Accidents happen. Most people recommend a holster to prevent accidental trigger pulls. If he simply forgot it was loaded, he broke rule 1 of gun ownership.
Accidents happen. Most people recommend a holster to prevent accidental trigger pulls. If he simply forgot it was loaded, he broke rule 1 of gun ownership.
You wouldn't care about not having the ability to defend yourself against intruders or other threats? You also wouldn't care about the fact that an institution that uses guns to enforce its laws gets to use those guns however and whenever it wants, yet is telling you that you can't use guns yourself?
By your logic we ought to be able to own tanks and WMD too.
By your logic we ought to be able to own tanks and WMD too.
Already completely legal to own a tank.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/
And you don’t have to worry about parking fees if you keep it off the city streets. Besides, what are they going to do? Tow it? Put a boot on it?
But one can’t just walk into a gun shop and buy a tank, grenade launcher, or suppressor. It requires a ton of paperwork and additional taxation. The regulations are almost a different language.
“As far as registering NFA, you’d have to get the sheriff to sign off on it as well,” Morrison said. “There’s going to be some background done. You’ve got to assure they’re not prohibited [from lawfully owning a firearm] in the first place. There’s some type of control that’s involved when somebody wants to purchase something like this.”
You didn’t say anything about the ease of acquiring one. Even old, military equipment is expensive.Disingenuous. Your own article points to how it isn't as easy as buying a gun:
I ignored it because it’s a stupid argument dragged out to try and justify limits on the Second Amendment. How many people can afford to purchase or make and then safely store a WMD? Is anyone willing to sell a WMD to the average citizen?You also ignored the point about WMDs. Why should the government have them but not the people?
Oh please, the sheer cost of those items would prevent most retailers from selling them. Millions of dollars. It’s a nonissue only dragged out to make absurd arguments. I can see the very wealthy being able to buy those items, not the average citizen.
Firearms are relatively useless in modern warfare? Really? How odd that soldiers are issued firearms then.
If you want to argue re nukes or other WMDs, go right ahead. Those items are expensive and require special storage to render them safe and non lethal to the owner. The vast majority of gun owners see them as too risky to keep around. Sure I agree that I could own a nuke as an “arm” but who would sell me one? Where would I put it? How would I deploy it without killing myself? It’s a stupid argument about an extremely unlikely event. Like I start shitting gold, unlikely.
See! You pull an absurd argument out that if a citizen can’t own a nuke, then he can’t really defend himself and the 2nd is useless. Bull crap. That assumes that whoever is attacking is willing to use nukes everywhere for any reason. It also ignores the other reasons people have guns that don’t involve total nuclear warfare.
I don’t see a problem with people owning tanks and other military hardware. Nor do I see an issue with people carrying swords around. Blame people worried about gangs for restricting those.
Edit: similar analogies. Fire extinguishers in the home. You can’t stop a fully engulfed house or forest fire. Why have an extinguisher?
First aid kits. Can’t stop cancers, why have the first aid kit?
The 2nd is to help prevent a govt that would use nukes on its people from coming to power. It doesn’t just happen over night.
I have the right to try. Even the obligation to stand up against injustice. Ideally, the shooting portion comes after "the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box." Did the people who fought against slavery when it was legal have that right? If I fail, I get punished for it. If I win, I'm a hero.So when you argue for the second amendment, are you not also arguing that you, as a citizen, have the right to overthrow a government that the majority of citizens may agree with?
No. He wasn't reacting to specific events of actual tyranny. He hated Republicans, possibly due to how other groups portray them.Is that not exactly what the shooter at that congressional baseball game was doing?
Nope. Terrorism is directed at random people in an effort to install fear. Resisting acts of tyranny is different.Is that not what any "domestic terrorist" - as it were - does?
An actual tyranny would need to exist. People being imprisoned for any reason or no reason. People being silenced for their viewpoints when they disagree with the gov't line. Despite your viewpoints, the US is nowhere near a tyranny. DT is random and meant to terrify the people into supporting a change. Overthrowing tyranny would be aimed at the gov't while trying to avoid civilian casualties. Being the good guy to the gov'ts bad guy.Where do you draw the line between overthrowing tyranny and domestic terrorism?
Good question. Also depends on your actions. And who wins. Victor decides what was treason and what was resisting an oppression.When do you say "My opinions are not the norm, so what I'm doing is an act of terrorism"?
Just me? No. Good chance that the oppression may be nothing of the sort if only one person is complaining.Is it only acceptable to "overthrow tyranny" when it oppresses all? Most? Many? A few? Just you?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
First, the argument from absurdity is a valid logical argument that points out the flaws in a premise by taking said premise to its extremes. Clearly you aren't for the second amendment in its current wording if you think that there should be some limit at which owning an arm is either deemed unnecessary or too dangerous.
You've actually created a straw man by arguing that a tyrannical gov't would use nukes therefore owning guns is useless. Nice try.
I get what his point/rhetoric is. It’s a variation of the “you can’t beat the US army” anti 2nd Amendment claim. It’s a straw man argument. “Can’t beat nukes so give up your guns!!”That's not the point Teruhn was making, but feel free to believe that.
. Yeah, don’t do that. I’m not your guy, pal, dude or friend.LDSman, my guy, my pal, my dude, my friend, you aren't engaging with Teruhn's rhetoric.
I get what his point/rhetoric is. It’s a variation of the “you can’t beat the US army” anti 2nd Amendment claim. It’s a straw man argument. “Can’t beat nukes so give up your guns!!”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gu...l-that-the-second-amendment-is-pointless/amp/
. Yeah, don’t do that. I’m not your guy, pal, dude or friend.
Any chance you want to debate the myriad of other progun things I’ve mentioned?
The 2nd is to help prevent a govt that would use nukes on its people from coming to power. It doesn’t just happen over night.
Nope. Guns are easier to use than the items you list. I can get more ammo for a gun. Replacement tanks, missiles etc, not so much.My point isn't that you can't beat the US military, it's that if you're really wanting guns to overthrow an oppressive government, you're choosing the wrong tool to consider a right in this day and age.
Citation please.Drones, tanks, jets, missiles, and more are much more effective and would limit civilian casualties greatly (In the right hands).
With guns you can arm and train the populace. They are easy enough to make in a garage and can be hidden away if necessary.So why are guns specifically so necessary for such a defense?
What a really specific question. SO specific, it postulates a scenario that has never happened.Furthermore, can you name a single instance where guns beat drones, tanks, jets, missiles, etc. in a lopsided battle where a popular uprising of untrained rednecks attempts to overtake the well-trained, heavily-armed military that is somehow loyal to a somehow tyrannical US government?
Supreme Court disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._HellerIt's not the right to guns that the second amendment is positing - it's the right of civilians to form and maintain their own militia separate from the U.S. government.
Go fight for people to make up militias without being harassed by the gov't or labeled kooks by the media.That requires all sorts of arms - none of which are currently protected under the second amendment - while the key protection endowed by the second amendment is being all but forgotten. Where is our well-regulated militia? Where is our civil defense force? I'm all for a well-armed, well-trained, well-regulated civilian militia.
Yeah, you'd be surprised by how well trained some gun owners are. And do you see the catch 22? Guy wants a gun to train with but can't get it due to a lack of training.I am not, however, for lone individuals with almost no training with the most lax of background checks having the right to a deadly weapon capable of killing hundreds.
Oh ********. Nothing I've done or not done has contributed to deaths of thousands per year anymore than you owning a car has contributed to the thousands that die on US roads.Meanwhile, your need to feel like you have explicit control over your life in the most infantile of ways is contributing to the deaths of thousands per year.
More like "what happened? I wish I had been there to help them!" Why would I blame my owning a gun for something someone else did?Yet this will mean nothing to half of America. Thousands more will die and we will say nothing. How many years of thousands of people dying do we go through before finally someone you love or care about is unjustly killed by some idiot with a gun? What will you say then? "Oh well, my gun is more important"?
What, you'd stand back and let the gov't haul people away first?Finally, your argument here is that you've got to stop something bad from happening before it starts.
Nope. Resorting to violence is the last step, not the first.You are arguing that any idiot with a gun has the right to stop what they believe to be a travesty - whether you or I agree or not. That includes a lone gunman shooting at republican senators because he believes them to be evil.
Again, nope.That includes a domestic terrorist inciting violence to prevent what they believe to be a tyrannical law. You argue that first speech, electoral, and judiciary means should be attempted before resorting to shooting. Yet your own statement belies the fact that you believe that at some point you have to act in immediacy to prevent tyranny from forming. I posit that this is exactly what a domestic terrorist does.
Random violence aimed at civilians. The winners usually decide what was terrorism and what wasn't.Side note: Terrorism by definition is inciting violence or intimidation to enact your desired political or ideological change. A armed citizen causing violence in the name of political change is by definition terrorism to anyone not agreeing with them. Not saying that's necessarily right or wrong, but the definition of terrorism has been heavily skewed since 9/11 to an almost ironically twisted version of what it used to be.
Mental health services increased. 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides. Increase funding for background checks. Fix the issue that allows a guy expelled from the air force to not get his name added to the denied list. Figure out why homicides are higher in some areas than others. (see earlier link) See what could be done to eliminate or reduce those deaths.Do tell me, though, what are the policies you would push for to prevent further gun violence? Because there is one underlying fact that is constantly skated around by the pro-gun side of this debate that I would really like to see a response to:
2/3rds are suicides. The remainders include justifiable homicides. Of the ones not justifiable, a decreasing number are accidents. the rest are related to gang activities involving people already prohibited from owning guns due to age or convictions. That doesn't even address that firearm fatalities aren't even in the top 15 ways to die in the US or that cars kill more people on accident! Are you going to push to restrict or remove cars?Tens of thousands of preventable deaths is unacceptable. Full stop.
Citation please.
Supreme Court disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller
Nope. Guns are easier to use than the items you list. I can get more ammo for a gun. Replacement tanks, missiles etc, not so much.
With guns you can arm and train the populace. They are easy enough to make in a garage and can be hidden away if necessary.
What a really specific question. SO specific, it postulates a scenario that has never happened.
Tell me, how well did the US Army do in Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? If guns can't defeat the army, how come there is still fighting in the Middle East?
Yeah, you'd be surprised by how well trained some gun owners are. And do you see the catch 22? Guy wants a gun to train with but can't get it due to a lack of training.
Nope. Resorting to violence is the last step, not the first.
Random violence aimed at civilians. The winners usually decide what was terrorism and what wasn't.
Mental health services increased. 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides. Increase funding for background checks. Fix the issue that allows a guy expelled from the air force to not get his name added to the denied list. Figure out why homicides are higher in some areas than others. (see earlier link) See what could be done to eliminate or reduce those deaths.
2/3rds are suicides. The remainders include justifiable homicides. Of the ones not justifiable, a decreasing number are accidents. the rest are related to gang activities involving people already prohibited from owning guns due to age or convictions. That doesn't even address that firearm fatalities aren't even in the top 15 ways to die in the US or that cars kill more people on accident! Are you going to push to restrict or remove cars?
. Yeah, that’s not an answer. How are tanks, planes, missiles, etc more precise to the point that they have lower civilian casualties than a handgun or rifle?Basic reasoning?
. That’s always going to be true. Doesn’t mean you give up and surrender any chance of resisting.Under armed resistance will have a difficult time going up against a better armed foe
yes. If you can afford it, go buy one.The question you're really being asked is whether you think it's everyone's right to own a tank.
Does the 2nd Amendment cover WMDs. In part I believe it does. Citizens used to own warships with cannons, artillery and even stockpiles of explosive materials. The problem is that chemical, biological and radiological weapons aren’t good personal defensive weapons. If you set off one of those, you do a lot of damage to the neighborhood and could even kill your self. If this was actually an issue rather than an attempt to argue gun restrictions by comparing limits on WMDs to guns, I could see allowing ownership provided the owner has a vault capable of preventing leakage of whatever is in it along with regular checks on the owner and the items in question. Would it ever be an issue? No. The number of people that could afford the items and afford to maintain and store them would be only a few in the country.Likewise, regarding WMD's, whether or not everyone has the resources to acquire WMD's is irrelevant. The question you're being asked is, do you think it would be better if more people owned WMD's, or not? Would it be better if it were easier for everyone to get them, or not?
It’s a dishonest debate tactic akin to “do you still beat your wife?” The topic is “American Gun Control” not the limits of the 2nd or should people own WMDs.And you're right, it is a trap. But that's the point. Trap =/= fallacy. The trap has to be disarmed, not ignored, as you've chosen.
. You know, I don’t believe I ever said that. I merely pointed out the cost.If you don't believe that military grade weaponry like tanks, drones, stealth bombers, etc. should be available for purchase and ownership to the average citizen,
Well, there’s a matter of scale and portability.you must justify why semi automatic and automatic weapons are where we should draw the line.
. Your belief is that citizens would automatically be shooting down planes if they had RPGs? Doesn’t sound like a healthy society if people aren’t committing massmurder simply due to a lack of a weapon.The obvious conclusion is that if people had things like RPG's to shoot down planes with, they absolutely would. We could not have anywhere near a functioning and healthy society.
If you have an issue with the court decision, please mention that instead of trying to dismiss my point by claiming it’s an “appeal to authority.” Throwing that one out could be a way to argue against any expert. “Well, these scientists say..”. Appeal to authorityAs an aside, please don't do this. Unless you would like to quote the specific parts of the majority opinion that you think best buttress your point, this is an appeal to authority. Despite the fact that "Supreme" is in the name, they've made plenty of shitty decisions.
. I’m amused that you didn’t answer the question before to limit it.Two points I would make while I'm on my phone:
Does it matter? CDC study linked earlier. DGU ranges from 60,000 a year (antigun numbers) to 2.5 million a year (pro gun numbers). CDC still admits that DGU is substantial and that those who defend themselves with guns suffer fewer injuries than those that defend themselves without guns.1) To people defending themselves via guns - how many documented cases are there?
clarify? Do you mean revenge shootings? Gun battles in the street? Few if the first. Seems to be an inner city gang issue.How many actually lead to further gun violence?
. Nice qualifier. Criminals who break the law. Crooked cops. Wild animals.What would the largest non-conspiratorial threat be to you in a gun-free society?
. Once again, gun deaths aren’t even in the top 15 causes of death in the US. 2/3rds are suicides. Last set of numbers was about 30,000 gun deaths. So nonsuicides are about 10,000. That’s not even 1 percent of the population. Blame the CDC for the research issue. If they hadn’t been running blatantly flawed and biased studies, there would be more research on the issue.You might have a point if they are statistically a means of safety that outweighs their massive death toll, but it's kind of hard to know because gun research is effectively banned.
homicide numbers include self defense shootings. If it’s self defense, then any number. If it’s murder, then zero. Put the shooter in prison. If they acquired a gun illegally, straw purchase, black market, given by a relative, then that person should go to jail as well.2) What number of gun homicides is an acceptable number for you? How many mass shootings per year is considered tolerable? I'm legitimately curious.