mean we lose our heads and think to ourselves it is all going to slip away from us at any moment.
Yes, your two edits are right in that they are moronic policies. However, the fact is you have your guns and they can't take them away from you under the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States which makes such laws and policies, an annoyance or hindrance, not tyranny.
Re: NRA is to radcial
In America, the mental image of the gun is a man barricaded behind the sofa, protecting his family.
In the rest of the World, the mental image of the gun is a tool with the sole purpose of killing and violence.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: NRA is to radcial
Europeans believe in the rule of Law.
Americans believes it is the right of everyone to acts as prosecutor, judge and executor.
An even shorter version:
Europe: person > property
America: person < property
@WarmanCake: kudos from driving forth all the "paranoid USA government people"(like any of them will ever rebel....they're about as threatening as a moist sponge)
Last edited by HoreTore; 12-30-2010 at 09:17.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: NRA is to radcial
I guess you didn't read the thread. Because I just described how the ruling in favor of gun rights is consistent with our adherence to the rule of law. The 2nd Amendment is the law and it applies whether we like it or not.
You want to talk about rule of law, lets talk about the riots in Greece over the austerity law their elected government passed. I guess as long as we are picking and choosing which laws are "good" to revolt over we can still say we submit to their rule.
Re: NRA is to radcial
....And I don't see how that changes an americans desire to "settle things out of court" by executing a suspected criminal on the spot for the theft of a candy bar.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: NRA is to radcial
Well at least we don't have the Norwegian desire to touch little boys as shown by your post in the other thread (I can generalize too!). The left is supposed to be smarter and not resort to stereotyping in their arguments. We can't make a better society until we have mastered the complexity of it and we can't do that if we are making stupid arguments and statements like yours that are false and lead the conversation nowhere constructive.
Re: NRA is to radcial
Either citizens are allowed to purchase weaponry that would truly allow the possibility of overthrow of the government - which would include heavy armour, jets etc - or realise that some things have changed in the last 200 or so years. Just look how the world was created in the last 6,000... Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?
As others have said, first the purpose needs to be defined. Once this has been done either classes or individual guns need to be allowed or disallowed according to this. For example, perhaps certain guns are suited for home defence but not for hunting - a sighted rifle might be ideal for big game, but not the living room when a MP-5 is more versatile.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: NRA is to radcial
I know a guy in Huston who has an F-16. I know of several groups who own tanks,(fireable tanks). Automatic weapons are more problematic but if you are willing to jump through the hoops, put in place by a government perhaps a bit paranoid about citizens taking up arms, then you can own them in most states.
Money, of course is a big issue if you want to acquire them.
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
Re: NRA is to radcial
Yah, hate to be a wet noodle, but ACIN has it mostly right, the gun debate in America is pretty much over for a generation. We may fuss and fumble over the exact outline of the arrangement, but gun rights are now firmly in place, and nothing short of a constitutional amendment is going to change the status quo.
Crazed Rabbit is also right, it was the clear intent of the founding fathers to have citizens serve as both the primary defense and guardians of our liberties. Worth noting that a lot of them paired this belief with the notion that a standing army was incompatible with liberty (notable exception would be Alexander Hamilton, but then, he was a little crazy). So we have a standing army and an armed citizenship, which doesn't make a ton of sense, but who said we had to be consistent?
Freedoms from other countries that I would like to see imported: No-speed-limit autobahns from Germany. Now there is a form of liberty that I would like to see here! Also, drug decriminalization from The Netherlands. Any other freedoms we should consider importing?
Re: NRA is to radcial
You want the Portugal one. Drugs are illegal in the Netherlands but the only exception is Amsterdam.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: NRA is to radcial
Stereotypes refer to people. I'm referring to your current set of laws.
It's your laws that say you have a desire to execute burglars, if that is not the way the people feels, then the law should obviously be changed.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: NRA is to radcial
Again, you aren't getting the equation correct from our perspective.
Unlike Europe, much of which has steeped itself in the Marxist notion of labor's centrality to the politico-economic character of society, the USA, and its laws, are steeped in the Lockean tradition of life, liberty, and property as the central values.
Thus, the equation is NOT people < property, but instead people ~ property as property is a result of the effort/skills/capital/labor of the person owning it. As an extension of self, the defense of one's property is no more nor less reasonable than the defense of one's physical self or one's family.
Sadly, numerous localities in the USA limit this defense unduly, placing the burden of decision on the homeowner defending her property (is the thief still a threat? are they running away and 'inviolate?' etc.). Laws regarding defense of person and property vary a good bit.
Rabbit has nicely summarized the basics on the 2A. I am in complete agreement with him. If I wish to purchase a Stealth Fighter and have the coin to do so, then why should I not?
Hamilton may have been crazy, but he was not a dumbunny. I think he did have a few stray thoughts about following Napoleon's approach to power, though. The absence of a standing army of any size made that impossible.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: NRA is to radcial
Again our little communist friend from across the Atlantic demonstrates just how knowledgeable he is about American culture, society, and law. (or at least how many cheesy European stereotypes he believes)
On the subject of assault rifles, legal definition is completely messed up. No one seems to know exactly what an assault rifle is. I will be honest, I think that there is nothing wrong with allowing people to own fully automatic weapons. They really are not much more dangerous than semi-automatic. They are preferred by ignorant bozos who cannot aim, and therefore rely on spray and pray. A skilled shot with a bolt-action rifle or a revolver could take the average idiot with a full auto out if he ever decided to go on a shooting spree. If you are going to be a real threat to an armed and competent person, you are going to have to know how to aim and hit accurately. Semi-auto, 3 shot-burst, and even bolt-action are preferable to full auto for this. Full-auto has its uses, but is not the end all thing that people think. It just means that someone is gonna aim less, have to reload more often (more chances to get them), and think that they are tougher. How many times do you here about school shooters who go in with auto weapons and cannot kill more than 3-4 people expending several mags. I remember reading before about some Marine who went on a shooting spree with a bolt-action rifle and killed (if I recall correctly) about 30 people in a few mins. What matters is not the weapon to a great extent, but the person operating it. A skilled shooter if he wanted to go on a shooting spree could probably kill just as many or more people with a semi-auto. Automatic weapons seriously are not all that they are made out to be. They uses are primarily military oriented (such as massed suppressing fire), and there is a reason that most guns used by the military are select fire.
Chances are that if a person who knew what they were doing went on a shooting spree with such a weapon, they would mostly use sa or 3sb.
The media just likes to scare people.
Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.
Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
Re: NRA is to radcial
Question: Do you have the right to mine fields in US? Mines are weapons? Or Hand Grenades?
That would be fun in the US Towns....
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.
"I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
"You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
"Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"
Re: NRA is to radcial
I think you are confusing peoples desire to protect their homes from invasion by arming themselves with a desire to murder, what you see as defenseless, criminals.
I would assert that people have the right to protect the lives of themselves and others under their care. There are strict laws regarding the use of deadly force. Protection of property is entirely secondary. You must have a reasonable certainty that your life is in danger. People shooting a fleeing subject are usually brought up on charges.
It does not matter what implement or tool you use, for the most part.
Protecting your self is pretty much instinctual. (fight or flight)
Is it against the law in Norway to defend your self from assault?
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
Re: NRA is to radcial
Ah yes, of course, sorry 'bout that Seamus. We've been down that road quite a few times, a mix-up like that really shouldn't happen...
Anyway, as you know, the rest of my point still stands of course. As it is simply how things are viewed when property isn't connected to your person like that....
Fisherking: If I meant murder, I would've said murder, wouldn't I?
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: NRA is to radcial
If I'm not mistaken, explosives are considered ordnance, guns are considered arms. Two different kettles of fish. And booby-trapping of any sort is highly frowned upon.
Seriously, you Euros all think it's the wild west on this side of the pond. We do have laws about killing people over here, you need a really, really good reason. And "He needed killing" isn't one of them.
And maintenance. It's all well and good to own an Apache helicopter, but those monthly tune-ups aren't easy. Along with storage space and municipal paperwork for a fuel depot, a hangar, tow cart, the gentle understanding of the FAA, etc.
The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions
If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat
"Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur
Re: NRA is to radcial
So, the only thing that could even transiently threaten the state is a corporate army where the equipment is "loaned" by a "sponsor" to the individuals.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: NRA is to radcial
The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.
A change in just one judge could lead to rulings that bans on semi-auto rifles are okay, that draconian registration regulations are alright (for safety!).
It's true that the tide has turned. But the battle for gun rights is far from over.
So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.
Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.
That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: NRA is to radcial
I've never understood the smug, self-righteous attitude this issue brings out in Europeans; not to mention the wildly inaccurate depictions of America that highlight a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.
One could just as easily say that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, or that they have outsourced their personal safety to strangers whose response times are completely dependent on current traffic congestion.
Those are just talking points though.
The hard truth is that increasingly liberal gun laws yield marginally higher gun crime rates, and every society has a bit different cost/benefit analysis on the subject. Europeans in countries that have very restrictive gun laws can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime. Americans can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime as well, albeit with a .000X higher chance than their European counterparts, and a bit more freedom.
Also, gun ownership in America is not supported solely by anti-government, militia types. In fact, the main reason for gun ownership is personal safety.
Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.
Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 12-31-2010 at 02:56.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks