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.
Printable View
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.
When did you come to this conclusion.
Nice to see the gun debate comes up again. Ding ding round 231231235341513242421 no? ;x
'too'Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
Please define 'assault rifle'.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
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
Are you calling the NRA racial or radical?
Also - Hands off my firearms!
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).
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by quadalpha
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.
I wish it were so.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
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.
Europeans believe in the rule of Law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
....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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
~:smoking:
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.
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?
You want the Portugal one. Drugs are illegal in the Netherlands but the only exception is Amsterdam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Stereotypes refer to people. I'm referring to your current set of laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.
Again, you aren't getting the equation correct from our perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
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....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.
~:smoking:
The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?
CR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horetore
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.