NRA is too radical

[HoreTore]

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.

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)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Europeans believe in the rule of Law.

Americans believes it is the right of everyone to acts as prosecutor, judge and executor.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

....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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

....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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Fisherking]

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.

[Lemur]

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?

[HoreTore]

The left is supposed to be smarter and not resort to stereotyping in their arguments.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

Thus, the equation is NOT people < property, but instead people ~ property

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?

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I wish to purchase a Stealth Fighter and have the coin to do so, then why should I not?

It's so funny you should say that. Because, as coincidence would have it, I have just started up a self-defense company.

I have bought several hundred nuclear warheads in Central Asia. I've connected a remote control on them. With a single button on your cellphone you can control all of them instantly. You get to decide their targets. There are enough warheads to destroy the whole of the US with a single push of a button.

I've made the service available for $1.99 a yea, via an apps for you iPhone. I've called it iArmageddon. I'm counting on three hundred million subscribers in America before the end of next year.



What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

Why do communists drink herbal tea?

Because proper tea is theft!

[Vuk]

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.

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.

[Brenus]

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....

[drone]

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....

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.

Money, of course is a big issue if you want to acquire 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.

[Fisherking]

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.

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?